THE
ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY By WILLIAM B. CHALFANT Thd. |
I.
TRINITY ORIGINS
THE
ANTIQUITY OF PAGAN TRINITIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD
This
paper will propose to examine the philosophical and pagan origins of
the Trinity and its early development. Pagan pantheons (national
families of gods) of the various ethnic gods will be compared, and
triads (sets of three gods) in these pantheons will be examined for
specific trinitarian qualities. The antiquity of the Babylonian
pantheon, and its subsequent influence upon the various pantheons, is
pointed out. The
idea of the Greek “Logos” (Word), a secondary, derived messenger
god, is seen in the ancient pantheons of the nations with a clear
differentiation observed between the pagan-philosophical use of the
term “logos” (word), and the Hebrew understanding of the term in
their writings up to the time of Philo, the Jewish priest-philosopher
of Alexandria. The
gnostic influence of the Greek and neoplatonic philosophers upon the
architects of the Christian Trinity is emphasized, especially the
critical role of Philo in the development of the Logos
doctrine, which is a
keystone doctrine of trinitarian theology. The
Catholic fathers of the Trinity are identified, and comments will be
made upon the comparative, developmental trinitarian theology among
them. Theological
concepts developed by early trinitarians will be noted. One such
example is subordinationism,
a fatal flaw of trinitarian theology, which forever subordinates Jesus
Christ to the status of a secondary, derived God. The
antiquity of the Trinity is not denied. On the contrary, the Trinity
doctrine has taken many millennia to develope, and is yet in the
process of change. Our
study will show that the Trinity is actually of pagan, philosophical
ancestry, and was engrafted onto, and accomodated to, Christian
theology. Many
scholars in comparative religion and mythology have found common
relationships and attributes among the various pantheons. Alexander Hislop, in his TWO BABYLONS, seems to trace the various mythologies back to a common heritage. Hislop pointed out the antiquity of the theological concept of the Trinity by giving examples of pagan trinities in Siberia, Japan, and India. He noted that the recognition of the Trinity was “universal in all the ancient nations of the world”. He went so far as to say that “the supreme divinity in almost all heathen nations was triune”. While Hislop was attempting to prove that mankind has always believed in a “trinity”, he also unwittingly shows the pagan origins of the idea of a “trinity”.
NO
TEACHING OF A TRINITY IN OLD TESTAMENT JUDAISM
Arthur
Wainwright can find no doctrine remotely resembling the doctrine of
the Trinity taught in Judaism, the ancestor of Christianity, until the
time of Philo in the first century AD. And we know that Philo, even
though he was a Jewish priest, was heavily influenced by Greek pagan
thought. The
idea of a “plural” God was far from the Hebrew mind. The
non-canonical book of Jubilees (second century BC) alters the plural
verb of Genesis 1.26, in conformity with Genesis 1.27, stating, “And
after all this he created man, a man and a woman, created he them”
(Jubilees 2.14). Both
the Palestinian Targum and the Jerusalem Targum maintain that God was
addressing the angels in Genesis 3.22 and in Genesis 11.7. The
Jews, who, after all, wrote the Old Testament under the inspiration of
the Spirit, themselves refute the presence of any “Trinity” in
Genesis.
VARIOUS
ANCIENT PAGAN TRIADS
The
pagan idea of a triad is
very old. Sumerians, according to Morris Jastrow, paid homage to a
triad of El-lil, “god or lord of the storm”, Ea, “water deity”
of Eridu on the Persian Gulf, and Anu, sun god of Ur-uk. El-lil,
was called “the father of Sumer” (“Shinar”), and “chief of
gods”, “creator and sustainer of life”. The universe was
apparently up among these three “pre-eminent” deities. Later,
Marduk, the “firstborn” of Ea, and the patron deity of Babylon, is
made “god of the earth”, Ashur,
the god of the Assyrian capital was a “sun god”, and his consort
or wife was Ishtar, the “great mother” goddess of Nineveh, a city
founded by Ninus or Nimrod. Ishtar,
known as Ashtoreth to the Phoenicians, and Astarte to the Greeks, was
often portrayed riding on a lion. She was called the daughter of the
moon, and identified in astrology as the Roman Venus (“goddess of
love”). She was also known as Nana or Madonna (Lady). Morris
Jastrow tells us that the Mother Goddess was quite common throughout
the Middle east. She was brought from Asia minor to Rome with the hope
that her statue (idol) might save the Roman state from the
Carthaginians. Ishtar
has a bloody history as a goddess. She was reputedly the murderer of
her consort Tammuz (variously known as Baal, Adonis, the Egyptian
Osiris, the Greek Bacchus, or simply Nimrod). Queen Semiramis later
brought forth an illegitimate son, which she claimed was Nimrod
resurrected. He was called El-Bar, or “God the Son”, and “the
Branch of Cush”. Thus was formulated one of the ancient triadic
patterns of “father, mother, son” The
early triadic pattern is noted in connection with the construction of
the Tower of Babel. Diodorus Siculus, in his Bibliotheca,
relates that in the topmost completed story of the Tower was placed
the images of three gods. Franz
Cumont tells us that triads were very common in the religion of the
Chaldeans. The Babylonian triad became the Syrian triad of Hadad,
Atargatis, and Simios. In Rome, this triad was Jupiter, Venus, and
Mercury. Not only did the triadic pattern of deity spread throughout
the world, but Cumont remarks on the continuing influence of the
Babylonian priesthood after the fall of Babylon from political
leadership. The
system of the Babylonian priests affected many other countries
worldwide (e.g., the Druids of England and Europe).
SOME
PAGAN TRINITIES SIMILAR IN STRUCTURE TO THE CATHOLIC TRINITY
Trinitarians
today may argue that the pagan trinities were completely different
from the model of the Christian Trinity. But some pagan triads have
models which are surprisingly familiar. For example, the Hindu
Trinity: The conception most closely linked with Vedism and Brahmanism is that of the Hindu Trinity, the Trimurti. ‘The Absolute manifests himself in three persons, Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer’. The syllable we write as om, but which is in reality made up of three words, ‘a’, ‘u’, and ‘m’, (which) is the symbol of this trinity. -Asiatic
Mythology And
the Egyptian triad of the sun god was “one god expressed in three
persons”. He was known as the “noonday sun” (Ra), “the evening
sun” (Tum), and “the dawning sun” (Khepera). The sun god
reportedly said, “Lo! I am Khepera at dawn, Ra at high noon, and Tum
at eventide”. He was one god in three distinct persons. And so it is
not correct to say that the pagan trinities do not resemble the
Christian Trinity, insofar as the structure goes. II
TRINITARIAN DEVELOPMENT
NEO-PLATONIC
SCHOOL INDEBTED TO BABYLONIAN WISDOM
The
ancient Greeks were very impressed with the wisdom of the Babylonians.
Franz Cumont said, “Philosophy claimed more and more to derive its
inspiration from the fabulous wisdom of Chaldea (Babylon) and
Egypt”. According
to Cumont, the “entire neo-platonic
school is heavily indebted to the Chaldeans
(Babylonians)”. It was the neo-platonic school of philosophy which
influenced the Catholic fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria,
and Origen. Porphyry
reveals that the neo-platonists had incorporated Babylonian and
Persian demonology into their philosophical system.
PLATO
CONVEYED THE IDEA OF A MESSENGER GOD (LOGOS) TO THE CATHOLIC FATHERS
Plato,
the famed Greek philosopher, greatly influenced the Catholic fathers.
He was acquainted with Babylonian wisdom, and had traveled to
Babylonia, Israel, and Egypt. Plato
advocated the idea of a secondary messenger god, representing the
unknown primary god, who remained impassible (unable to suffer or to
feel pain) and unknowable. This being was called the Logos
(“the Word”). This
messenger god was known in Babylon and Egypt. The Egyptian god Thoth (Tammuz)
was called the “Logos”: Father of Light, O Logos that orderest day and night, come show thyself to me. O god of gods, in thy ape-form enter. -Lewis R. Farnell Showerman
says that the ancient writer Harpocration associated the phrase
“mysterious Logos” to the god Attis (who would equate to Tammuz,
Thoth or Nimrod). He also accords the Greek messenger god Hermes the
title of “Logos”, and Dunlap speaks of a Chaldean Logos. The
idea of a separate, secondary “messenger” god is a key element in
the Trinity doctrine. We can see that this idea is pre-Christian and
it is pagan. The
Catholic fathers obviously obtained this idea from the Greek
philosophers, who in turn obtained it from Babylonian and oriental
religions. It does not come from the Bible. Ishtar
was identified as the “Logos” of the Babylonian god El-lil. She
supposedly exclaimed, “Of the lord (El-lil), his Word (Logos) am
I”. In other words, she (her priests) claimed to be the spokesperson
for El-lil.
THE
APOSTLE JOHN ATTEMPTED TO DESTROY THE CONCEPT OF A SECONDARY LOGOS
MESSENGER GOD
The
pagan concept of the Logos can be seen as a bridge for introducing the
equally pagan idea of a triadic deity. The
apostle John, in penning John 1.1 was actually apparently responding
to those early Christian gnostics who were identifying Jesus with the
pagan Logos. He specifically identifies the biblical “logos”
(“word”) as God the Father Himself. He does not advocate the
concept of Christ as a separate, pre-existing divine Person,
co-existing with God the Father. As
Granville Henry has observed: Did John intend to introduce Greek philosophical, scientific or religious representations for the person of Christ? A broad concensus of contemporary New Testament scholars maintains that the logos Christology of John must be understood in its peculiarly Hebrew context. To deviate from this context and emphasize Greek meanings is to make a major error in interpretation. The
Greek concept of a personal, separate divine Logos, distinct from God,
or a “second God”, was unknown to the apostles, and entirely
foreign to their understanding of a solitary divine God, who was known
to them from the days of Abraham. They recognized that sole divinity
in Jesus Christ. Thomas had knelt before Him exclaiming “My Lord and
my God” (John 20.28).
HOW
WAS THIS GREEK CONCEPT OF A DERIVED SECONDARY MESSENGER GOD INTRODUCED
INTO CHRISTIANTIY?
Philo
Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD) of Alexandria was the man who attempted to fuse
the strict monotheistic theology of the Hebrew religion with the
transcendental theology and philosophy of the Greek platonists. As
Alvan Lamson has written: The
authors of the Septuagint version and the Platonists employed the same
term (logos) to express totally different views: the former
(Septuagint) intending by it simply a mode of action in the Deity; the
latter (the Platonists) , a real being, (the Deity’s) agent and
minister in executing his will. Philo was the first, we believe, who
attributed to the Logos a There
is a vast difference in understanding the word of God as a “mode of
action” (e.g., God speaking light into existence) and in
understanding the word of God as a separate being from God. But
Philo was to have a profound influence upon the Catholic fathers, and
therefore upon the development of the Catholic Trinity. Through
the use of “allegorical interpretation” (what we also understand
as “spiritualization” today), which had long been known to the
students of Homer, and which was systematized by the Stoic
philosophers, Philo began his effort to combine the absolute
monotheism of Judaism with the transcendentalist theology of
Platonism. He was actually attempting a synthesis of biblical theology
and pagan philosophy. Plato
described the pagan Logos as a Jewish “archangel”. To Philo, the
Logos was “the Idea of ideas, the firstbegotten Son of the uncreated
Father, and the second God”. The
cosmos, Philo wrote, “is held together by the power of the Logos”.
The “Supreme God” is too remote and impassible to have direct
contact with this world, and so it is the Logos who appears to man
(e.g., as in the burning bush to Moses). Philo
wrote about this concept of his in the following manner: The Absolute Being, the Father, who had begotten all things, gave an especial grace to the Archangel and First-born Logos (Word), that standing between, He might sever the creature from the Creator. The same is ever the Intercessor for the dying mortal before the immortal God, and the Ambassador and the Ruler to the subject. He is neither without beginning of days, as God is, nor is He begotten, as we are, but is something between these extremes, being connected with both. The
reader can see that Philo’s conception of the Logos, with some
modifications, is very similar to later trinitarian teaching on the
Catholic Logos. Charles
Semisch has stated, “The early (Catholic) Fathers only poured the
contents of the scriptures into a Philonian vessel: they view the
biblical passages through a Philonian medium”. Henry
Malter believes that Philo actually wanted to prove that Judaism and
Hellenism (Greek philosophy) taught the same divine truth in just a
different way.
WAS
PHILO A GNOSTIC?
If
we accept the thesis that Philo greatly influenced the development of
the Catholic Trinity through his idea of grafting the pagan Logos into
the Old Testament teaching, then we might well consider his
relationship to gnosticism. Philip
Carrington believes that Philo was a gnostic, and Carrington had this
to say: (Philo was) the first and only Jewish philosopher of antiquity. To him Plato was only Moses talking Greek. But in spite of his Judaism and Platonism, he shows only too many traces of that gnostic error which is so fatal to sound thinking. Elaine
Pagels, in her excellent study of the gnostic “gospels”, has
stated that Wilhelm Bousset claims to have traced gnosticism back to
ancient Babylonian and Persian sources. The gnostics believed that
matter was evil, and they believed in an unknown God with lesser
emanations from the spirit world. Martin
Larson, speaking of Christian gnosicism, said, “The gnostic heresy
had its roots in the concept that Christ had existed as a separate
power since the creation of the world”. And
James Adam noted, “The distinction which Plato...introduced into the
being of the Godhead prepared the way for the theology of Philo”.
Plato’s “conception of the divine nature as a differentiated
unity...(bears) a certain resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the
Trinity”. Philo
was influenced by Plato’s Timaeus when he called the Logos
“the image of God”, and “the second God”. This led James Adam
to write: The Timaeus did more than any other literary masterpiece to facilitate and promote the fusion of Hellenism and Hebraism out of which so much of Christian theology has sprung. Why
don’t the trinitarian Christians today want people to know the
background of the Trinity doctrine? Why do they attempt to ignore the
history of the doctrine? When confronted with this truthful history,
many of them attempt to belittle the importance of the origins of the
trinity doctrine. H.A.
Wolfson declares that the Catholic fathers, in discussing the
pre-existent Christ, show “unmistakable evidence of the influence of
the Philonic Logos”. And Wolfson notes that: All of these (Catholic) fathers seemed to have identified the Johannine Logos with the Philonic Logos, and they also seemed to have known of Philo’s two-fold stage theory of the pre-existent Logos, and they seem to have consciously transferred this twofold stage theory from the Platonic Logos to the Johannine Logos. Wolfson
believes that the Catholic fathers “consciously transferred” the
pagan idea of the Logos to the Christian Logos of the apostle John!
How can trinitarian scholars today honestly claim that the doctrine of
the Trinity has no pagan influence in it? H.
Kennedy wrote, “It can scarcely be denied that (Philo’s)
particular differentiation of the Logos from the Supreme God had an
exceptional influence on the subsequent Christology of the church”.
How can trinitarians not see the influence of Greek philosophy and the
Jewish priest, Philo, on the doctrine of the Trinity? Their only
answer is that the Catholic fathers merely “used” Greek philosophy
to confirm the scripturality of the Trinity doctrine. But since there
is a glaring lack any of the components of the Trinity doctrine in the
scriptures (e.g., terms such as “three persons”,
“three-in-one”, “co-equal”, “co-eternal”, not to mention
the word “trinity”), it is obvious that this is not so. And,
as Henry Chadwick said, “The history of Christian philosophy begins
not with a Christian, but with a Jew”. It is sad indeed that a Jew
played such a role in formulating the doctrine of the Trinity, which
downgrades the Lord Jesus Christ to a subordinate role contrary to
scripture. Another Jew, Paul of Tarsus, warned Christians about
philosophy, vain deceit, and the traditions of men (see Colossians
2.8).
III
ARCHITECTS OF THE CATHOLIC TRINITY
Clement
of Alexandria (150-213 AD), head of one of the early Christian
schools, which was heavily influenced by philosophy and gnosticism,
admitted that he was opposed by those who still considered philosophy
“evil”. He made light of their opposition and said that they were
light and “ignorant”. He denounced the “so-called orthodoxy who,
like beasts which work from fear, do good works without knowing what
they are doing”. But Clement, of course, knew what he was
doing. He had a special gnosis (knowledge) that the ignorant
“orthodox” did not possess. Friedrich
Ueberweg says that “Gnosticism was the first comprehensive attempt
to contruct a philosophy of Christianity”. The more flagrant
gnostics, such as Cerdo, Cerinthus, Saturninus, and even Marcion, had
been expelled from the church. These more flambuoyant gnostics were
only the “tip of the iceberg”. There was still a remnant in the
churches, who obviously began developing some philosophical system of
Christianity that would compete, so they thought, in the Gentile
world. The
apostle Paul was troubled with gnostics, and spoke against those who
clung to “falsely-named science” (knowledge or gnosis) (1
Timothy 6.20). Simon
Magus (Acts 8), who clashed with Philip and Peter, was said to have
been the teacher of the gnostic Menander. Menander, in turn, was the
master of the famous gnostics, Saturninus and Basilides. Gnosticism,
after Judaism, had the dubious honor of being the earliest heresy of
Christianity. Isn’t is strange that gnostics seem to disappear, to
some degree, after the ascendancy of the Catholics? Gnosticism is
probably the breeding ground of trinitarian theology. Clement
of Alexander is certainly one of the Catholic fathers of the Trinity.
The influence of Philo and gnosticism is seen in both him and his
successor Origen. In
Stromateis (i.vi.28), Clement wrote, “Philosophy...was a
schoolmaster to bring Hellenism to Christ, (just) as the Law was for
the Hebrews”. The
Bible college at Alexandria, under the presidency of Clement of
Alexandria, “opened its arms to the teachers of gnosticism”
(Charles Merivale). E.G.
Weltin called Clement a “Christian Platonist and gnostic”. Like
Philo, Clement taught that the Logos was an Angel. In
Paedagogus, Clement wrote, “the Logos has appeared, and fear
is turned to love, and that mystic angel (Jesus) is born”. And he
wrote, “God is one, and beyond the one, and above the Monad
itself”. According
to Moses Stuart, Clement “so distinguished between the substance of
the Father and of the Son as to make the latter inferior”. And
Photius wrote that Clement, in his now lost work Hypotyposes,
held to the argument of the Son as a creature, and asserted the
doctrine of the transmigration of souls. And
while Alexandria may well be the site where the Trinity doctrine was
transplanted into Catholic Christianity, there was an earlier writer
from Athens, Quadratus, who may have written Logos theology as early
as 125 AD. If Quadratus was the author of The Epistle To Diognetus,
he used the Logos doctrine and praised gnosticism. Another
Catholic architect of the Trinity doctrine was Justin Martyr
(c.100-165 AD), who was reportedly converted to Catholicism, which was
probably a small minority group at that time, in about 133 AD. Justin
never discarded his pallium (philosopher’s cloak). Justin
taught during the time of an outburst of gnosticism (the “heyday”
of Valentinus, Basilides, Cerdon, and Marcion). Justin desired to
understand the Messiah in the light of Greek philosophy. He wrote: At the beginning, before all creatures, God begat of Himself a certain rational power, which, by the Holy Spirit, is also called the Glory of the Lord-now Son, now Wisdom, now Angel, now God, now Lord, and Logos.
THE
SUBORDINATION OF JESUS CHRIST AS A DERIVED GOD
Justin
did not teach the “eternal generation” of the Logos, as later
Catholic fathers (such as one of his pupils, Irenaeus, was to do) did,
but rather he taught that the Logos, or reason of God, which, was
before the creation, voluntarily “begotten” (or emitted) from the
Father, and was thus converted
into a real, separate Person. Thus the Son became a “derived
Being”. This doctrine of
derivation implies inferiority, and as Alvan Lamson says,
“a derived God cannot be a self-existent God”. The
subordination of Jesus Christ has been a hallmark of trinitarian
doctrine down through the centuries. Although the Athanasians (and
modern trinitarians) claim to have corrected this subordination at
Nicea in 325 AD, there are those today (and especially the common
people who are trinitarians) who still argue that Jesus cannot be God
the Father due to His inferiority to God the Father. If
Jesus is not entitled to every title that belongs to God, then Jesus
is not fully God. Since we know that Jesus is fully God, we know that
He is worthy of the title “God the Father”. The
twofold-stage theory of
the Lord’s birth is a key building block of the doctrine of the
Trinity. Initially, Proverbs 8.22 was used to validate this teaching.
The Catholic-Confraternity-Douay Version of this passage reads: “The
Lord begot me, the first-born of his ways, the forerunner of his
prodigies of long ago”. This was used to show that Jesus was born
before the ages. Thus, the Lord was (1) born before the ages, and (2)
born at Bethlehem. The gross inferiority that this brought to the Son
began to be apparent, and Catholic fathers such as Irenaeus, Origen,
and Novatian, began to teach an eternal begetting of the Son in
order to assure the Son’s eternal equality with the Father. Athenagoras,
Theophilus, who is first noted using the word triados (180 AD)
to describe the Godhead, and Tertullian all held to the twofold stage
theory. Novatian,
realizing that this greatly subordinated the Son, wrote: But He who is before all time must be said to have been always in the Father; for no time can be assigned to Him who is before all time. And He is always in the Father, unless the Father be not always Father, only that the Father precedes Him-in a certain sense-since it is necessary in some degree that He should before (since) He is Father. He
is “always in the Father”, but the Father “precedes Him-in a
certain sense”? In “some degree”? What contradictory nonsense!
He is “always in the Father”, but, then again, no He is not since
the Father precedes Him? But this great spiritual “truth” is
qualified with “in a certain sense”, and
“ by “some degree”! To what lengths will the trinitarian go to
keep his “co-equal” Persons and yet keep his “eternal Son”? Athanasius
tried to correct this imbalance dogmatically, and Augustine saw it. He
said, “The Son is equal to the Father, but not while the Son is in
the flesh”. By making this statement, Augustine denies the
incarnation, since the incarnation is “God manifest in the flesh”.
The Son is the flesh. It is not the Son in the Son, but rather the
Father in the Son.
THE
LOGOS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT MADE INTO TWO PERSONS
Another
step in the origin and development of the Trinity was the introduction
of the heretical view that the Holy Spirit and the Logos were two
separate divine Persons. Wolfson
notes that the Catholic fathers merely followed Philo in alleging that
the Holy Spirit and the Logos were two distinct beings or persons. When
the Catholic fathers distinguished between the Holy Spirit and the
Logos, they were then forced to re-interpret the writings of Matthew
and John. John
had written that the Logos was made flesh (John 1.14), but Matthew had
said that that which was conceived in Mary was of the Holy Ghost (the
supposed Third Person) (Matthew 1.20). And
Jesus clearly identified the Father as His Father (the supposed First
Person). This presented a problem for the founding fathers of the
Trinity. How did they respond to this paradox. Justin
Martyr of Rome and Theophilus of Antioch stated that the Holy Spirit
in Luke 1.35 and Matthew 1.20 was not actually the “Third Person”
in this case, but rather “the Logos” (the Second Person) in a
sense! Here is some more specious nonsense! Justin wrote, “It is
wrong to understand the Spirit and power of God as anything else
(other) than the Logos, who is also the firstborn of God” (Apology
I.33). Most
of the Catholic fathers were astute enough to avoid the contradiciton
by maintaining that the “members of the Trinity” had
“cooperated” in the virgin birth. Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus,
Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Novatian all held this view. Otherwise,
they would have been forced to admit that God the Father was the Holy
Spirit, and that He was the Logos (Word). Just as John 1.1 explicitly
states, “And the Word (Logos) was God”. John
of Damascus (675-749 AD) put it in the customary dogmatic terminology
of the Catholic-Protestant tradition when he wrote: He was made by the whole Trinity, for the works of the Trinity are not separable...when one of the Three is mentioned as the author of any work, the whole Trinity is to be understood as working. This
preposterous statement surely had to be made with tongue in cheek.
Because the main trinitarian argument for identifying the separate
divine “Persons” is their individual functions. So if one argues
that “the works of the Trinity are not separable”, then it becomes
nearly impossible to identify the difference, for example, between
“the First Person” (a Spirit) and “the Third Person” (a
Spirit)! These
early Catholic fathers rejected polytheism (many gods), but since they
accepted the Platonic triad of Philo, they were forced to compromise
the unity of God. God
could no longer be an absolute unity, but he must perforce be a
“relative unity”. This is a weakness of the Trinity doctrine,
since it can no longer honestly uphold the absolute unity of God (the
“monarchy”). There must be a “relative unity” that will allow
within it the combination of three distinct, separate elements, or
what the trinitarians call “subsistences”. And
Wolfson tells us that the Catholic fathers were constantly aware of
“a consciousness of opposition to the Jewish conception of the
absolute unity of God”. This awareness, says Wolfson, is noticeable
“throughout everything the Fathers say in support of the Trinity”.
This is why we maintain that THE TRINITY TEACHING IS REACTIONARY IN
ITS ESSENCE RATHER THAN BEING A POSITIVE DOCTRINE.
THE
ORIGIN OF THE TRINITARIAN INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1.26
Genesis
1.26 also seems to have played a role, through its interpretation, in
the origin of the Trinity. Irenaeus interpreted Genesis 1.26 to
indicate a plurality of divine Persons in the Godhead: For with Him were present the Logos (Word) and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks saying, ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness’. Where
had such a novel interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures come?
Certainly, as we have seen, no Jew would normally make much an
interpretation. None of the apostles did. But it is very likely that
it can be traced to a Jew named Philo of Alexandria, who had written
concerning Genesis 1.26: When scripture says that God made man in the image of God, it means he made him in the image of the ‘second God’, who is the Logos. For nothing mortal can be made in the likeness of the Most High One and Father of the universe. The
Logos trinitarian doctrine, in spite of all denials, and subsequent
dogmatic tinkering by theologians, postulates Christ in the role of
the “second God”. Today, the terminology has been slightly altered
to state, “second Person”. Martin
Werner wrote that “every significant theologian of the church, in
the pre-Nicene period, has actually represented a subordinationist
Christology”. Of course, he means “every significant Catholic
theologian”, since no apostolic theologian would every downgrade
Christ to the status of the “second Person”. Origen
(185-254 AD), although he is condemned by the Catholic church as a
heretic, is acknowledged as one of the most renowned “Catholic
fathers” (except for perhaps Augustine). Adolf
Harnack wrote that, by the beginning of the fourth century, “the
theology of the apologists had triumphed, and all thinkers stood under
the influence of Origen”. And
Rufus Jones says of Origen, “he made a thorough study of Plato and
Numenius, and was in all his thinking profoundly influenced by the
contemporary neo-platonic movement”. Henry
Chadwick also wrote, “Origen admires Plato and Numenius, and say
Numenius was familiar with the scriptures...he calls him ‘Numenius
the Pythagorean, who expounded Plato with great skill and maintained
the Pythagorean doctrines’.” And Bell says that Origen was
influenced by the gnosticism of Egypt, and that he “followed
Philo’s allegorical method in biblical exegesis”. In
Origen’s work, Against Celsus, who apparently protested the
Catholic fathers’ use of the Greek Logos, called the Logos the
“second God” in three places. Origen,
in his interpretation of John 1.1, presaged the Watchtower Society, by
stating that ho theos (“the God”) belonged to God the
Father only, while theos (a god) was a lesser title given to
the Son. Jean Danielou attributes this interpretation of Origen’s to
Philo’s earlier theology of the Logos. And as Bell remarked,
“Origen regarded the divinity of Christ as inferior to the
Father’s”. But
to highlight the contradictory nature of trinitarian theology,
Origen’s greatest contribution to trinitarian theology might have
been his teaching on the “eternal generation” of the Son. This, in
spite of the fact, that Origen was a subordinationist. His teaching
contained what F. Baur called “the germs of both the Arian and the
Athanasian doctrines”. Origen
wrote in his Commentary On John’s Gospel that “We believe
that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three essences or
substances”. That this is tritheistic
almost no one would deny. Almost
all of these Catholic fathers were forced to attempt to refute the
contemporary oneness theology which was still quite prevalent.
THE
CATHOLIC FATHERS IDENTIFIED THE CHRISTIAN LOGOS WITH THE PAGAN LOGOS
It
is incorrect to assume that these Catholic fathers did not identify
the Christian Logos with the pagan Logos. Justin Martyr (100-165 AD)
wrote: They who have lived in company with the Logos are Christians, even if they were accounted atheists. And such among the Greeks, were Socrates and Heraclitus. It
is clear from this statement that Justin considered the pagan Logos
and the Christian Logos to be the same Logos. No matter that Socrates
and Heraclitus were pagans-they lived in company with the “Logos”
(the same “Logos” that Justin was putting forth).
SUMMARY
Deuteronomy
6.4 states, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord”. When
asked by a scribe, “Which is the first commandment of all?” (Mark
12.28). And Jesus answered and said, “The first of all commandments
is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Mark 12.29). The
oneness of God is the most important commandment of all. There is only
one Lord (Ephesians 4.5). Jesus
told the Jews, “I am from above”, and “I am not of this world”
(John 8.23). And he said, “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall
die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in
your sins” (John 8.24). The only one from above, who is not of this
world, and who is able to save us, is God Almighty Himself. I would
not trust a “second divine Person” or “a second God” to save
me. 1
Timothy 3.16 tells us that “God was manifest in the flesh”, and 2
Corinthians 5.19 says that “God was in Christ”. Jesus
could have identified God as a “Trinity”, but instead Jesus
identified God as “a Spirit” (John 4.24). Nowhere in the Bible is
the word “Trinity” used. This is not comparable to the use of the
word “rapture”. Nowhere in the Bible is the word “rapture”
used (the word means “to be caught up in an ectasy”, an adequate
description of the event), but the description of the “rapture” is
clear in 1 Thessalonians 4.13-17 and in 1 Corinthians 15.51,52. But
the Trinity is not described in the Bible. Nowhere are the building
blocks of the doctrine found. You cannot find the terms “three
Persons”, “Three-in-One”, “the eternal Son”. It
is not possible to show the existence of even “a second divine
Person”. All the differences pointed out between the Father and the
Son only point to the sphere of the incarnation. A trinitarian cannot
find one scripture that shows a difference between the Father and the
Son, which does not relate to the incarnation. In other words, he
cannot relate differences within the sphere of the Godhead. All
differences are within the sphere of the incarnation itself.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons (Neptune, NJ: Loizeau Bros,
1959) 2.
Veronica Ions, Indian Mythology (London: Pam Hamlyn Ltd, 1967) 3.
Arthur Wainwright, The Trinity In The New Testament (London:
SPCK, 1962) 4.
Morris Jastrow, Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in
Babylonia and Assyria (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Son, n.d.) 5.
Franz Cumont, The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism
(Chicago: The Open Court Pub., n.d.) 6.
J. Jacklin, Clement Huart, Henri Maspero et al, Asiatic Mythology
(New York: Thom. Crowell Co, 1932) 7.
Donald A. Mackenzie, Egyptian Myth and Legend (London: Gresham
Pub, n.d.) 8.
Morris Jastrow, Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions (New York:
Chas. Scribner’s Sons, 1914) 9.
William B. Chalfant, Ancient Champions of Oneness, 1979 10.
Frederick Woodbridge, The Son of Apollo (NY: Houghton Mifflin
Co, 1929) 11.
Max Fisher, What The Great Philosophers Thought About God (Los
Angeles: Univ. Book Pub., 1958) 12.
Lewis R. Farnell, Greece and Babylon (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1911) 13.
Grant Showerman, The Great Mother of The Gods (Madison, WI:
Bulletin of The Univ. of Wisconsin No. 43, 1901) 14.
Samuel Fales Dunlap, The Ghevers of Hebron (NY: J.W. Bouton,
1898) 15.
Horatio W. Dresser, A History of Ancient and Medieval Philosopher
(NY: Thom. Crowell, 1926) 16.
Granville C. Henry Jr., Logos: Mathematics and Christian Theology
(Lewisburg: Bucknell Univ., 1976) 17.
Virgin Corwin, St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch (New
Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1960) 18.
John Cordner, The Philosophic Origin and Historic Progress of The
Doctrine of The Trinity 19.
Alvan Lamson, The Chruch of The First Three Centuries (Boson:
Walker, Wise and Co., 1860) 20.
H. Chadwick, in The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early
Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1967) 21.
Henry Malter, Hasting’s Encyclopedia of Ethics and Religion
(ix, p.873). 22.
Philip Carrington, Christian Apologetics in The Second Century
(London: SPCK, 1921) 23.
Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (NY: Vintage Books, 1981) 24.
Martin A. Larson, The Story of Christian Origins (Washington:
New Republic, 1977) 25.
James Adam, The Religious Teachers of Greece (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1909) 26.
Harry A. Wolfson, The Philosophy of The Church Fathers
(Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1964) 27.
H.A. Kennedy, Philo’s Contribution To Religion (London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1919) 28.
Friedrich Ueberweg, History of Philosophy (NY: Chas.
Scribner’s Sons, 1908) 29.
Charles Merivale, The Conversion of The Northern Nations (NY:
D. Appleton & Co) 30.
E.G. Weltin, The Ancient Popes (Westminister, MD: Newman Press,
1968) 31.
God Incarnate, ed. John Hick (Philadelphia: Westminister Press,
1977) 32.
Martin Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1957) 33.
Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma (London: Williams & Norgate,
1905) 34.
Rufus Jones, The Church’s Debt To Heretics (London: James
Clark & Co, 1924) 35.
Harold Idris Bell, Cults and Creeds in Graeco-Roman Egypt (NY:
Philosophical Library, 1953) 36.
Jean Danielou, A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before The
Council of Nicea (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1973) 37.
K.R. Hagenbach, A History of Christian Doctrine (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1883) 38.
Henry Milman, History of Latin Christianity (NY: A.C.
Armstrong, 1899) Most
of the ancient writers can be found translated in the Ante-Nicene
Christian Library (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1868), or later editions. -Bro
William Chalfant ------(C) William B. Chalfant All rights reserved
|