God and His Clones? A Look At Monarchian Trinitarianism

‘Monarchian Trinitarianism’ is a view that has begun to gain some traction in recent years, especially among the Eastern Orthodox, largely as a result of going back to the fourth century pro-Nicene church fathers and learning from them. Church fathers like Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Basil of Caesarea, and Gregory of Nyssa have been especially influential in modern articulation of this view. Monarchian trinitarians typically look to Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers’ controversial interpretations of the Nicene Creed as authoritative for catholic Christianity, and interpret the Bible through a lens of these fathers’ interpretive tradition.

The result is a good aggregate of the views of these fathers, who didn’t always agree with each other on the details or carry the same emphases. Monarchian trinitarians consider themselves ‘trinitarian’ because they believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three equally divine persons; however, they also believe that the one God is only one person, the Father. This doctrine is variously called either ‘unitarianism’ or ‘the monarchy of the Father’, but the basic idea is much the same; the one God and the only uncaused person is Father specifically out of the three persons.

In Monarchian Trinitarianism, however, the Father being the one God does not mean that the Father alone is divine or alone possesses the attributes of the one God, but rather that only the Father is uncaused. In all other respects, the Son and Spirit are taught to be equal and generically identical to the one God. The Son and Spirit are believed to be two distinct individual beings, or persons (not merely distinct personalities or modes), who bear this generic identicality to the one God because they are eternally, and each in a unique fashion, caused by the one God; the Son by means of generation, and the Spirit, in a markedly unimaginative use of language, by ‘spiration’.

But lest one reason that just as three persons with a human nature are three humans, the three persons of the monarchian trinity, sharing a divine nature, are three Gods, Monarchian Trinitarianism throws in a few more caveats to ostensibly solve the problem of having two too-many deities. Firstly, the Son and Holy Spirit are said to share the mind and will of God the Father. What’s meant by this is debatable; the question of whether this patristic language should be taken more along the lines of some sort of numerically singular hive-mind the three persons share, or if it should be taken as a generic identicality of will and mind (as in the case of the divine nature shared by the persons) seems unclear. But either way, the idea that you can’t count three minds and three wills is thought to help prevent us from being able to count three Gods. Additionally, Monarchian Trinitarianism teaches that all three persons perform all actions performed toward creation together in a single token action. That means not simply that the three cooperatively perform actions together, but that somehow, while being three distinct individuals, they each do the exact same thing, in the most specific sense imaginable. What prevents the simple fact that the persons are individuated from each other by the fact that they are three individual beings (hypostases) in the first place from making this joint non-individuated performance of single token actions impossible? Good question, but one to which this author has found no good answer.

What are we left with then, overall, from this doctrine? That what makes the one God special and makes Him the one and only God is not that He alone is divine, nor His special attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, and immutability, but merely the fact that He is the uncaused original amid what are effectively two clones -two other beings produced from Him which are identical to Him in every way, and just as old as Him, while being distinct individuals from Him. These two clones think what He thinks and want what He wants, and act with Him in every action; but the Son and Spirit in this system are by all account no different in any meaningful way than if God had two clones.

The obvious problem with this is, how does this not make three Gods? If human cloning were a reality, a man and his two clones would not be one man, but three men. And no matter how absolutely generically identical they might be in attributes and characteristics, they will always be distinguishable from one another as three men by the fact that each is a distinct individual human being from the others; they are, to put it in church-father language, three hypostases. So long as having a human nature makes you human, then no matter how identical this man and his two clones are, and no matter how much they pal around together and do the same stuff and think the same way, they shall always remain three men. So likewise if there is any sense in which a person having a divine nature makes them God -which is exactly the sense in which pro-Nicene church fathers like Hilary of Poitiers and Basil of Caesarea said the Son and Spirit were God- then the three persons of Father, Son, and Spirit all having a divine nature will make them three Gods. One of these persons being the uncaused original and the other two being carbon-copies of that original makes little difference here; three individuals of the human nature remain three men, and three individuals of the divine nature would be three Gods.

The fact that this view is in a very real sense tritheism is one of the greatest obstacles this view faces. But lets’ suppose for sake of argument, for a moment, that this tritheism issue were resolved by the aforementioned hive-mind and shared token actions among these three persons; somehow, and in no way which appears to really be the case, this made it impossible for us to count three Gods of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Are there any other significant problems with what Monarchian Trinitarianism proposes?

The answer must be yes, if we consider the scriptures’ teaching that the one God is unique and incomparably greater than all to be of any importance. Monarchian Trinitarianism will affirm this, of course, in a very heavily qualified sense; the Father is first, not in time, but in logical priority, and gets the glorious title “one God” pinned on Him like a token badge to distinguish Him from His two clones, as being the original from which they are atemporally multiplied. In this sense alone, the Father is said to be greater than the Son and Holy Spirit. But at the end of the day, the original in a threesome comprised of himself and two clones is hardly unique. To say that ‘there is none like him’ would be a patent and unconvincing lie. Yet the God of the scriptures declares, quite truthfully, that there is none like Him: “Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,” (Isaiah 46:9). Again and again in the scriptures this important truth of God’s total uniqueness is reiterated (see Deut 33:26, Ps 40:5, 86:8, Isa 40:18, 46:5, Job 23:13). This truth that the one God is unique, incomparably greater than all, and has none like Him, is too central to the glory of God proclaimed in the scriptures to be ignored. No view of Jesus and the Holy Spirit which jeopardizes this important truth can be acceptable to those committed to believing all that scripture teaches. However logically plausible one will deem Monarchian Trinitarianism to be, it is rendered utterly incompatible with the scriptures by making the one God out to be nothing more than one out of three of a kind, the original alongside two identical clones.

That Monarchian Trinitarianism says the Father is technically unique in being uncaused is not enough- as the Monarchian Trinitarians are quick to point out in their debates against Eunomians, unique causal relations are not sufficient to make the persons substantially different from one another; despite these differences in causation, the persons of the the Monarchian Trinity are all essentially equal and exactly alike. Yet in stark contrast to this, the one God proclaims that there is none alike to Him; He is unique not merely in some heavily qualified sense, like being the uncaused original who serves as a basis for two identical clones who are exactly alike to him in all ways except that they are clones, but in an absolute and unqualified sense. We must note that in scripture the uniqueness of God is never limited to God’s unique attribute of being uncaused, but is broad, absolute, and unqualified. In the Monarchian Trinity, it is not the person of the Father Himself that is unique in any way, but merely His origin (or lack thereof) that is unique. But there is nothing about Him in His own being that is unique compared to the Son and Holy Spirit. This does not agree with scripture in the slightest. “Many, O LORD my God, are the wonders which You have done, And Your thoughts toward us; There is none to compare with You.” (Psalm 40:5 NASB)

Arguments For Unitarianism

How Many Persons Were Involved in Creation?

It’s an important part of both trinitarian, Arian, and semi-arian christology that Jesus Christ pre-existed his humanity and played some role in the creation of the universe described in Genesis 1. For many Arians and semi-arians especially, belief in Jesus as creator is an important part of the reason they believe that Jesus literally pre-existed in the first place. Those who deny Jesus’s alleged literal pre-existence point out that in the Hebrew scriptures, a single person, the God of Israel, takes credit for creation, and emphatically states that He created alone (Isa 44:24). The book of Revelation echoes this same teaching, which I’d like to briefly highlight here.

Then the angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the land lifted up his right hand to heaven, 6 and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things in it, and the earth and the things in it, and the sea and the things in it, that there will be delay no longer,

Revelation 10:5-6 (NASB)

Notice here that an angel swears by someone- a person, which we see from this entity being called a “Him” and a “who”. This “Him” is the Creator of all things; and that this single entity performed the rational action of creating further shows us that this is a single person; a person, after all, is simply a rational individual being. Since this is a single entity who has performed an a rational action, the subject here can be seen to be a person, by definition, even aside from the explicitly personal language used.

We must notice then that this single person is described by no other descriptor than “Him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things in it, and the earth and the things in it, and the sea and the things in it”. Now if there were two or more persons of whom this description were true, then we could not know who is being referred to here; yet, obviously this is intended to tell us the identity of the one the angel swore by. This only makes sense, and is only useful, if there is only one person of whom it can be said that they are the Creator of all things. We may note that it begins by simply describing this person as one Who lives forever; but since this is a description that would fit many persons, the additional disambiguation is added that this is He who made all things. Yet this disambiguation is futile and fails to actually clarify the identity of the person the angel swore by at all if in fact both the Father and Jesus were involved in the work of creation. In such a scheme, we are left wondering who is referred to here, with no possible resolution. The fact that this text assumes that there is only one person who created all things, the God of Israel, and that He can thus be uniquely identified by this descriptor, is a serious problem for those who believe that Jesus the Messiah literally pre-existed and acted in the creation of the universe.

And I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an eternal gospel to preach to those who live on the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people; 7 and he said with a loud voice, “Fear God, and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come; worship Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters.”

Revelation 14:6-7 (NASB)

Here we see another clear example of the same thing we observed above; mankind is told to worship “Him who made the heaven and the earth and sea and springs of waters”. That there is a single person (a single “Him” and “who”) whose identity can be disambiguated by this description assumes and implicitly communicates to us that there is in fact only one person, the person spoken of here, who created all things. Since all hands acknowledge that the Father is the Creator of all things, and this sort of language in Revelation limits us to understanding that only one person created all things, we must therefore conclude that the Father alone is the Creator of all things; Jesus did not play a role in the creation of the universe.

This holds serious implications for those whose christology depends on Jesus being involved in creation in order to demonstrate his pre-existence. Like God said through Isaiah, we find here that only one person, the God of Israel, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus the Messiah, created all things, which undermines the very core of the distinctive features of trinitarian, Arian, and semi-arian views on creation and christology.

Arguments For Unitarianism

Assuming Unitarianism

In several debates between Biblical Unitarians and trinitarians, the argument has been brought forward by trinitarians that Biblical Unitarians are guilty of “assuming unitarianism”; it is suggested that rather than deriving their unitarian beliefs from the Bible and/or sound reason, unitarians instead begin with the assumption that their views are true, and only by working backwards find what appears to be support for their views in the Bible. If one did not approach the Bible with the pre-supposition of that the one God is only one person and that Jesus Christ is a man, one would not find it there, these trinitarians argue. This is a very common trinitarian argument- is there a good answer to it?

In this post I want to look at some of the “assumptions” Biblical Unitarians are guilty of which lead them to find their views in the Bible, and show that these cannot fairly be painted as mere assumptions being forced upon the text of scripture. Rather I will argue that these are observations arising from the Bible itself, meaning that any support for Biblical Unitarianism arising from these observations will in fact constitute biblical evidence for the Biblical Unitarian position. I hope to show here that we do not in fact read unitarianism into the Bible, but derive our doctrines from it.

“Assumption” #1: A mediator is a third party who intervenes between two parties.

Here Biblical Unitarians are accused of unfairly insisting that a mediator must be a third party intervening between two parties, rather than an individual who somehow is both parties. Is this true? Are Biblical Unitarians stealthily shoehorning our own unitarian assumptions into passages like 1 Timothy 2:5, which tell us “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” (NASB)?

The answer becomes clear when we consider what a mediator is by definition: a go-between between two or more parties; mediation by definition involves occupying a middle position between these various parties. In the case of these being two parties between whom there is a mediator, the mediator then, by definition, must be a third party, numerically and individually distinct from the two parties between which mediation is taking place. Anyone is welcome to look up the words ‘mediator’ and ‘mediation’ in the dictionary to verify these claims.

What’s that mean for Unitarians? It means that all Biblical Unitarians are doing is looking at what the words the Bible uses mean, and accepting that as the meaning of the text. God chose to reveal Himself to us using human language, and Christianity teaches that He was successful in this endeavor. Although God is infinite and transcends the limits of human language, He is able to -and in fact does- reveal truth to us using our terms. When He does so, we need to look at what those human terms denote to know what God is telling us. That’s all Biblical Unitarians are doing here; we look at the fact that the Bible tells us that Christ is a mediator between the one God and man, and therefore is by definition a third party standing between God and the rest of mankind. That’s merely looking carefully at what the Bible says and its necessary implications, and believing it, not reading anything into the Bible.

A trinitarian here might suggest that a biblical author such as Paul would be free to invent their own terms, or use terms in new ways, especially if they are seeking to describe something new for which there is not yet an established terminology. This is valid. However, in such a situation, we must expect the biblical author to give us some indication that he is using the term in question in a new or different way; if he does not, then we have no valid reason to assume the term means anything different than what it normally does; we are reasonably required to understand the term within the limits of its normal use and meaning, unless indication of such an exception is made. Therefore, in instances like 1 Timothy 2:5 where no such indication of redefinition is given, we are to understand the term according to its established meaning- which of course, inherently involves the mediator being a third party between the two parties between which there is mediation.

I’d end by pointing out here that not only are Biblical Unitarians being unfairly accused of reading their ideas into the Bible here, but also that their accusers make such accusations hypocritically. When we stop and examine what trinitarians do with the Bible’s teaching that Jesus is the mediator between God and the rest of mankind, we immediately see that they will often attempt to redefine what a mediator is, present an alternative meaning for ‘mediator’ which is not valid, and altogether dismiss the actual meaning of the word, all because the passage’s meaning does not fit with trinitarianism. Nothing from the text indicates the word here is being used in a special way, to mean something other than what it definitionally means; to argue it is appears to be nothing more than special pleading. This is a great example of someone attempting to read their own views into the text of the Bible, the very things they accuse Unitarians of doing.

“Assumption” #2: A son is a numerically distinct individual besides the one whose son they are.

Our method here will be the same as it was in addressing the last accusation; all we need do is stop and consider what sonship is, definitionally. If all Biblical Unitarians are doing is assuming that the Bible is using the words it speaks according to their meanings, this can hardly be considered assuming unitarianism; instead, its simply assuming that the Bible means what it says, and that this is a reliable representation of the truth.

So what’s it mean to be a son? For one to be the son of someone denotes a relation between that one and another individual- a son and a parent. One individual relates to the other as its son, the other relates to the one as its parent. This inherently and necessarily involves the son and parent to be two distinct individuals, since it is a relation between two individuals by definition. Naturally, this relation involves not only a social relation between the two individuals, but also a causal relation, where the son is begotten or born from the parent, and the parent is cause of the son. At its most basic level, a son is simply a male offspring of an individual. Sonship however can simply be used to denote the social relation itself, aside from causation, as in the case of adoption. Either way, though, sonship universally and definitionally involves a relation between one individual and another.

So then, when the Bible in the Old and New Testament identifies the Messiah, Jesus, as the Son of God, we have to ask what these words signify. According to their established meaning, that Jesus is the Son of God tells us that Jesus Christ is another individual besides God, who relates to God as his Father. In the case of Jesus, this father-son relation not only involves the social aspects of sonship (like inheritance), but also causation; we are told that Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God, on account of his being miraculously caused by God in Mary via the agency of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). If Jesus is really the Son of God (the only true God -Jn 17:3), then he is then necessarily and by definition an individual distinct from God, who relates to God as another, namely, his Father.

If this isn’t what being ‘son’ signifies in relation to Christ, why? We have acknowledged that a biblical author could, if they wished, use a term in a unique or new way; but we also noted that such a significant change in how a term is used would require explicit explanation. Otherwise, using the term in a different way would be equivocation, and risk being both confusing and deceptive. The fact is, we are never given a reason to think that Jesus’s sonship is somehow definitionally different than what sonship normally is. All Biblical Unitarians are doing here then is making observations off of what the words of the Bible mean; saying that the usage of terms here is exceptional and that they do not mean what they normally do will be nothing but special pleading, unless biblical justification were given for a change in meaning. Wanting to insist that sonship does not denote what it always definitionally denotes because that does not fit with trinitarianism sounds not only like special pleading, but attempting to read one’s own theological assumptions back into the Bible, the very thing these trinitarians are accusing Biblical Unitarians of doing.

“Assumption” #3: YHVH, the one God of the Bible, is only one person.

This one really gets to the heart of the debate between trinitarians who say YHVH, the one God, is three persons, and Unitarians, who insist that YHVH, God Almighty, is only one person. Do Biblical Unitarians read the Bible with this assumption, or is this idea derived from the Bible? Its worth noting here that the answer is actually ‘both’. The fact is, everyone reads the Bible assuming their preconceived theological ideas are true, whether they are trinitarian or unitarian. No one is going to come to the Bible pretending they do not actually believe whatever they understand the truth to be. The difference between trinitarians and unitarians here will then not be whether we assume our positions are true when we come to the text of scripture, but which of our positions is derived from scripture. When someone comes to the Bible without presuppositions in favor of either view, which way does the Bible direct them to go?

We may start here by noting that trinitarians and unitarians both agree that YHVH is a single being, so let’s begin there. YHVH is one entity, one being. What sort of being is YHVH? I will argue that it is clear throughout the Old Testament that YHVH is a personal being. YHVH is referred to using personal language, such as personal, rather than impersonal pronouns. YHVH can be related to; He knows and is known, He acts, He speaks, He loves, has wrath, etc. There can be no doubt that YHVH is personal. We also already noted that YHVH is one individual being. Now we must put these together: is there any particular term human language has to denote a personal being? Indeed, this is exactly what the term “person” is. So, is YHVH a person? Absolutely. As a personal being, YHVH is obviously a person. That’s why all through the OT, the one God, YHVH is spoken of using not only personal pronouns, but specifically singular personal pronouns. He refers to Himself using terms denoting a single self; and when others speak of Him or to Him, they use singular personal language. The one YHVH of the Old Testament scriptures then is presented throughout those scriptures not as an impersonal being, but as a personal being- that is, as a person.

Now, while this explanation is clear, it is a little too imprecise for my comfort. Simply defining a person as a personal being, while not incorrect, does not satisfactorily explain the matter in the sort of precision this discussion often requires of us. So I will note that definitionally, a person is ‘a rational individual being’.

Let’s break down that definition in detail: a ‘being’ is simply an entity; an entity may be either individual or generic. For example, we may speak of human nature, a set of ontological properties which define what it means to be human, as an entity, but this abstract entity is generic or universal, finding existence in many individuals. And individual entity on the other hand would be, for example, an actual human being; this is not an abstract, generic entity, but a concrete individual subsistence. A person is not an abstract nature, but a specific individual entity, that is, an individual being. However, not all individual beings are persons, but only rational individual beings. Classically the idea here is that by rational, we mean to indicate only those being which possess higher rational faculties capable of abstract reasoning; a cow, therefore, is not a person, despite the fact that it is an individual being; whereas a man, or an angel, since they are individual beings which are rational in nature, are persons. Thus we arrive at our definition that a person is a rational individual being.

Is then YHVH a rational individual being? That is, does He meet the technical definition of a person? Yes, He does. That He is an individual being we see again and again; He is clear that He is one entity, and trinitarians and unitarians agree on this. But He is also rational, able to think reason, possess wisdom, speak, and even knows all things. So then, YHVH, God Almighty, the one God of the Old Testament, is clearly a person, according to the standard definition of a person.

A trinitarian may object here, and attempt to argue that other definitions of ‘person’ and ‘being’ must be found which would better fit with their doctrines. This however, we must not allow. It is not Biblical Unitarians who first introduced ‘ousia’ and ‘hypostasis’ into theology proper, but trinitarians, or rather, the Logos-theorists who preceded them. Trinitarians opted to continue using this language employed by the unitarian subordinationists of the third and fourth century, and to make it an integral part of their creedal definitions. If then they will insist on using the terms ‘being’, and ‘person’, they must use them according to their actual definitions. Otherwise, we must politely ask them to not bother using these terms at all, as it only serves to horribly obscure their meaning, and throws the entire discussion into confusion, when they seek to use terms like ‘person’ to denote something other than an actual person.

If anyone doubts the legitimacy of this definition, as with ‘son’ and ‘mediator’, I welcome them to consult common dictionaries. I would also illustrate the validity of these definitions by giving a more familiar example: what is the difference between “a human being” and “a human person”? None exists; they refer to the same exact thing. That’s because all humans are by nature rational, and so, all individual beings which are human, being rational, are persons. Or to return to our much simpler explanation we started with, all human beings are personal. Thus, every human being is a person. This all serves to illustrate the relation of ‘being’ to ‘person’, as classically understood, laid out above.

YHVH then, the God of Israel, the Most High, the Creator of all things, is not only one being, but one person, according to what the very word ‘person’ signifies by definition. Since YHVH is only one rational individual being, and not more than one, He is only one person, not more than one.

All this means that the Unitarian view of God, as being only one person, is not merely a presupposition which we impose upon the Bible; it is a truth which is unavoidably present in the Bible itself, clear to anyone trying to look objectively at the matter. All we have to do it look at how many entities God is: one. And is this entity individual? Yes, thus it is one. Is this entity rational? Indeed, all knowing and all wise. This God, then, the God of the Old Testament, is only one person. Now, if we approach the New Testament with the base assumption that the one God is the same one God in both the Old Testament and the New- an assumption which can be proved from many passages- then we will find that the one God is only one person in the New Testament as well. One passage we may note is John 8:54:

Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you [Jews] say, ‘He is our God’;

John 8:54 NASB

Who did the Jews Jesus here interacted with claim as their God, except YHVH, God Almighty, the God of the Old Testament? But Who then is YHVH, the God of the Old Testament, in relation to Jesus? “My Father”, is what Jesus calls Him; the person Jesus calls “my Father” is the one the Jews call their God, that is, YHVH God Almighty. This is exactly what Biblical Unitarianism teaches: the one God is only one person, the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. The one God of the Jews, YHVH is equated with someone trinitarians acknowledge is a person here, the Father. So again, we have confirmation that YHVH is a person. But we are not left wondering who that person is in relation to Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The Son of which God? YHVH, the God of the Bible. We have already addressed that as Son, Jesus is distinguished as another individual besides His Father.

We find then that the trinitarian accusation of ‘assuming unitarianism’ is an empty and pointless response to unitarian arguments; in fact what trinitarians making this charge are really taking issue with is that unitarians are taking biblical language at face value, and understanding the words the Bible uses according to their standard meanings, rather than according to some sort of special definition contrived to accommodate the doctrine of the trinity. As we saw above, the unitarian understanding that God is a single person and that Jesus is another numerically distinct individual besides the one God is something derived directly from the language of the Bible itself, any not merely an assumption foisted into the text by unitarians; rather, we find it is trinitarians who are repeatedly having to try to get around what the Bible is saying due to their assuming trinitarianism.

Arguments For Unitarianism

Asking Questions That Have Already Been Answered: Why We Don’t Need Literal Pre-existence

In the fourth century, debates raged between leading bishops of the Roman Empire about the precise nature of Jesus Christ; questions concerning his origin, his nature, his sonship, and the precise nature of his relation to the Father stood as the central questions of these fierce controversies. Today, Arians, semi-Arians, Trinitarians, and others, still clash over these questions. We may observe that what was historically at the heart of the disagreement between Trinitarians and Arians was the question of the precise nature of Jesus’s origin; in what manner was he caused by the Father? Trinitarians, holding that the Son is eternally generated from the Father, answered that the Son is timelessly and eternally caused by the Father; others objected that there was a difference in time between the Father and Son, and that the Son was created by God out of nothing. Was the Son generated or created? Of the same nature as the Father, or another? Was he begotten ex nihilo (out of nothing) or from the essence of the Father? These are the questions that occupied some of the greatest minds of the time, and the way one answered could mark one as either a champion of orthodoxy or a vile heretic, depending on which emperor was in power at the time.

Today, trinitarians still value these questions, and suggest that their answers alone satisfactorily fit with the biblical data, informing us that only through the doctrine of eternal generation can we rightly understand the nature of Jesus, His origin, His relation to the Father, and the true nature of His sonship. But is this true?

We must admit that these are all understandable questions being asked. The Bible presents Jesus Christ as being at the center of God’s plan to save humanity, establish His kingdom on earth, and restore the fallen world. And so it is no wonder that the Bible’s teachings about Jesus have always made those who would be his disciples wonder about these things; after all, they have great bearing on how we view the Lord Jesus at even the most fundamental level, and what sort of being we believe him to be. And so it’s no wonder that theologians have tried to piece together answers to these questions; although never spelled out, trinitarians believe that we can follow a veritable trail of bread-crumbs throughout the Bible which eventually lead to their conclusions. Although no one single passage ever defines the relation of the Son to the Father in the terms they do, they are convinced (often in large part by extra-biblical tradition) that clues from many obscure passages around the Bible can be pieced together into a collage that reveals eternal generation as the answer to these questions. Equipped with the right set of philosophical presuppositions about God, metaphysics, and the nature of time, combined with the traditional patristic readings of various passages, anyone can find eternal generation hidden deep within the white spaces of their Bibles.

But is that really the best that we have? Has God left us to figure out the answers to these important questions in such a difficult way? Why does the Bible not tell us such important things in a straightforward fashion? I suggest that, contra both Trinitarian and Arian speculation, it actually does just that.

Here are the questions that these theories seek to answer, and the answers the Bible gives:

1.) Was Jesus Christ caused to live by the Father, or is he uncaused?

Jesus said, “I live because of the Father” (John 6:57). Jesus expressly affirms that the Father is the cause of His life. Historically trinitarianism has agreed with this and said that Jesus is atemporally caused in eternal generation; today’s trinitarians, forgetting their creeds, frequently deny the clear teaching of this passage that Jesus is caused by another. But the truth here is unavoidable.

2.) What is the origin of Jesus Christ?

Matthew 1:18 tells us, “Now the origin of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.” What follows is a brief account of the miraculous conception and subsequent virgin birth of Christ. Although it is often translated falsely, as either ‘generation’ or ‘birth’, the word used here in verse 18 is the Greek word ‘genesis’, meaning, as in English, ‘origin’. The author of Matthew was familiar with both the Greek word for birth (‘tikto’) and generation (‘gennao’), using both of these terms in the description of Jesus’s miraculous conception and subsequent virgin birth in the passage that follows, but used neither term here; instead, the word for ‘origin’ was specifically chosen by the author. The Bible straightforwardly tells us what the origin of Jesus Christ is then: his miraculous generation by God in Mary, via the agency of the Holy Spirit, and subsequent virgin birth.

3.) Why is Jesus called the Son of God?

Luke answers: “The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35 NASB)

Here we are very clearly told the basis upon which Mary’s child, Jesus Christ, will be called the Son of God; it is because he was miraculously begotten by God in Mary’s womb through the Holy Spirit. Of course, we may rightly see ‘Son of God’ as a Messianic title as well; and we may rightly note that this title is connected by the Bible not only with this miraculous birth from Mary, but also later with Jesus’s new identity as “the Firstborn of the dead” upon having been resurrected by God. It’s a title full of significance for multiple reasons. But before Jesus had been anointed as Christ at his baptism, and before he had been raised from the dead, he was already the Son of God in a special way- even “the only-begotten Son of God” (Jn 3:16). Why? When was he begotten by God? The Bible couldn’t be clearer in telling us: it’s because of his miraculous generation by God in the womb of the virgin Mary.

4.) What kind of being is Jesus; what is his nature?

John records the words of Christ: “But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.” (John 8:40 NASB). Paul also clearly declares: “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” (1 Timothy 2:5 NASB). Note well, the answer is not shrouded in mystery: according to Jesus and the apostles, Jesus Christ was and is a human being. That’s what kind of being Jesus is: a human. What’s his nature? Human. That’s just what the Bible says; and we may note well that the Bible doesn’t qualify it, add to it, take away from it, or otherwise alter it. There’s no mention of dual natures, no mention of an incarnate divinity; just a simple teaching that Jesus is human.

5.) What was the relation of the Son to the Father before the foundation of the world?

Peter writes: “For He [Christ] was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.” (1 Peter 1:20-21 NASB).

So much blood has been shed, and so many men labeled and punished as heretics, over the finest details of the Son’s relationship to the Father before the creation of the world; yet here we are told clearly and simply by the Bible the answer to these great questions: before creation, Jesus Christ was foreknown by God. That’s it; while Peter was on the topic of the relation of the Son to the Father before the ages, he didn’t think to mention anything else. Nothing on if the Son was begotten or created, whether the Son was of the Father’s essence or ex nihilo, or if his generation was temporal or eternal, or if the Son is homoi, homoiousias, or homoousias with the Father; how could Peter miss the chance? He gives us none of this, but rather brushes all these theories aside by telling us that before creation, God foreknew His Son.

We must carefully consider the nature of foreknowledge; nothing which is foreknown is present while it is foreknown; an event foreknown is known when it has not yet occurred, and a person foreknown is known when they do not yet exist. If then God is said to have foreknown, not merely known, Christ, then Christ was not yet present with the Father; Christ did not yet exist. For if Christ were not still future, but had been present with the Father, he would have simply been ‘known’, not ‘foreknown’; and if Christ was co-eternal with the Father, then it would have been impossible for the Father to have foreknown him, seeing as there never would have been a ‘before Christ’ in which to have foreknown him. Peter does here provide the an answer for some of the fourth century’s toughest questions- if only we are willing to listen.

Of course, it’s noteworthy that semi-arians in the fourth century did make exactly these same observations about this passage, when they sought to disprove the nicene notion of co-eternality. But for them this passage proves a challenge as well; for there is no mention of Christ first having been foreknown before coming into existence, and then being created by God before the ages, but simply that he was foreknown before creation, full stop, with no indication that this state of affairs changed at some point before creation. There is no mention here or anywhere of God having begotten or created Jesus before the foundation of the world, to in turn subsequently use him as an instrument in creating the universe. The Arian position, like trinitarianism, must supply a great deal that the Bible does not give us.

Here we see then, perhaps to the surprise of some, that the Bible itself does give us answers to all these questions. In a straightforward manner, we are told the origin of Jesus, the reason he is the Son of God, his nature, and even what his relation was to God before the foundation of the world.

Now of course, in addition to these very clear passages, there are a relatively small number of other passages, the meaning of which has been hotly disputed since the very early church, which are purported to answer these questions differently. Although none do so directly or approach the clarity of the passages listed above, some have argued that we ought to be reading the above passages through a lens of human doctrine inferred from these difficult passages. My question to trinitarians is simple: we have two sets of passages, one which clearly and easily answers these questions, of which those quoted above belong, and another set of passages which have been and continue to be difficult for even the greatest minds to understand the meaning of; why not interpret the unclear through the clear? Why not interpret the difficult passages in a way consistent with the clear picture given throughout the Bible, that Jesus is a man, a human being, the Son of God who took his origin from being miraculously begotten in Mary via the Holy Spirit. The difficult passages, those alleged in favor of eternal generation, can all be interpreted in a way consistent with the Biblical Unitarianism here described; so why interpret them such a way to make them conflict with these clear teachings?

Eternal generation sets out to answer anew a set of questions that the Bible has already answered; what need is there for it? As a theory, it lacks any value in explanatory scope for all these important questions, because, as we have seen, these questions have already been answered, in a much simpler and clearer way. Rather, all eternal generation does is introduce myriad complexities and mysteries to answer otherwise simple questions; it creates more questions than it answers, and causes more problems than it solves. It turns the old axiom of ‘interpret the unclear by the clear’ on its head, insisting that we should either ignore or give extremely strained alternative interpretations to the clear passages given above, so that we may read them through the lens of unclear and difficult to interpret passages being read through a very particular set of traditions and philosophical assumptions.

The point of all this being this: we don’t need to answer again questions we already have the answer to. For instance there’s no reason to look for something more to explain Jesus’s sonship beyond Luke 1:35; there’s no reason to scour Old and New Testament for some hint that Jesus is actually God’s Son on the basis of something mysterious in eternity past, never clearly described anywhere in the Bible, and so obscure and difficult that even it’s defenders often fail to grasp what precisely they are saying, when we have a very clear answer given to us plainly in the New Testament. There’s no reason to keep looking, no unaccounted-for data, and no mystery of why the authors of scripture didn’t bother leaving us with a clear account of the answers to these questions- because they did. They gave us an account of Jesus’s origin, and an explanation of his sonship, but neither have anything to do with a generation in eternity past. If we are willing to accept these clear answers the Bible gives us, we’ll quickly find there is simply no room for either eternal generation, or literal pre-existence of any flavor.

Arguments For Unitarianism

Literal Pre-existence in the First Hundred Years of Christianity

The idea that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, literally pre-existed his miraculous conception in the virgin Mary goes back quite far- within the first hundred years after Christ’s ascension (for our purposes here, approximately 50-150 CE). It is of course important to remember that the writings we have from this era represent only a very small portion of what was written- many important and influential works we know of have not been preserved. But within the scraps we do have from this time period, there are actually a number of instances of belief in literal pre-existence in some form or another, quite early on.

At first this may sound promising for trinitarianism. The problem is that none of the early adherents to the doctrine of literal pre-existence believed in an ‘orthodox’ christology. That is, while the idea that the Son in some fashion or another literally pre-existed can be shown to go back very early, the idea that he is a dual-natured person, a spiritual being who became incarnate by taking on a full human nature with body and soul, is totally absent from this era- there is no precedent for orthodox christology during this era. Moreover, not only were literal pre-existence theories not in line with later orthodoxy in this era, they were also very diverse among themselves- there was no single or uniform idea of what it would mean or look like for Jesus to have pre-existed. Here, I want to briefly survey these different views of literal pre-existence we find early on.

‘Hotel Christology’

‘Hotel christology’ is an amusing name one author gave to the christology of the Gnostic Cerinthus, which was also held by some Ebionites. The idea is, in short, that the man Jesus was indwelt or otherwise inhabited by the spiritual being ‘Christ’, who stayed within and worked through this man from the time of his baptism, until the passion, when this Christ departed from the man Jesus, leaving Jesus alone to suffer and die. Hippolytus sums up this view as follows:

Cerinthus, however, himself having been trained in Egypt, determined that the world was not made by the first God, but by a certain angelic power. And this power was far separated and distant from that sovereignty which is above the entire circle of existence, and it knows not the God (that is) above all things. And he says that Jesus was not born of a virgin, but that He sprang from Joseph and Mary as their son, similar to the rest of men; and that He excelled in justice, and prudence, and understanding above all the rest of mankind. And Cerinthus maintains that, after Jesus’ baptism, Christ came down in the form of a dove upon Him from the sovereignty that is above the whole circle of existence, and that then He proceeded to preach the unknown Father, and to work miracles. And he asserts that, at the conclusion of the passion, Christ flew away from Jesus, but that Jesus suffered, and that Christ remained incapable of suffering, being a spirit of the Lord.

Refutation of All Heresies, 10.17

Of the Ebionites he notes “The Ebionaeans, however, acknowledge that the world was made by Him Who is in reality God, but they propound legends concerning the Christ similarly with Cerinthus and Carpocrates.” (7.22). While the Cerinthians and Ebionites of this christological stripe could affirm that Christ literally pre-existed, these views are obviously far from both trinitarian orthodoxy and from what the Bible teaches.

Holy Spirit Christology

In the early work The Shepherd of Hermas, which was written anywhere from the end of the first century to the middle of the second, we find little doctrinal discourse or detail on christology. But what we do find, is rather interesting. At first glance, we may think that the author held an orthodox christology:

The Son of God is older than all His creation, so that He became the Father’s adviser in His creation. Therefore also He is ancient.

Parable 9

While this latter quote, taken on it’s own, may sound supportive of trinitarianism, we also read:

After I had written down the commandments and parables of the shepherd, the angel of repentance, he came to me and saith to me; “I wish to show thee all things that the Holy Spirit, which spake with thee in the form of the Church, showed unto thee. For that Spirit is the Son of God.

Parable 9:1

Here we see that for the author of this work, the pre-existent Son of God and the Holy Spirit are one and the same person. Thus when we read a little later that the Son is ancient, and pre-existed, we know that what is meant by this is not orthodox christology. We find traces of this ‘Spirit christology’ later in Tertullian, and even into the fourth century. Here we have another example of belief in non-orthodox literal pre-existence early on.

‘Docetism’

Docetism is the term used to describe a brand of early gnostic christology which taught that Jesus Christ was not really a man, but only appeared to be a man. In this christology, a pre-existent spiritual being is identified with Jesus Christ, but at the total expense of Jesus’s humanity. This seems to have been the view of the famous Gnostic Marcion, and was likely at least partly motivated by the idea that the created world and matter are evil. Thus, the Docetists denied Christ’s humanity and real material body, in an endeavor to preserve him from such corruption.

Other Gnostic Views

Other Gnostic christologies frequently involved some form of belief in literal pre-existence, more than I wish to cover in detal here. Carpocrates held a view similar to that of Cerinthus described above; Valentinius taught that the Son was an emanation from the Father. While these provide us with more examples of belief in literal pre-existence within the first hundred years of Christianity, none provide us an example of anything that would be considered orthodox trinitarian christology, although later orthodoxy would in fact draw on the language and ideas of such gnostics in formulating its own doctrines of eternal generation and co-essentiality.

Logos Theorist Incarnation

The logos-theorists, like Justin Martyr, are frequently cited as early examples of Christian belief in literal pre-existence. This is understandable as it is their version of the doctrine which eventually won out over the others in the ante-nicene era, especially with the help of prominent apologists like Justin Martyr, and later, in a modified form, Origen. The christology of these early logos-theorists taught that God has begotten and created, as His first and greatest work, the Son, through whom God then created all else. As such, the Son was after the Father, not co-eternal, and was ontologically subordinate to Him. In this sense alone, the christology of the logos-theorists can be seen to bear no strong resemblance to orthodox christology, but rather to Arianism. But their view of the incarnation further separates them from orthodox views of pre-existence; for them, Jesus Christ was actually the Son of God incarnated- ‘incarnate’ literally meaning ‘enfleshed’ or ’embodied’. That is, in the view of the logos theorists, Jesus ‘became man’ not by taking on a full human nature in the sense later orthodox affirms, or by taking on a human body and soul, but only by taking on a human body: the idea being then, that a pre-existent spirit took on a human body through Mary, the spirit-being itself filling the place of the soul in Jesus. Thus these logos-theorists actually believed in a literal incarnation, or taking on of a body, by the pre-existent Son.

This view is problematic because arguably, by denying a human soul in Jesus, this view denies the real humanity of Jesus; this reasoning would result in later orthodoxy rejecting this literal incarnation christology as heretical.

Transformation Christology

This christology takes ‘the logos became flesh’ as ‘a spiritual being transformed into a human being’, much like modern JWs do. Rather than believing that a pre-existent spirit took on a body and filled the place of a soul, like the logos theorists, or that the spirit only appeared to be man, like the Docetists, the adherents of this christology affirmed the real and full humanity of Christ by holding that the pre-existent spirit became a man, by ceasing to be spirit; he went from being one thing, to being the other. We see what is quite possibly an early witness to this christology in the early pseudonymous 2 Clement, for instance:

If Christ the Lord who saved us, being first spirit, then became flesh, and so called us, in like manner also shall we in this flesh receive our reward.

2 Clement 9:5

Note, the author says not ‘took on flesh’, but ‘became flesh’. Unlike orthodoxy dual-nature incarnation theory, this view did not involve the taking on a second nature alongside a first nature, but the transformation of a being from a fully-spirit being to a fully-human being. This too, then, provides no precedent for orthodox trinitarian christology.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while we find several early examples of belief in literal pre-existence of the Son, the forms this belief took in the first hundred years of Christianity varied widely from one another, and none of them match up with later ‘orthodox’ trinitarian christology. In surveying early theories of literal pre-existence, we find no one uniform view emerge within the first hundred years, but rather a plethora of competing and evolving theories which disagree with each other drastically, as speculation, both gnostic and philosophical, ran rampant in some quarters. No one theory out of these many options is able to stake a clear claim to having apostolic origin on the basis of the surviving historical record, or can claim on that basis to be the uniform and widespread tradition received by the whole church; not until Justin Martyr popularized his own logos-theorist christology do we find any one of these many competing theories emerge as the dominant theory.

Even then we find Justin’s theory presented by Justin himself not as a traditional view he has received from those before him, or as a view with which other ‘catholic’ Christians generally agree, but as his own reading of the scriptures, which disagrees with the majority of his fellow non-gnostic Christians, who reject literal pre-existence altogether:

“For there are some, my friends,” I said, “of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have the same opinions as myself should say so; since we were enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself.”

Dialogue With Trypho, 48

While speculation ran rampant among the educated elite and gnostics, we see the majority of believers held a simple faith in Jesus the Nazarene as a true man, miraculously begotten in Mary by God through the Holy Spirit, who is the Christ, or Messiah (anointed one), on account of being anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and with power. These early Christians must have understood that ‘Christ’ is a title of the man Jesus, not the name of a spiritual being who resided in Jesus; that Jesus is a man in reality, not merely in appearance; and that Jesus took his origin from God in Mary by the Holy Spirit, not as some pre-existent angel, spirit, or emanation of the Father.

“You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.”

Acts 10:38 NASB
Church History

My Journey to Biblical Unitarianism: Interview with Dr. Dale Tuggy

I recently had the pleasure of being interviewed by Dr. Dale Tuggy for his podcast, Trinities. For those not already familiar with Dr. Tuggy:

“Dr. Dale Tuggy served as Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia for some 18 years. He has taught courses in analytic theology, philosophy of religion, religious studies, and the history of philosophy. Dale Tuggy has a PhD from Brown University. He has authored about two dozen peer-reviewed articles and book chapters relating to the Trinity and other topics in analytic theology and philosophy of religion. He is the producer and host of “The Trinities” podcast which explores theories about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Dr. Tuggy is the author of the book “What is the Trinity? Thinking about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” and has published an extensive collection of literature including writings from the early biblical unitarian movement in the United States.” [1]

If you aren’t already familiar with the Trinities podcast and the accompanying blog, they are well worth your time, as Dr. Tuggy covers a wide range of trinity-related topics including the development of the doctrine of the trinity and logical and exegetical problems for various trinity theories. It’s excellent material and I highly recommend it, along with his book and papers.

The podcasts are available here (and can also be found on Youtube):

Interview Part I

Interview Part II

In the interview, we talked about my personal background coming from a nominally Christian family, through my rejection of God and Christianity in favor of ‘science’ and atheism and my dabbling in Buddhism, before being exposed to the Bible and the biblical gospel for the first time in my early teens, when I believed, repented, dedicated myself and my life to God, and was baptized in 2009 at the age of 15. Following that we discuss the many twists and turns of my theological journey as a Christian, from my time as a confused but basically unitarian new believer, to being a modern semi-modalistic trinitarian, to my time as a monarchian trinitarian following the beginning of my in-depth study of the trinity in 2014, sparked by my discovery of Justin Martyr’s unorthodox views on God and Jesus. Following that we talked about my journey through ‘catholic’ Reformed Presbyterianism to my near-conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy, and my return to Protestant principles like sola scriptura, leading to my abandonment of Nicene trinitarianism at first in favor of Homoian/Logos-theorists views, and then finally to adopting the purely human christology of Biblical Unitarianism. Along the way we discussed numerous theological issues related to these various theologies.

If nothing else strikes you in listening, I hope that in my testimony you see God’s glory displayed in how gracious he has been to someone so undeserving as myself. I also hope that my own journey and observations on various views about God and Jesus might be helpful to others who are currently working through the same issues.

___

[1] The biography provided for Dr. Tuggy on the 21st Century Reformation website for the recent debate between Dr. Tuggy and Chris Date.

Church History General

The Forgotten Father

Something I’ve long noticed in popular trinitarianism is that one of the worst and most damaging effects of much trinitarian doctrine is that the Father is dishonored. Not only does trinitarian doctrine do all it can to deny the uniqueness of the Father as the one God of the Bible, the Almighty, the Maker of all things, by instead ascribing all of these glories to a triune being of which the Father is but one person among three equals, but also, there is a trend caused by this to simply ignore the Father, and to exalt the Son above the Father. While it is insisted that absolute and unqualified equality between the persons of the Trinity is of the utmost importance, in fact, this is almost never the case- one person ends up practically, if not officially, being treated and thought and spoken of as supreme and more central than the others; for the average trinitarian, this person is Christ, who is for them “God the Son”.

This can be seen in all sorts of things; in worship songs and hymns, in prayers, in sermons, in books, in systematic theologies, in doctrinal statements of churches; in all these, a clear trend can be seen: one person of these three supposedly equal persons get’s the bulk of the attention, praise, and thought of modern professing Christians- Christ.

This can just easily be observed by the reader for themselves- in any average trinitarian church, the worship songs, whether hymns or contemporary, will generally almost exclusively focus on the person of Christ. Sometimes other persons will get thrown in as well, but this is to disastrous effect just as often as not- modalism, or confusing the Father and Son with each other as though one person, abounds in such songs. Even when the Son is not being thanked for being our loving Father who died on the cross for us, and the songs more strictly focus on Jesus, the results are still problematic: Jesus is exalted with the highest exaltation possible. He receives every name and title of the Father, and is frequently spoken of in supreme and exclusive terms: for example “you alone have saved us”, “you alone have made us”, ascribing absolute supremacy to Christ and ‘most high’ and ‘incomparable’, etc. These sorts of statements, when left totally unqualified, actually elevate the Son over the Father- unless the Father and Son are simply rolled into one person. But so long as some real personal distinction is admitted between them, ascribing absolute supremacy to the Son without any qualification implicitly places the Son over the Father.

The same problems exist in prayers, but sometimes seem even more pronounced. I long ago lost track of how many times I have heard some well-intentioned trinitarian thank the Father for dying for us. And the same problem of exalting Christ to the very highest possible position often comes up in prayer as well, and with it, the same problem: if Christ is absolutely supreme over all, is he another besides the Father, or are they the same person? If they are the same person, then it’s pure modalism we are dealing with; if they are distinct, then the Son has been, at least implicitly, elevated above the Father.

In sermons and books, it’s again easy to observe the centrality of Christ, often to the near exclusion of the Father. I don’t have any formal study showing this, but it would be my educated guess that if trinitarian churches were polled, it would be found that the vast majority of sermons focus on Jesus with very little focus on the Father. The same can be said for Christian books.

When we come to systematic theologies and doctrinal statements, it becomes clear that Jesus receives far more focus than the Father. The standard breakdown of such books and statement is this (and feel free to crack open a couple systematic theologies and see what I’m saying): a long section is devoted to ‘God’; under which is treated the existence and attributes of God, and then the trinity, or, how this God that was just spoken of as if He were as single person for many chapters is in fact not a single person, but three persons. Then, the systematic theology or doctrinal statement will either move directly on to christology, the section on the Son, which is followed by pneumatology, the section on the Holy Spirit, or, on rare occasion, a small section will appear between theology and christology on the Father. The difference in length of this section compared to the others, when it exists at all, speaks volumes to the point I am making here: the Father, robbed of His true identity as the one God of the Bible, and made out to merely be one of three equal persons within the one God, is practically ignored. Sometimes He basically gets a brief ‘shout-out’ as the one Who plans and sends, but then that’s about it, usually. In more archaic systematic theologies and older statements, there may also be some statement that the Father is the source of the other persons of the trinity by eternal generation and procession, but these are often not given much attention or well explained, and on the popular level, these doctrines are frequently rejected and/or totally unknown.

All this means, to sum up, that Christ is worshipped by song, prayed to, preached about, written about, systematically studied, and defined in theological detail far more than the Father or the Holy Spirit. While the persons of the trinity are insisted to be absolutely “equal”, in practice this simply is not the case. The Father is practically forgotten, eclipsed by the Son, and often only bothered to be mentioned at all for sake of His roles in relation to the Son. Meanwhile Christ is central and treated as absolutely supreme.

Christ’s centrality is typically seen as a good thing, and to an extent, it is a good thing according to the Bible. God has exalted Christ, and wills that to him, as to God, every knee should bow. But the key difference is that in New Testament Christianity, Christ is exalted to the glory of the Father, and it is always the Father Who remains ultimately central and supreme (Phil 2:11). It is Christ who is exalted by God to the Father’s right hand, not the Father to Christ’s right hand; it is the Father Who sends the Son and Spirit, not the others sending Him; and the Son has the Father as his God, not the other way around. Whether the subordination of Christ be ascribed to economic differences in the trinity, or to an incarnation, or to Christ simply being a human Messiah and Son of God as is actually the case, it’s undeniable that a clear subordination of Christ to the Father exists throughout the New Testament; one that does not end with Christ’s exaltation to God’s right hand, either. On this point we may firstly note that ‘the right hand of God’ is obviously a position that is exalted above all else, yet subordinate to God. But secondly, we may consider that it was well after the ascension and exaltation of Christ that Paul the apostle wrote that “God is the head of Christ” (1 Cor 11:3), and tells us that in the end, Jesus, though greatly exalted by God, will be perfectly subject to God (1 Cor 15:28), the Father forever being supreme over all. In the New Testament, like in modern churches, there is no equality of Father and Son: but the great difference that in the New Testament, the Father is supreme, and the Son subordinate to Him- something modern trinitarians turn on it’s head, in practice, if not in official doctrine.

The result of all this is that the one God of the Bible is horribly neglected by most professing Christians. Since they have Christ as their one God, as the second person of God, what need is there for the to go to the Father? The one God is the one God, and if Jesus is the one God, then why go to the Father at all? Whereas the New Testament presents us with Jesus as the way by which men can approach God the Father, today’s trinitarians seem to have no desire to do so; for them, the Father is not the ultimate destination and Jesus the one who makes is possible for us to get there, but is himself the final destination in place of God. All of this results in people generally having a horribly muddled view of God, Christ, and Christianity. By exalting Christ above God, they effectively present Christ a rival to God, rather than as the loving and obedient Son and Servant of the one God, who always does what is pleasing to the Father and is perfectly subject to Him. The real Jesus Christ is our perfect example of love and obedience to God, our human king anointed by God, our High Priest who by the sacrifice of his own blood brings us to God- it is this Jesus who is worthy of all the praise, honor, and glory we see him receive in the New Testament. A Jesus who instead of being the humble and obedient Messiah, Servant, and Son of God acts as God’s rival and is worshipped and honored in place of Him is not the real Jesus, has no basis in the Bible, and is more a monstrous idol than a fitting object of love and praise. Trinitarians need to stop presenting Jesus as the usurper of God’s throne, worship, and glory, and go back to the Bible to see that while Jesus is absolutely worthy of worship and honor, his role is not that of the Father, but that of the one by whom we approach the Father. “This is eternal life, that they may know You [Father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” (Jn 17:3 NASB).

General