William Wachtel Multimedia • About William Wachtel
<Prev Next>
Page 3- Christian Monotheism: Reality or Illusion?
III. THE JEWISH THEOLOGY OF THE APOSTLES
Some have claimed, however, that the apostles laid the foundation for modifying this strict monotheism toward the direction of trinitarianism. This claim suggests that trinitarianism is at least implicit in the New Testament. We believe, on the contrary, that it cannot be proved that Jesus' apostles ever departed from their Master's and their nation's faith in one supreme person as God. Paul, for example, reminded the Corinthian church, "We know that 'an idol has no real existence,' and that 'there is no God but one.' For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'--yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist" (1 Cot. 8:4-6, RSV; cf. Eph. 4:4-6). It seems passing strange for Paul to word this confession of the Christians' faith in this way, if he believed that Jesus Christ is also the "one God." Elsewhere Paul affirms, "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). The mediator, however exalted and precious, is a man. God Himself is clearly distinguished from this man who is the Lord Jesus Christ. The Father is truly seen as the one and only God, distinct and unequalled, forever supreme (cf. 1 Cot. 15:24-28). This is Paul's Christian monotheism, as strict and pure as any monotheism could be.
The Apostle Peter speaks of "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 1:3), acknowledging the one whom Jesus called "my God" (Matt. 27:46; John 20:17). James also expressed his belief in monotheism: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder" (2:19, NIV). It is not sufficient to believe that God is one; but that belief is itself good and proper and right. Any other belief for James would be out of the question. James was a Jewish Christian, writing from the strongly Jewish milieu of the Jerusalem church, and it is hard to resist the impression that he speaks here as any pious Jew would do, from his belief in the One God, as in the Shema, the watchword of Israel's monotheistic orthodoxy.
1V DISPUTED TEXTS
This brings us to the final part of our theme, a consideration of texts that are often used to refute our thesis that the New Testament maintains the same strict monotheism as the Old Testament. Trinitarian theologians have seen in such texts a reason to modify that monotheism and to view God as a tripersonal Being--three distinct persons within the Godhead, co-equal, consubstantial, and co-eternal. These are, of course, the classical terms defining the Nicene Orthodoxy.
Jesus said, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30). Some exegetes understand Him to mean "are one God." If Jesus is allowed to explain the oneness He has in mind, however, it appears, that it is not a oneness of being--or consubstantiality--but a oneness of purpose and action. He later could pray that His disciples might share the same oneness that exists between Himself and the Father (John 17:21-23)--"that they may be one, just as (kathos) we are one." It is, therefore, questionable exegesis which finds support in John 10:30 for an ontological unity of the Son and the Father as God. We conclude that the use of this text for such a purpose is unwarranted.
Christ told His disciple Philip, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9, NIV). A son may be expected to be like his father, and in Jesus' case this was perfectly true (Heb. 1:3; 2 Cor. 4:4), but to use this saying to prove consubstantiality goes beyond the evidence. Furthermore, taken literally, it proves more than trinitarianism would allow, making the Father and the Son identical persons.
Thomas called the risen Christ, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28). This text is thought to be impregnable support for Christ's being Deity in the ontological sense. Christ did say, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" and "Just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father" (John 5:21-23, NIV). But He was pointing out that as He walked the earth throughout His ministry, He was doing the works and saying the words of God. That is, He was functionally serving as God Himself upon the earth. When men saw Jesus Christ in their midst, it was as if they saw God Himself doing the works. "Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me ? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work" (John 14:10; cf. 5:17, 19, 20). These are the words of one who saw God at work in and through Him in a unique way, not one who considered Himself the same Being as the eternal God, now come down to earth. Just because the Jews claimed that Jesus was making Himself equal with God (John 5:18; 10: 33) does not mean that Christian believers must understand that equality in an ontological sense, whether or not the Jews so understood His claim.
The Old Testament had prepared the way for the use of the term "God" in a secondary sense. Moses is twice called Elohim, and that by God Himself. (Ex. 4:16; 7:1). In John 10:34 Jesus Himself quoted Psalm 82, in which the judges of Israel are twice called Elohim (verses 1 and 6). He quoted this psalm for the express purpose of refuting the Jews' claim that He was making Himself equal with God in any sense that would violate their monotheism. He insists that He is the Son of God, not God (v. 36). And He goes on to reiterate that His identification with His Father is functional and relational, not ontological (vv. 37, 38). Even this did not satisfy them, however, and they tried once more to arrest Him, since they would not accept His claim to be the Messiah, the Son of God (cf. Mark 14:61-64). This, to them, was blasphemy.