The Word as a person of the trinity

[mattrose]

My view of the atonement is that, given the break between God and men, God became man to lead men back to God. It takes a God-man to re-connect us with God. One of my favorite atonement passages is, oddly enough, in the book of Job.

Job complains (in Job 9)...
32“He is not a mere mortal like me that I might answer him,
that we might confront each other in court.
33 If only there were someone to mediate between us,
someone to bring us together,
34 someone to remove God’s rod from me,
so that his terror would frighten me no more.
35 Then I would speak up without fear of him,
but as it now stands with me, I cannot.

Job knew what the problem was. God was not a man like him. There was no connection between God and Job. They were simply different kinds of beings. What was needed was someone who possessed God's kind of being and someone who possessed man's kind of being as well. Someone who could mediate. Job knew this was missing. Through Jesus, it is not missing.

I guess I'm just pretty confused by any other alternative. Are you wondering if he's some sort of being in a category between the Father and angels? The more I think about the idea of Christ not being God, the more I think the whole structure of Christianity falls apart. I find distinctions between 'divine' and 'eternally God' somewhat baffling. How could a divine being not be eternal?

Again, I want to re-iterate that I applaud your willingness to question and consider these issues. It just seems strange b/c I believe we're pretty similar in a lot of our ways of thinking, but we seem to be headed in different directions on this issue. As I said before, I can hardly open the Bible these days without seeing Jesus treated as God.

[darinhouston]

My view of the atonement is that, given the break between God and men, God became man to lead men back to God. It takes a God-man to re-connect us with God. One of my favorite atonement passages is, oddly enough, in the book of Job.

Job complains (in Job 9)...
32“He is not a mere mortal like me that I might answer him,
that we might confront each other in court.
33 If only there were someone to mediate between us,
someone to bring us together,
34 someone to remove God’s rod from me,
so that his terror would frighten me no more.
35 Then I would speak up without fear of him,
but as it now stands with me, I cannot.

Job knew what the problem was. God was not a man like him. There was no connection between God and Job. They were simply different kinds of beings. What was needed was someone who possessed God's kind of being and someone who possessed man's kind of being as well. Someone who could mediate. Job knew this was missing. Through Jesus, it is not missing.

I guess I'm just pretty confused by any other alternative. Are you wondering if he's some sort of being in a category between the Father and angels? The more I think about the idea of Christ not being God, the more I think the whole structure of Christianity falls apart. I find distinctions between 'divine' and 'eternally God' somewhat baffling. How could a divine being not be eternal?

Again, I want to re-iterate that I applaud your willingness to question and consider these issues. It just seems strange b/c I believe we're pretty similar in a lot of our ways of thinking, but we seem to be headed in different directions on this issue. As I said before, I can hardly open the Bible these days without seeing Jesus treated as God.

I think you have a false (or at least unproven) presupposition. Why could not a perfect and willing sacrifice of a sinless man reconnect us to God considering a single act of a man separated us from Him? Why must it be a God-man or even divine man? We really have no idea HOW the atonement worked, so how can we make such presuppositions about conditions precedent to it that aren't told to us by Scripture?

As to begotten divinity, well if Jesus was fully man and fully God we already have some aspect of him which we admit isn't eternal -- his man-ness. Besides, I see Divinity like Royalty -- a prince can have all the power and influence of the King (or as much as the King has allowed, anyway) without actually being born the same day as the King and being co-existent with him throughout his life. Joseph shows us that this type of reign/power can even be granted unto an adopted man. A prince was treated in every respects as he was the king (by the subjects) unless he was in the presence of the King at which point his subservience was made evident. Only one was on the throne -- the other was there by his side near the throne (re-read Revelation and consider alternate translations).

Again.... I'm exploring this honestly and long enough to test it against Scripture and other views -- I may revert next year to a traditional interpretation, but this is a "working theory" for me for a while.

And for the critics out there -- I don't believe it reduces my Christology -- if true, it will elevate it -- also, we may actually be denigrating the Spirit by refusing to recognizing its proper role in our Christology with the traditional formulations. If the Spirit is indeed God (which I think is incontrovertible), then this risk is at least as high as a flawed Christology, and you must agree that our study of the role and being of the Spirit has been neglected in Christendom in favor of Christology.

[jriccitelli]

I think you have a false (or at least unproven) presupposition. Why could not a perfect and willing sacrifice of a sinless man reconnect us to God considering a single act of a man separated us from Him?

If you heard that there was a sinless man living in Minnesota, who was wrongfully accused and put to death; would that cover the sins of the whole world?

For one I would have to wonder about the claim of sinlessness. And two; why would it cover any other person’s sin? Sure it would be unjust but why would it cover any other person’s sin?
Even if God came down and 'said' it would cover everyone’s sin – if we believe it – OK God if you say so. But why? I do not see any logical, meaningful or biblical reason (Everything God does has a pretty foundational meaning and purpose from what i have observed)
When one realizes Jesus is God, all of a sudden there are so many things about the Atonement that have great meaning and logical satisfaction.
I have to tell a Jehovah’s witness’ that I would be moved if an angel died for me, but what logic would convince me that the death of an angel (and much less so a man) covered my sins, much less the sins of ‘all’ who would believe? Most importantly there is no scriptural precedent for a human sacrifice removing sin, in fact it is forbidden.

[jriccitelli]

All Jesus said was ‘believe’ in me and you will have forgiveness and eternal life "believe My Words because of My Works" (that testify about Him). Jesus died for believers, unbelievers put Jesus to death, the disciples were sinners too but they ‘believed’ Jesus.
That mankind as a species put to death the One who came to save them is a great sin, to put to death Gods Son is the greatest sin imaginable, and if Jesus is truly God in human form it was the worst of all crimes possible. There are degrees and differences of wrongs done, and this would be mans greatest sin – as opposed to the death of a human or an angel, both of whom are created things.

“Why must it be a God-man or even divine man?”

Because God does not ever elevate man to any such position in scripture. Man is proven to be untrustworthy and sinful, over and over, even Gods patriarchs. Angels do not have a great track record either, we know some have fallen, and the rest (although we know little about them) sinless or not, they are not perfect or altogether righteous, as we can glean quickly from Revelation ‘none were found worthy’.

“We really have no idea HOW the atonement worked, so how can we make such presuppositions about conditions precedent to it that aren't told to us by Scripture?”

Only God is Holy. The Only One I want to trust in is ‘Him’. From scripture (and life) I have learned not to put my trust in anything but God alone, this is the biblical condition and precedent.
The bible has made the case over and over; man (or any other created thing) is not Worthy or Holy or Righteous, God alone is worthy.

“As to begotten divinity, well if Jesus was fully man and fully God we already have some aspect of him which we admit isn't eternal -- his man-ness”

Jesus’ body was a tabernacle, a body made from atoms and dust, Jesus (like you and me, ignoring Paidions unispirit theology) so He is eternal who indwelt a body of flesh - flesh that died - but Jesus is The Spirit and He cannot die, these bodies are dust and they will perish, but we will receive a new immortal body in the future, like His.

“Besides, I see Divinity like Royalty -- a prince can have all the power and influence of the King (or as much as the King has allowed, anyway) without actually being born the same day as the King and being co-existent with him throughout his life. Joseph shows us that this type of reign/power…”

Spiritually, Heavenly and eternally there is Only One Lord and King, and Jesus Kingdom is not of this world. There is the precedent of One King, One God, One Lord, One Redeemer, One Savior, One Judge, One Rock, One Shepherd, One Name above all Names.

[darinhouston]

Man, that post was LOADED with presuppositions and tradition. I can't respond to every one of them, but...

If you heard that there was a sinless man living in Minnesota, who was wrongfully accused and put to death; would that cover the sins of the whole world? For one I would have to wonder about the claim of sinlessness. And two; why would it cover any other person’s sin? Sure it would be unjust but why would it cover any other person’s sin?

It would if God said that it would/did. But, of course (as you recognize) that is my point -- only one many has been sinless. You mixed categories on me.

Even if God came down and 'said' it would cover everyone’s sin – if we believe it – OK God if you say so. But why? I do not see any logical, meaningful or biblical reason (Everything God does has a pretty foundational meaning and purpose from what i have observed)

Because, like Isaac, it was His own unique son, uniquely having His spirit, and which in its fullness it enabled him to refuse temptations. God tells us this -- He doesn't tell us that the atonement works because He Himself suffered and died. It could be true, but my point is that is tradition and/or merely derived theology. His direct revelation very easily could have told us otherwise clearly if it was important (especially Jesus), and so I must accept that it either isn't true or He didn't want us to take it as core essential doctrine. If our view of the atonement and our willingness to believe is dependent on it (as you seem to indicate it is for you), surely He would have made that clear. If it either isn't true or if He wanted it to be held in tension and have us believe anyway, I'm ok with that. You guys appear not to be.

When one realizes Jesus is God, all of a sudden there are so many things about the Atonement that have great meaning and logical satisfaction.
I have to tell a Jehovah’s witness’ that I would be moved if an angel died for me, but what logic would convince me that the death of an angel (and much less so a man) covered my sins, much less the sins of ‘all’ who would believe? Most importantly there is no scriptural precedent for a human sacrifice removing sin, in fact it is forbidden.

And yet that's what happened. Whatever our differences, Jesus was a human. Also, if one man's sins can curse all humanity, then how much more can the life of a sinless man ending in perfect sacrifice in obedience to God reverse it. I accept that there has never been another sinless man because God tells me so clearly. If Satan had succeeded in the temptations of Christ, would His death have been an atonement for our sins? I don't think it was His "God-ness" (whether or not He was God) that was the key to the atonement and the defeat of Satan. It was the Father's sacrificial provision, His sinless life and submission and obedience (and Call) and our belief therein. The one defeated Satan and the other saved us. Scripture doesn't tell us that it wouldn't have been effective if He hadn't been God Himself.

I also believe HIs Spirit was every bit as much God as the Father and Holy Spirit are considered to be. The question remains though if that was separate in personhood from the eternal God. I do wonder if it was His spirit from birth or the Spirit perfectly filling Him upon His baptism which I can equate so.

[Paidion]

Darin, it is really great that you are thinking about these issues, and searching for satisfactory answers. Because of your sincere love of the truth, you are likely to find the answers for which you are searching, at least to a great extent. None of us have yet arrived at all truth and are unlikely to do so.

Personally, I have come to a position which I find satisfying. I have shared my understanding a few times in these forums; this understanding was first acquired by reading second century writers—in particular the writings of Justin Martyr and thinking through Christology in this light. Then I found that it seemed to be in harmony with the Bible. In a few words my position is as follows:

1. Jesus was and is the only-begotten Son of God. He was begotten "before all ages" as the early Christians affirmed—begotten not created. I think the act of the Father's begetting His Son marked the beginning of time. Since Jesus was God's offspring, He was in his pre-incarnate state and in his post-resurrected state, fully divine. He is "God" in the sense of being the essence of God, not in the sense of being the Father Himself. He is the exact imprint of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3).There is no other entity in all of the universe who is divine. Other than the Father Himself, the only other conscious being who is divine is God's Son. Both the Father and the Son share the name "Yahweh". Indeed, in Genesis 19:21 two Individuals are called "Yahweh", one on earth who brought brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, where the source of that brimstone and fire was Yahweh in heaven.

2. Jesus was born as a true human being. When He became human, He divested Himself of ALL of His divine attributes. (Philp 2:6,7) The only aspect of divinity which He retained as a human being was His identity as the Son of God. While He lived on earth, though He said many times that He was the son of man, He never volunteered that He was the son of God, though He acknowledged it when He was asked directly. As a complete human being, He got hungry and thirsty like other men. He couldn't perform miracles on His own. But He was in full communication with His Father, and so His Father worked miracles THROUGH His Son.

3. Even after God raised Jesus from the dead, it seems He was not omnipotent according to Revelation 1:1

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.

This verse affirms that God gave a revelation to Christ, who then made this revelation known to John through an angel which He sent to him. So if God gave the revelation to Christ, this seems to suggest that Christ wasn't aware of the contents of the revelation prior to that.

4. Some suggest that I believe Jesus is a "lesser God" or an "inferior God." In response to that, I say, "No" and "Yes". Substantially, Jesus is in no way inferior than His Father. Both are equally divine, and possess the same divine essence, the essence of Deity. But positionally, Jesus is not equal to the Father; rather the Father is greater. Jesus Himself affirmed, "The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28). Some say that this applies only to Jesus while He was a mortal here on earth. But I have found no scriptural evidence that this is the case. I have already mentioned in point #3 that God gave the revelation to Christ. So it must have had content which Christ did not know. While on earth, Jesus said that He never acted except by His Father's will. He did nothing of Himself. The Father did the works through Him. Thus it is clear that positionally the Father is greater.

5. The Holy Spirit is the extended personalities of the Father and the Son, and thus is personal and not a mere force. Jesus said to His disciples that He and the Father would make their dwelling with anyone who loves Him and keeps His word (John 14:23). How do the Father and the Son make their dwelling with us? Doubtless by their Spirit or personalities which They can extend anywhere in the universe, but especially in the hearts of the faithful. Justin Martyr and Trypho (a Jewish man with whom he was discussing the Messiah and showing that He was the Son of God) both spoke of the Holy Spirit. Certainly Trypho, being of the Jewish religion, did not think of the Spirit as "a third Person of the Trinity." And neither did Justin suggest this at any time. Indeed at one point, he asked Trypho, "Do you think that any other one is said in the scriptures to be worthy of worship and called 'Lord' and 'God' except the Maker of all, and Messiah, who by so many scriptures was proved to you to have become man?" To which Trypho replied, "How can we admit this, when we have instituted so great an inquiry as to whether there is any other than the Father alone?" Now if Justin had been a Trinitarian, this would have been an ideal moment for Justin to say that the Holy Spirit is another who is called "God" and is worthy of worship. But rather he indicated that he had asked him this question to see whether he had changed his opinion from that which he had previously expressed. (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. LXVIII)

The Lord (referring to Jesus) is also said to BE the Spirit (2 Cor 3:17). This make sense. If you could extend your personality to Scotland and began talking to Mr. Ross in Edinburgh, people would say that Darin was talking with Mr. Ross.

Justin in his writings sometimes referred to "the Spirit speaking in the person of the Father" and "the Spirit speaking in the person of the Son." There is no doubt that the Holy Spirit is personal and speaks. But it is not a third Person speaking, but either the Father or the Son speaking. For though the Father in some special way dwells in heaven, with the Son at His right hand, they extend their personalities or Spirit into the minds or hearts of the faithful and speak to them in that way. There is only one Holy Spirit, of course, but the Father and the Son share that one Spirit.

[Homer]

Darrin wrote:

I think you have a false (or at least unproven) presupposition. Why could not a perfect and willing sacrifice of a sinless man reconnect us to God considering a single act of a man separated us from Him? Why must it be a God-man or even divine man? We really have no idea HOW the atonement worked, so how can we make such presuppositions about conditions precedent to it that aren't told to us by Scripture?

Given that the penalty of sin is death, and that all have sinned, we have no life to give for the sins of anyone else, let alone the whole world. So the underlined question is only hypothetical and is impossible. Another consideration, when Adam sinned, he was sinless up to that point. So a sinless man fell, and brought death. The second Adam, also sinless at the point in time of His sacrificial death, brought life to all who trust in Him. And this Jesus is our mediator, our priest, having "entered ther holy place once for all" through His own blood (Hebrews 9). What mere man could accomplish this?

Something else to consider is that God "so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son". True forgiveness, I believe, always comes at a cost to the one forgiving. And what an inconceivable cost! Could you conceive and intend the agonizing, most horrible death of one of your children to reconcile with people who hate you? Who in many cases, if not most, will spurn your offering of reconciliation, and with your forknowledge of that fact? What an amazing love!

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

Justin in his writings sometimes referred to "the Spirit speaking in the person of the Father" and "the Spirit speaking in the person of the Son." There is no doubt that the Holy Spirit is personal and speaks. But it is not a third Person speaking, but either the Father or the Son speaking. For though the Father in some special way dwells in heaven, with the Son at His right hand, they extend their personalities or Spirit into the minds or hearts of the faithful and speak to them in that way. There is only one Holy Spirit, of course, but the Father and the Son share that one Spirit.

Your idea is harder for me to understand than the trinity. Personal relates to "a" person, not two persons. How do two persons share one personal spirit?

[Paidion]

How do two persons share one personal spirit?

I don't know HOW they could do so, since there is no parallel among men. But the Father and the Son, being in perfect harmony could do so. Jesus said, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9). Some have asked me how that is possible unless Jesus IS the Father. But because He is another who is EXACTLY like the Father, who bears the exact stamp of the Father's essence (Heb 1:3), it IS possible! When when you know Jesus, then you know the Father; when you see Jesus, you see the Father. Why? Because they have exactly the same nature. You might say they "share the same nature". So I can't see why they couldn't share the same Spirit, since their Spirit is their essence; their nature. For they are in total harmony.

The NT speaks of the Spirit of God (Mt 3:16, Mt 12:28, Rom 8:9) and the Spirit of Jesus (Ac 16:7, Phil 8:9). Is that two different Spirits? If the Holy Spirit is a third divine Person, why do the scriptures never speak of "The Spirit of the Spirit"? Indeed, why do the scriptures never speak of prayer being offered to the Holy Spirit? It seems sensible to do so if He is a third divine Person. Yes, today we have hymns addressed to the Holy Spirit ("Come Holy Spirit, I need Thee, etc.). But never did the apostles address the Holy Spirit. Can you explain why not?

And how about Acts 16:7 mentioned above?

And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them.

A few chapters earlier we read:

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” (Acts 13:2)

Was this "Holy Spirit" in Acts 13:2 a different Spirit from the "Spirit of Jesus" in Acts 16:7?

[darinhouston]

What mere man could accomplish this?

Who says He was a mere man?! He had the fullness of the Spirit in Him, and He was God's own (and only) son. The fact that He WAS a man, though, is what makes it so incredible. To the extent we are filled with and draw on the Spirit, we are not "mere" men, either. That's the power of the Spirit (and the cross).