Continuing,

• The New Testament distinctions between the ‘Father’ and the ‘Son’ are a result of the incarnation that occurred in Time and not from an eternal separation of persons or plurality in the Godhead.

First, what is the ‘Godhead’? The Greek is θειότης (theiotes) can be found in Romans 1.20 whereas θεότης (theotes)is found in Colossians 2.9. Trench comments on the use of theiotes in Romans, saying,

“St. Paul is declaring how much of God may be known from the revelation of Himself which He has made in nature, from those vestiges of Himself which men may everywhere trace in the world around them. Yet it is not the personal God whom any man may learn to know by these aids: He can be known only by the revelation of Himself in His Son; but only His divine attributes, His majesty and glory . . . it is not to be doubted that St. Paul uses this vaguer, more abstract, and personal word, just because he would affirm that men may know God’s power and majesty, His divine power from His works; but would not imply that they may know Himself from these, or anything short of the revelation of His eternal Word.”

Vincent says,

“Godhead expresses deity (theotēs). Theiotēs is godhood, not godhead. It signifies the sum-total of the divine attributes.”

For Colossians 2.9, Kenneth Wuest wrote,

“The compound verb was used of the permanent residents of a town as compared with the transient community. The verb is in the present tense, showing durative action. The translation reads: ‘Because in Him there is continuously and permanently at home all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily fashion.’”

To be sure, let us include Acts 17.29 in our discussion here. Here, in the KJV, ‘godhead’ is used for the Greek θεῖος. Robertson says, ‘Infinitive with accusative of general reference in indirect discourse. To theion is strictly “the divine” nature like theiotēs (Romans 1:20) rather than like theotēs (Colossians 2:9). Paul may have used to theion here to get back behind all their notions of various gods to the real nature of God. The Athenians may even have used the term themselves. After homoios (like) the associative instrumental case is used as with chrusōi, argurōi, lithōi.’ Paul is not talking of a collective, or unified deity, but the divine or deity that they are seeking to know.

So, let’s read ourselves of the non-biblical word of Godhead, and instead say divinity in Romans and Godhood in Colossians.

We know when comparing John 6:38 to Isaiah 55:11, we see this:

For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. (John)

and

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (Isaiah - KJV)

So shall my word be, whatever goes out from my mouth; it shall not return until whatever I have willed is fulfilled, and I will prosper your ways and my commandments. (NETS)

Let’s examine Hebrews 1:3 and compare that with Wisdom 7:25-26

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (Hebrews)

ος ων απαυγασμα της δοξης και χαρακτηρ της υποστασεως αυτου φερων τε τα παντα τω ρηματι της δυναμεως αυτου δι εαυτου καθαρισμον ποιησαμενος των αμαρτιων ημων εκαθισεν εν δεξια της μεγαλωσυνης εν υψηλοις

and

For she is the breath of the power of God, and a emanation from the pure glory of the Almighty: therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For she is a reflection of eternal light and a spotless mirror of the activity of God, and the image of his goodness. (Wisdom – NETS)

ἀτμὶς γάρ ἐστιν τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δυνάμεως καὶ ἀπόρροια τῆς τοῦ παντοκράτορος δόξης εἰλικρινής· διὰ τοῦτο οὐδὲν μεμιαμμένον εἰς αὐτὴν παρεμπίπτει. ἀπαύγασμα γάρ ἐστιν φωτὸς ἀιδίου καὶ ἔσοπτρον ἀκηλίδωτον τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐνεργείας καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ

Essentially, the Logos/Son is an emanation from God, flowing from Him. ἀπαύγασμα (apaugasma) is given several different meanings by Thayer: Reflected brightness, effulgence, or out-raying. There is debate among commentators whether the term apaugasma should be translated as “reflection” or “radiance” considered as an object. The former has a passive meaning, while the latter has an active meaning, implying that the son is active in his radiance from “the glory.” The author is using the metaphor of a reflection and its source to depict the relationship between the son and God. The son is the emanation from God.

Wuest says, “The word apaugasma is not preceded by the definite article, which fact makes the term highly descriptive of character or nature, [1] ” while the Expositor’s note reads, ‘“In the Arian controversy (Ed note: Arius taught that the Son was a created being, inferior to God the father in nature and dignity though the first and noblest of all created beings) this designation of the Son was appealed to as proving that He is eternally generated and exists not by an act of the Father’s will but essentially… As the sun cannot exist or a lamp burn without radiating light, so God is essentially Father and Son.[2]”

The author of Hebrews uses other parallel phrases to describe Wisdom (parallel phrases and thoughts to Wisdom can be found throughout the New Testament) as both coming from God and being what God is without being God (thus preventing Patripassianism): “For she is a breath of the power of God, a pure emanation from the glory of the Almighty…..an apaugasma of the eternal light and the unspotted mirror of the work of God and the image of his goodness.” The two phrases before “an apaugasma of the everlasting light” are emanationist. The two phrases following “an apaugasma of the eternal light,” however, have a passive meaning: “the spotless mirror of the working of God and the image of his goodness.” Thus, it is not clear how the author intends that the phrase “an apaugasma of the everlasting light” be understood, as active as radiance or passive as reflection. The assigned meaning is somewhat irrelevant to the purpose of the author. The author of Wisdom is personifying wisdom as an attribute of God, and not speaking about Wisdom as an entity distinct or separate from God so too for the author of Hebrews. The image is of a man is not a separate person, nor the breath, the thought, or the action.

It must be noted that in the entire Greek bible, (Old, Deuterocanon, and New) apaugasma only appears twice and both times, it speaks about an attribute emanating from God. It is much more likely that the authors of Wisdom and Hebrews understood the emanation and the emanated in much the same way, than it is to say that this very important word had two distinct meanings, although used in the same context, for two different authors.

The word in Isaiah emanates from God and carries His will, but not as distinct or separate. In John and Hebrews, we see that the Logos/son is the emanation from God, but yet, not distinct, which is why the Logos/son is sent from God, and is God without being the God (so that God did not die on the cross). God sent the Logos/son to be the sacrifice, but the emanation from God was still God. When the Word finished God’s will, it returned to Him, not distinct, not separate.

The emanation ‘doctrine’ prevents the idea of eternal coexistence or preexistence. In Psalms 2:7 (LXX), we read:

διαγγέλλων τὸ πρόσταγμα κυρίου Κύριος εἶπεν πρός με Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε·

Which I translate as:

You are My Son, this day I have brought you forth.

And if I was creating a study bible, I would add a note that looks like this:

brought forth - caused to be from God’s own essence.

Psalms 2.7 points to a time in history that the Son of God was brought forth unto the stage of history. To say otherwise is to declare that from the beginning of eternity, God knew that He would create humanity and that humanity would fall into sin and that He would need to create a body for a sacrifice.

In opposition to the doctrine of the Trinity, the Modalism holds to a numerical oneness view of God. It views the Trinitarian concept of God, that of God eternally existing as three distinctive (separate) persons, as inadequate and a departure from the consistent and emphatic biblical revelation of God being one.

In I Timothy 3:16, Paul tells us that there is a great mystery concerning the revelation of God. Trinitarians would tell us that the doctrine of the Trinity is a profound mystery that is beyond our comprehension, which is something that Rome holds to very securely. In some seminaries, when the Trinity is taught, it is reminded that local congregations have a difficult time receiving the Trinity, so it is best to avoid the doctrine in discussion.

The question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not the Bible tells us that the nature of the Godhead is so mysterious that we cannot grasp it in this lifetime, but only in eternity. If this is so, then we should expect to find scriptural support for this theory, but the exact opposite is true. John, when he is caught up to heaven had this to say, “Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne set in heaven, and One sat on the throne.” Would not the Apostle, who wrote the finest statements on the reality of the Incarnation, be surprised to find only One on the throne if he had indeed seen and written about a separation existing in the Godhead.

The Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 1:20 that God has revealed His existence to all of humanity and that we are accountable to Him for this knowledge. In others words, ‘only a fool says in his heart that there is no God. ‘

Romans 1.20 -

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. - NKJV

If the existence of God is clearly revealed to us, as Romans 1:20 indicates, and further, if the fact that Christ is the fullness of Godhood, then what is this profound mystery that Trinitarians use as a catch-all in defending their incomprehensible plurality of persons concept? What was the Apostle Paul referring to when his spoke of this great mystery? God has revealed that He exists; Christ is revealed as God Himself, fully.

The Byzantine Textual Tradition reads as follows:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

In addition to this text, Paul closes the book of Romans by telling us that us God has indeed revealed the mystery and it is no longer a secret. In fact it has been made known to all the nations.

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen. (Romans 16:25-27)

Further, Paul tells Titus,

“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.”

Peter addresses his second epistle ‘to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’, to which Robertson comments,

“Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ (tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou). So the one article (tou) with theou and sōtēros requires precisely as with tou kuriou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in 2Peter 1:11 as in 2Pe. 2:20; 2Pe. 3:2, 2Pe. 3:18. So in 1Pe. 1:3 we have ho theos kai patēr (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, Grammar, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, Grammatik, p. 158) admits: “Grammar demands that one person be meant.” Moulton (Prol., p. 84) cites papyri examples of like usage of theos for the Roman emperors. See the same idiom in Titus 2:13. The use of theos by Peter as a predicate with Jesus Christ no more disproves the Petrine authorship of this Epistle than a like use in John 1:1 disproves the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the same use in Titus 2:13 disproves the genuineness of Titus. Peter had heard Thomas call Jesus God (John 20:28) and he himself had called him the Son of God (Mat. 16:16).”

Starting with the next post on this topic, I will begin to address specific arguments, such as God the Father, God the Son or Son of God, Logos, right hand, etc…

---

[1] Wuest, K. S. Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: Eerdmans

[2] Gaebelein, F, Editor: Expositor’s Bible Commentary 6-Volume New Testament. Zondervan Publishing.

Your response: