Some Wrested Scriptures: Introduction
I cannot help but comment upon the intellectual desperation of
Trinitarianism. The so called 'early church fathers' fumble all over
the place to explain basic Bible passages which contradicted their
complex philosophy. Consider how they faced with the Lord's statement
that He did not know the day nor hour of His return, although the
Father did (Mk. 13:32). Basil claims that actually, Jesus did
know the day and hour, but He meant that as a man He didn't. Didymus
claimed that He "put on a deliberate poe of ignorance" (1). But the
real Christ, the one who manifested God, who was one with the Father,
who hungred and thirsted, bled and died for us- is all one and the same
Jesus. Time and again when I ask for evidence that "Jesus is God", I'm
told things like "Well, in the Bible He's called 'the Son of God', 'the
Lord', the 'Son of man'- so, of course He's God! The Bible says so!".
My dear mother used to call me obtuse, and maybe it's just so, that I
really am. But I'm afraid I can't see why ever those titles of Jesus
can make Him "God". There's no lack of thorough academic study of all
those titles. The evidence is conclusive that they were used before the time of the New Testament and applied to men (2). Indeed the adjective theios
meant little more than 'inspired' in the first century. And further,
all these terms were used at the time of Jesus by the Jews- who were
fierce monotheists, unwilling to countenance the idea of there being
any other being apart from Yahweh who could be 'God' in the trinitarian
sense. And so it would seem that in the minds of many Christians, the
Trinity is an assumption rather than a reasoned understanding
and belief. The presence of unexamined assumptions in our lives and
hearts, as well as in societies, ought to be a red flag. Why, in this
age of apparently fearless examination, eager toppling of paradigms,
deconstruction of just about everything, rigorous research, trashing of
tradition, brutal testing of assumptions... does the Trinity idea
remain an unexamined assumption? Perhaps it's because it demands so
much to believe in the Biblical account of a truly human Jesus.
Admittedly there is a difficulty for any Bible reader in
integrating the Bible passages which speak of the 'God' side of God's
Son, His Divine titles etc., and those passages which speak of His
humanity. The discussion of misunderstood Bible verses which now
follows is an attempt to achieve just that integration, a key which as
it were turns every lock presented to us by the references. But the
effort required in interpretation is, it seems to me, designed by God,
whose word it is which we are discussing. The intention is to make us
think about Jesus, struggle with the issue of His identity and nature,
in order that we should understand Him better, and thereby love and
serve Him the more intently. Perhaps that is why so little is recorded
of Jesus- all the speeches and actions of Jesus found in the Gospels
would've occupied only three weeks or so of real time. The rest of His
life, words and actions we are left to imagine, given what we do know
of Him. He wants us to reflect, as He did the disciples, "Whom do you
think I am?" (Mk. 8:29). Perhaps that is why at least in Mark's Gospel
there is the theme of Jesus not wanting men to be told in point blank
terms that He was Messiah. There are very few direct statements about
Himself- e.g. He never actually says He had a virgin birth, nor does He
explain that He was born in Bethlehem as required by Micah 5:2. He left
people assuming He was born in Nazareth (Jn. 7:42). In fact it could be
that without this struggle for understanding going on within the heart
of each of us, there is no other way for us to come to real
relationship with Jesus. Without that effort to understand we'd be left
with a fictional Jesus, a 'Jesus' we inherited from men, from churches,
from theologians, from our own unexamined assumptions... and not the
real Christ.
Retranslation and twisting of the actual
Biblical text is always a tell-tale sign that an author is desperate to
prove his or her point, rather than being led to truth by God's word.
Augustine (Homilies On John 105.17)
mistranslates Jn. 17:3 like this: "This is eternal life, that they may
know Thee and Jesus Christ, whom Tho has sent, as the only true God".
The Greek text, in any reading, simply doesn't bear that translation.
That's Augustine's interpretation, and yet he purposefully makes out
that his interpretation is in fact what the original text
actually says. Other church fathers such as Ambrose followed him in
this (3). This incident alone indicates the lack of integrity required
to force the doctrine of the Trinity into the Bible. It's simply not
there, and if it were there, this kind of utter desperation wouldn't
have to be resorted to. And we see the same in some Bible translations
of the present day, where trinitarian interpretation is dressed up as
the actual text of Scripture. I note that in recent times, more and
more theologians and leading Christians are admitting to doubt about
the Trinity. And if one looks for it, we find scepticism about it in
many writings of leading Christian thinkers and writers throughout
history. Further, I note that trinitarians are increasingly recognizing
that their standard arguments are weak. There was a time when Gen. 1:26
would be often quoted to support the Tinity. But it's now widely
recognized that there are several Hebrew words which have plural
endings, and yet refer to a singular entity- e.g. panim means "face". Nearly always, elohim is
referred to in the singular by the grammar surrounding it. Thus
"Christians have traditionally seen this verse as [proving] the
Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the
plural means to the original author" (4). The note in the NIV Study
Bible likewise takes the approach that this passage refers to Angels:
"God speaks as the Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to the
members of his heavenly court".
Deconstruction
Many
of the 'difficult passages' in the New Testament are only difficult
because they are alluding to, and even quoting phrases from, popular
contemporary ideas and writings and seeking to deconstruct them. This
technique is found throughout the Bible, especially with respect to
false yet popular ideas about evil. To take an example: Valentinus
taught in the second century that there was a pleroma, a
"fullness of the Godhead", comprised of 30 aeons of time (5). Like most
thinkers, he was drawing on ideas that had circulated a century before
him, and so it's reasonable to think that the philosophical idea of a
"fullness of the Godhead" was around in the first century. And Paul
uses just this phrase when explaining how the entire fullness of the
Godhead was to be found in the person of Jesus Christ (Col. 2:9). No
need for philosophy and wild guesses at the structure of God. The
fullness of the Godhead was and is in the personality of Jesus.
However, this isn't Paul's only allusion to this idea. The lowest of
the 30 aeons, Sophia, "yielded to an ungovernable desire to apprehend
[God's] nature" (6). And Paul alludes to this in Phil. 2:6,7, saying
that Jesus by contrast didn't even consider apprehending God's nature,
but instead made Himself a servant of all. As more and more is known of
the literature and ideas which were extant in the first century, it
becomes the more evident that Paul's writings are full of allusions to
it- allusions which seek to deconstruct these ideas, replacing them
with the true; and by doing so, presenting the Truth of the Gospel in
the terms and language of the day, just as we seek to.
Notes
(1) Quotations in J.N.D.Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine (London: A. & C. Black, 1968) pp. 300,301.
(2) See W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970); Oscar Cullmann, The Christology Of The New Testament (London: S.C.M., 1971); H. Todt, The Son Of Man (London: S.C.M., 1965) and many others.
(3) See H.A.W. Meyer, Commentary On John (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884 p. 462.
(4) G.J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1997) p. 27.
(5) J.N.D.Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine (London: A. & C. Black, 1968) p. 23.
(6) Kelly, ibid
