|
| Home | Trinity |
Gabriel Was Not A Trinitarian:
Recovering
the Biblical Son of God
Anthony Buzzard
Churchmen of all stripes frequently complain about disunity among
Christians. The current ecumenical movement attempts to neutralize
contemporary denominational divisions and contentions by promoting elements of
faith on which all believers in Christ can agree. The question is, Does such a
version of faith, an irreducible minimum which everyone approves, reflect the
"faith once and for all delivered to the saints" Gude 3), which Jude
saw slipping away even in the first century?
If churchmen desire a common meeting point for differing denominations,
why should they not consider with all seriousness the classic words of Gabriel
delivered to Mary? When angels speak they are concise and logical. Each of
their words must be carefully weighed and every ounce of information extracted.
ReÂplying to Mary's very reasonable objection that she was as yet unmarried,
Gabriel declared, "holy spirit will come upon you, and the power of the
Most High will overshadow you, and for that reason indeed (dio kai) the
holy child to be begotten will be called Son of God" (Luke 1:35).
I suggest that this
Christological statement from the angel Gabriel be taken as the basis for identifying
who Jesus is. It should be understood as a clarion call for unity, a rallying
point for divided Christendom. What better way of calling Christians back to
their first century roots?
The message is simple
and clear. The Son of God of Gabriel's announcement is none other than a
divinely created Son of God, coming into existence, begotten - as Son in his
mother's womb. All other claimants to divine Sonship and Messiahship may safely
be discounted. A "Son of God" who is the natural son of Joseph
could not, on the evidence of Gabriel, be the Messiah. Such a person would not
answer to the Son who is son on the basis of a unique divine intervention in
the biological chain. Equally false to Gabriel's definiÂtion of the Son of God
would be a son who preexisted his conception. Such a son could not
possibly correÂspond to the Messiah presented by Gabriel, one whose existence
is predicated on a creative act in history on the part of the Father.
Gabriel does not
present a Son of God in transition from one state of existence to another. He
anÂnounces the miraculous origin and beginning of the Messiah (cp. Matt. 1:18, 20:
"the origin [Gk. Genesis]of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Most High God." The later concept
of the Incarnation of a preexisting "eternal Son" cannot possibly be
forced into the mold revealed by Gabriel. A preexistent Person who
decides to become a man reduces himself, shrinks himself, in order to adopt
the form of a human embryo. But such a Person is not conceived or begotten in
the womb of a woman. He merely passes through that womb, adopting a new form of
existence.
Begin at The Beginning
Conception and
begetting mark the point at which an individual begins to exist, an
individual who did not exist before! It is this non-preexisting
individual whom Gabriel presents in the sacred documents for our recepÂtion.
This Son of God, of Scripture as opposed to later church tradition, is a Son of
God with a history in time only, not in eternity.
Following his
marvelous promise that the MesÂsiah would be the seed of Eve (Gen. 3:15), a
prophet like Moses arising in Israel (Deut. 18:15-19) and the descendant by
bloodline of David (2 Sam. 7:14), God, in a precious moment of history,
initiated the history of His unique Son. This was a Son through whom God
expressly did not speak in previous times (Heb. 1:2). Naturally enough,
since that prophesied Son was not then alive!
Only a few pages later
Luke traces the lineage of Jesus, Son of God, back to Adam who likewise is called
Son of God (Luke 3:38). The parallel is striking and immensely informative.
Just as God by divine fiat creÂated Adam from the dust as Son of God, so in due
time He creates within the womb of a human female the one who is the
supernaturally begotten Son of God. It is surely destructive of straightforward
information and revelation to argue that the Son of God did not have his
origin in Mary but as an eternal Spirit. This is to dehumanize the Son - to
make him essentially non-human, merely a divine visitor disguised as a man.
Luke presents Jesus as
Son of God related to God in a parallel fashion to Adam (Luke 3:38). The
attentive reader of Scripture will hear echoes of Israel as Son of God (Ex.
4:22; Hos. 11:1) and Davidic kings (Ps. 2). Like Israel before him, Jesus, the
Son of God, goes through water to begin his spiritual journey (Luke 3:21; cp.
Exod. 14, 15). In the wilderness and unÂder trial Jesus proves himself to be
the obedient Son unlike Israel who failed in the wilderness (Exod. 14-17;
32-34; Num. 11).
The whole story is
ruined if another dimension is added to the story, namely that the Son of God
was already a preexisting member of an eternal Trinity. Gabriel has carefully defined
the nature of Jesus' Sonship and his words exclude any origin other than a
supernatural origin in Mary.
Gabriel's Jesus, Son of God - the biblical
Son - originates
in Mary. He is conceived and begotten by miracle. In preexistence Christology,
the main plank of Trinitarianism, a conception/begetting in Mary's womb does notbring about the existence of God's Son. According to Gabriel it does. Neither
Gabriel nor Luke could possibly have been Trinitarians.
The Angel Says...
No need for centuries of complex wrangling over words.
All that is required is belief of the angelic communication: "For this
reason precisely (dio kai)-the creative miracle of God through His divine power -
the child will be Son of God." For no other reason, for this reason only. (Note the very
watered-down rendering of the NIV, "so the holy one to be born will be
called the Son of God.") Jesus as Son of God is "the Son of the Most High"
(Luke 1:32; 8:28). Christians are also given this title, "sons of the Most
High" (Luke 6:35; cp. Ps. 82:6). Jesus' royal Sonship is established by
his miraculous begetting. That of the Christians origiÂnates with their rebirth
or regeneration.
As the center of a new
ecumenism the simple truth about the identity and nature of Christianity's
central figure has the backing of those many scholars who know well that
neither Luke nor Matthew show any sign of believing in a prehuman eternal
Son of God of the post-biblical creeds. Raymond Brown's magisterial
treatment of the birth narratives in his Birth of the Messiah makes a
major point of the fact that neither Matthew nor Luke believed in the
Incarnation of a pre-human, prehistoric Son.
Commenting on Luke
1:35, "therefore," Raymond Brown says, "of the nine times dio
kai occurs in the New Testament, three are in Luke/ Acts. It involves a
certain causality and Lyonnet (in his L'Annonciation, 61.6) points out
that this has embarrassed many orthodox theologians since in preexistence
Christology a conception by the holy spirit in Mary's womb does not bring about
the existence of God's son. Luke is seemingly unaware of such a Christology;
conception is causally related to divine Sonship for him. . .And so I cannot
follow those theologians who try to avoid the causal conÂnotation in the
'therefore' which begins this line, by arguing that for Luke the conception of
the child does not bring the Son of God into being."
Raymond Brown insists
that according to Luke, 'We are dealing with the begetting of God's Son in the
womb of Mary through God's creative spirit." All "Orthodoxy"
derived from later Church Councils has to turn a blind eye to Gabriel's definiÂtion
of the Son of God. It contradicted Gabriel by denying that the conception of
Jesus brought about his existence as Son of God.
This is a very serious
issue. Is the Jesus of the creeds, the Jesus under whose umbrella churches
gather, really the created Son authorized by Scripture in Luke 1:35 and Matthew
1:18, 20?
Again, the exhaustive
work of Brown on the birth narratives brings us the important fact that the
Jesus of the Gospels is quite unlike the "eternally begotten" Son of
the later creeds:
"Matthew and Luke
press [the question of Jesus' identity] back to Jesus' conception. In the
commentary I shall stress that Matthew and Luke show no knowledge of
preexistence; seemingly for them the conception was the becoming (begetting) of
God's Son (p". 31).
"The fact that
Matthew can speak of Jesus as 'begotten' (passive of gennan) suggests
that for him the conception through the agency of the Holy Spirit is the becoming of God's Son. [In Matthew's and Luke's 'conception Christology'] God's
creative action in the concepÂtion of Jesus begets Jesus as God's Son...There
is no suggestion of an Incarnation whereby a figure who was previously with God
takes on flesh. For preexistence Christology [Incarnation], the conception of Jesus
is the beginning of an earthly career but not the begetting of God's Son.
[Later] the virginal conception was no longer seen as the begetting of God's
Son, but as the incarnation of God's Son, and that became orthodox Christian
docÂtrine. This thought process is probably already at work at the beginning
of the second century" (pp. 140-142).
Do we really believe
the words of the Bible or has our tradition made it difficult to hear the text
of Scripture without the interfering voices of later tradiÂtion? There is the
constant danger for us believers that the words of the Bible can be drowned out
by the clamorous and sometimes threatening words of ecclesiÂastical teaching,
which mostly goes unexamined. At stake here is the whole nature of the Savior.
Is he really a human being, or did he have the benefit of billions of years of
conscious existence before deciding to become a man? Is this latter picture
anything more than a legÂendary addition to Apostolic faith?
Who Defines the Son
of God?
The Son of-God,
Messiah and Savior, is defined in precise theological terms by Gabriel, laying
the foundation of the whole New Testament and fulfilling the promises of the
Old. Christians should unite around that clear portrait of Jesus presented by
Gabriel. Jesus is the Son of God on one basis only, his miraculous coming into
existence in Mary's womb. This was God's creative act, initiating His new
creation and providing the model of Christian Sonship for us all.
Though obviously we
are not, like Jesus, brought into existence supernaturally, nevertheless we, like
him, are to receive a supernatural birth from spirit being born again under the
influence of the Gospel promise (Gal. 3:2; Eph. 1:13, 14; Rom. 10:17; Matt.
13:19; Luke 8:11, 12; 1 Pet. 1:23-25; James 1:18). The "divine"
nature of Jesus has no other foundation than the stupendous miracle granted to
Mary and to humanity. A Jesus who claims
to be Son of God for any other reason should be rejected. A natural son of
Joseph cannot qualify as the Messiah, nor can a per son whose existence did not
originate in his mother's womb by a divine creative miracle.
The constitution of
Jesus as the unique Son of God is given its basis by the superb words of
Gabriel in Luke 1:35. This definition of the Messiah, Son of God, should be allowed to stand. It was later, post-biblical tradition which interfered with the definitive, revealing
statement of Gabriel. Once Jesus was turned into a preexisting Son of God who
gave up one conscious existence for another, Christology immediately became
problematic (as witnessed by the centuries of disputes, excommunications, and
fierce dogmatic decisions of Church Councils).
A Son of God who is alreadySon of God before his conception in his mother is a personage essentially
non-human. Under that revised scheme what came into existence in Mary was not
the Son of God at all, but a created human nature added to an already
existing Person. But Gabriel describes the creation of the Son of God himself,
not the creation of a human nature added to an already existing Son. The two
models are quite different.
No Contradiction
Some may object that
John 1:1ff ("in the beginning was the Word. ..") present us with a
second Personage who is alive before his conception. If that it is to be
argued, let it be clear that John would then be in contradiction of Luke and
Matthew. Matthew's and Luke's Jesus comes into existence as the Son of God, not
in eternity, but some six months later than his cousin John the Baptist.
John cannot have
contradicted Luke and MatÂthew. The solution is to harmonize John with Luke, taking
our stand with Luke. John did not write, "In the beginning was the Son
of God." What he wrote was "In the beginning was the word†(not
Word, but word).
Logos in Greek does
not describe a person before the birth of the Son. The logos is the self-expressive
intelligence and mind of the One God. Logos often carries the sense of plan or
promise. That promise of a Son was indeed in the beginning.
The Son, however, was
still the object of the promise in II Samuel 7:14. David did not imagine that the
promised Son of God ("My Son"), David's descendant, was already in
existence! That Son was in fact begotten in due time. He was "raised
up" - that is, made to appear on the scene of human history - when Mary
conceived him. Acts 13:33 applies "this day I have begotten you" (Ps.
2:7) to the origin of the Son in his mother.
F.F. Bruce agrees with us:
God "raised up" Jesus
"in the sense in which he raised up David (Acts 13:22, cp. 3:22, 7:37).
The promise of Acts 13:23, the fulfillment of which is here described [v. 33],
has 'to do with the sending of Messiah, not his resurrection which is described
in verse 34" (Acts of the Apostles, Greek Text with Introduction and
Commentary, p. 269).
The word, plan and
promise which existed from the beginning was also "with God." In the wisdom
literature of the Bible things are said to be "with God" when they
exist as decrees and promises in His divine Plan Job 27:13; 10:13; 23:14).
Wisdom was also "with God" (Prov. 8:22,30) in the beginning but she
was not a person. Neither was the logos a person, but rather a promise and
plan. So closely identified with God was His word that John can say "the
word was God." The word was the creative purpose of God, in promise and
later in actuality. That creative presence of God eventually emerged in history
as the Son of God begotten in Mary, the unique Son (monogenes).
Forcing John
A number of
unfortunate attempts have been made to force John not only into contradiction
with the clear Christology of Matthew and Luke but into agreement with the much
later decisions of Church Councils. There is no capital on "word" in
John 1:1, a, b, and c. And there is no justification for reading "All
things were made through Him."
That rendering improperly leads us to think of the word as a second divine
Person, rather than the mind and promise of God.
Eight English
translations before the KJV did not read "All things were made by Him." They read "All things
were made by it," a much more
natural way of referring to the word of God. Thus, for example, the Geneva BiÂble
of 1602: "All things were made by it and without it was made nothing that
was made." No one reading those
words would imagine that there was a Son in heaven before his birth. And no one
would find in John a view of the Son different from the portrait presented by
Gabriel in Luke.
Christian tradition
from the second century embarked on an amazing embellishment of the biblical
story which obscured Jesus' Messianic Sonship and humanity. Once the Son was
given a pre-history as coequal and co-essenÂtial with his Father, the unity of
God was threatened and monotheism was compromised, though every effort was made
to conceal this with the protest that God was still one, albeit no longer one Person,the Father, but one "Essence," comprising more than one
Person. But this was a dangerous shift into Greek philosophical categoÂries
alien to the New Testament's Hebrew theology and creeds (cp. John 17:3; 5:44;
Mark 12:28ff).
Several other
"adjustments" became necessary under the revised doctrine of God.
John was made to say in certain other verses what he did not say. This trend is
well illustrated by the New International Version in John 13:3,16:28 and 20:17.
In none of these passages does the original say that Jesus was going back to
God. In the first two Jesus spoke of his intention to "go to the
Father" and in the last of his "ascending" to his Father. The
NIV embellishes the story by telling us that Jesus was going back or
returning to God.
A Son whose existence
is traced to his mother's womb cannot go back to the Father, since he
has never before been with the Father.
In John 17:5 Jesus
spoke of the glory which he "had" before the foundation of the world.
But in the same context (vv. 22 and 24) that same glory has already "been
given" (past tense) to disciples not yet born at the time when Jesus
spoke.
It is clear then that
the glory which both Jesus and the disciples "had" is a glory in
promise and prospect. Jesus thus prays to have conferred on him at his
ascension the glory which God had undertaken to give him from the foundation of
the world. John speaks in Jewish fashion of a preexisting Purpose, not a
preexisting second PerÂson. Our point was well expressed by a distinguished Lutheran
New Testament professor, H.H. Wendt (The System of Christian Teaching, 1907):
"It
is clear that John 8:58 ['Before Abraham was I am'] and 17:5 do not speak of a
real preexistence of Christ. We must not treat these verses in isolation, but
understand them in their context.
"The
saying in John 8:58, 'Before Abraham came to be, I am' was prompted by the fact
that Jesus' opponents had countered his remark in v. 51 by saying that Jesus
was not greater than Abraham or the prophets (v. 52). As the Messiah commissioned
by God Jesus is conscious of being in fact superior to Abraham and the
prophets. For this reason he replies (according to the intervening words, v.
54ff) that Abraham had 'seen his day,' i.e., the entrance of Jesus on his
historical ministry, and 'had rejoiced to see' that day.
"And
Jesus strengthens his argument by adding the statement, which sounded strange
to the Jews, that he had even been 'before Abraham' (v. 58). This last saying
must be understood in connection with v. 56. Jesus speaks in vv. 55, 56 and 58
as if his present ministry on earth stretches back to the time of Abraham and
even before. His sayings were perÂceived by the Jews in this sense and rejected
as nonÂsense.
"But Jesus obviously did not (in v. 56) mean that
Abraham had actually experienced Jesus' appearance on earth and seen it
literally. Jesus was referÂring to Abraham's spiritual vision of his
appearance on earth, by which Abraham, at the birth of Isaac, had foreseen at
the same time the promised MesÂsiah, and had rejoiced at the future prospect of
the greater one (the Messiah) who would be Israel's descendant.
"Jesus' reference
to his existence before Abraham's birth must be understood in the same sense.
There is no sudden heavenly preexistence of the Messiah here: the reference is
again obviously to his earthly existence. And this earthly existence is
precisely the existence of the Messiah. As such, it was not only present in
Abraham's mind, but even before his time, as the subject of God's foreordinaÂtion
and foresight.
"The sort of
preexistence Jesus has in mind is 'ideal' [in the world of ideas and plans]. In
accordance with this consciousness of being the Messiah preordained from the
beginning, Jesus can indeed make the claim to be greater than Abraham and the
prophets.
"In John 17:5
Jesus asks the Father to give him now the heavenly glory which he had with the
Father before the world was. The conclusion that because Jesus possessed a
preexistent glory in heaven he must also have preexisted personally in heaven
is taken too hastily. This is proven by Matt. 6:20 ('Lay up for yourselves
treasure in heaven'), 25:34 ('Come, you blessed by my Father, inherit the
Kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world'), Col. 1:5 ('the hope which is laid up for you in heaven about which you heard in the word of Truth,
the Gospel'), and I Pet. 1:4 ('an inheriÂtance incorruptible, and undefiled,
which does not fade away, reserved in
heaven for you').
"Thus a reward can also be thought of as pre-existent in heaven. Such a reward is destined
for human beings and already held in store, to be awarded to them at
the end of their life. So it is with heavenly glory which Jesus requests. He
is not asking for a return to an earlier heavenly condition. Rather he
asks God to give him now, at the end of his work as Messiah on earth (v. 4),
the heavenly reÂward which God had appointed from eternity for him, as Messiah.
As the Messiah and Son he knows he has been loved and foreordained by the
Father from eternity (v. 24). Both John 8:58 and 17:5 are concerned with
God's predetermination of the Messiah" (cp. Teaching of Jesus, pp. 453-460).
Note: Things which are
held in store as divine plans for the future are said to be "with
God." Thus in Job 10:13 Job says to God, "These things you have concealed
in your heart: I know that this is with You" (see KJV). "He
performs what is appointed for me, and many such decrees are with Him"
Gob 23:14).
Thus the glory which
Jesus had "with God" was the glory which God had planned for him as
the deÂcreed reward for his Messianic work now completed. The promise of glory
"preexisted," not Jesus himself.
Note that this same
glory which Jesus asked for has alÂready been given to you ( see John 17:22,
24). It was given to you and Jesus whom God loved before the foundation of the
world (v. 24; cp Eph. 1:4). You may therefore say that you now
"have" that glory although it is glory in promise and prospect, to be
gained at the Second Coming. Jesus had that same glory in prospect before the
foundation of the world John 17:5).
Paul can say that we
now "have" a new body with God
in heaven (II Cor. 5:1) - i.e., we have the promise of it, not in actuality. That body will be ours at our resurrection at
the return of Christ. We now "have" it in anticipation and promise
only. ('We have a building of God..." II Cor. 5:1). We do not in fact have
it yet. This is the very Jewish language of promises decreed by God. They are
absolutely certain to be fulfilled.
 Sir Anthony Buzzard was born in Surrey England and
educated at Oxford University. He holds Master's degrees in languages and theology
and presently teaches at Atlanta Bible College. He has authored numerous books
and articles including The Doctrine if the Trinity: Christianity's Self-inflicted Wound. In 1996 he was a nominee for the Templeton Prize for
progress in religion. He can be reached at:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
| Home | Back | Top of Page |
|
