Topic 2. The Trinity

Debunking Acelighting: “The Trinity Explained”


Introduction

The doctrine of the Trinity—claiming that God is simultaneously one in essence and three distinct persons—is foundational in mainstream Christian theology. However, the article “The Trinity Explained” selectively interprets biblical texts and theological principles to construct this doctrine. This paper examines its claims critically, addressing scriptural evidence, historical context, and logical coherence.

The Trinity in the Old Testament

The claim that the Trinity is present in the Old Testament is one that has been made by some Christian theologians, but it is important to critically examine this claim based on historical, linguistic, and theological facts. Let’s walk through the key points raised in the article to highlight why this claim is problematic and lacks support in the Old Testament, using Jewish and Christian scholarship to ground our discussion.

The Shema: “The Lord Our God is One” (Deuteronomy 6:4)

The article begins with the Shema, the central declaration of the Jewish faith found in Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” The word used for “one” here is Echad, which indeed can mean “united” or “one in unity,” but it does not imply a plural or divided nature within God. In Jewish theology, Echad emphasizes the unity of God, not a multiplicity within the divine essence. This distinction is crucial.

The article suggests that the use of Echad in other contexts, like Genesis 2:24 (“one flesh”) or Ezekiel 37:17 (two sticks becoming one), opens the possibility of a God that is both one and plural. However, this interpretation is strained. In both Genesis 2:24 and Ezekiel 37:17, the word Echad refers to unity between distinct entities—man and woman or two sticks—but these are still distinct, not plural in essence. In fact, Echad used in the Shema underscores the absolute oneness of God, which contradicts any claim to a plurality within the divine nature.

The renowned Jewish scholar Maimonides in his Thirteen Principles of Faith explicitly affirms the absolute oneness of God, stating: “God is one, and there is no unity like His.” This principle is fundamental to Jewish monotheism, and there is no indication in the Torah or writings of the prophets that God exists in a pluralistic form.

 
The “Angel of the Lord” and the Claim of Divinity

The article moves on to discuss the “Angel of the Lord”, citing passages like Exodus 3:2-6, Genesis 16:7-13, and Exodus 23:20-21, where this figure appears with divine attributes and is even called “God” by certain individuals. While these appearances may seem to suggest a divine figure or an incarnation of God, they are not conclusive evidence of a Trinity in the Old Testament. The Angel of the Lord is traditionally understood in Jewish exegesis as a messenger of God, not as a second person of a divine triad.

In Exodus 3:2-6, when the Angel of the Lord appears to Moses in the burning bush, the text says that God speaks to Moses from the bush, and Moses is told he is standing on holy ground. This does not indicate that the Angel and God are the same person but rather that the Angel represents God’s presence and authority. Similarly, Hagar’s encounter with the Angel of the Lord in Genesis 16:13 where she calls the Angel “the God who sees me” is a figure of speech. It reflects her recognition that she has encountered God’s representative, not that the Angel is actually God in a personal sense.

Notably, Jewish scholar Isaac L. Seeligmann, in his work The Old Testament and the Angels (pp. 50-54), argues that the “Angel of the Lord” is best understood as a manifestation of God’s power and presence rather than an independent divine person. In fact, Jewish tradition consistently views the Angel of the Lord as an intermediary, not a second person of the Trinity.

 
The Dream of John in Revelation: Not a Literal Account

The article also references Revelation 22:8-9 where John falls to worship the angel showing him the visions, but the angel forbids him, saying that only God is worthy of worship. This passage is meant to emphasize the worship of God alone, and it does not serve as evidence for the Trinity. Moreover, the book of Revelation is a highly symbolic and visionary text, attributed to John during his time on the island of Patmos, and its contents reflect his personal visions and dreams, not objective historical accounts.

As the New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham notes in his work The Theology of the Book of Revelation (pp. 118-119), Revelation is primarily apocalyptic literature that uses vivid imagery and symbolism to convey deeper theological truths. The images presented in John’s visions, including angels and divine figures, should be interpreted within the genre of apocalyptic literature, not as direct theological propositions about the nature of God.

Dreams, especially in apocalyptic and visionary literature, are often a reflection of the dreamer’s own thoughts, perceptions, and interpretations, and therefore cannot be treated as factual or authoritative evidence of doctrines like the Trinity.

 
Proverbs 30:4 and the Question of God’s Son

The article references Proverbs 30:4, which mentions the “name” of God and His Son. The claim here is that the reference to God’s Son in a plural sense points to a Trinitarian view of God. However, this interpretation is highly speculative. The passage in Proverbs is a rhetorical question posed by Agur in an oracle that seeks to understand the nature of divine wisdom. The “Son” mentioned in the verse is not identified in a way that would definitively link this to a second person of God, much less as part of a Trinitarian understanding.

Jewish scholars, including Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, have understood the question in Proverbs 30:4 as a poetic reflection on the unfathomable nature of God’s actions in the world, not as a doctrinal statement about God’s plurality. Additionally, Christian scholar Bruce K. Waltke, in his commentary The Book of Proverbs: A Commentary (pp. 437-440), states that the term “Son” in this context does not indicate a literal son, as in the Christian Trinitarian understanding, but rather refers to divine wisdom.

Zechariah 2:11 and the Question of God Sending God

Finally, the article points to Zechariah 2:11, where God speaks of Himself as being sent by another divine figure. The argument here is that this reflects a plurality within God. However, Zechariah 2:11 (and the surrounding passages) is traditionally understood in Jewish exegesis as a reference to the prophetic role of the Messiah—God’s representative, who would act with divine authority, not as a second person of a triune God.

In Jewish thought, God’s use of intermediaries, such as prophets or the Messiah, does not imply a division within God’s essence. As theologian and biblical scholar James D.G. Dunn explains in his work The Theology of the Apostle Paul (pp. 61-62), the Jewish understanding of God’s transcendence precludes the idea of God being divided into multiple persons. Rather, God’s actions through intermediaries like the Messiah reflect His singular will being carried out in the world.

 
Conclusion: The Old Testament and the Unity of God

In conclusion, while the article attempts to find hints of the Trinity in the Old Testament, the evidence provided does not support this claim. The key texts cited—Deuteronomy 6:4, the “Angel of the Lord,” Proverbs 30:4, and Zechariah 2:11—are all better understood within the framework of Jewish monotheism, which affirms the absolute oneness of God. The interpretation of these passages as references to a plurality within God is speculative and runs counter to both Jewish and historical Christian understandings of the nature of God in the Old Testament.

As Jewish scholars like Maimonides and Isaac L. Seeligmann argue, the Trinity is a New Testament doctrine, and there is no clear evidence in the Old Testament for a divine plurality within God. Christian scholars like James D.G. Dunn and Bruce K. Waltke also point out that the Old Testament consistently presents God as a unified and singular being, with no indication of a Trinitarian understanding.

Thus, while Christians may interpret certain texts as foreshadowing the Trinity, these interpretations remain theological and are not supported by the historical and linguistic evidence of the Old Testament itself.

The Trinity in the New Testament

1. Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples… baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

The writer interprets this verse as affirming the Trinity, yet the issue here is the assumption that the “name” refers to a unified deity in three persons. However, Jesus’ use of “name” is significant. In Jewish tradition, the name represents the essence of a person, but this does not necessitate a ontological unity of three distinct entities. Scholars such as James D.G. Dunn (in Did the First Christians Believe in the Trinity?, p. 97) argue that this verse reflects the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the process of baptism, but not necessarily a declaration of their co-equal status or shared divinity. Jesus, in his mission, always emphasized the oneness of God and pointed to the Father as his authority, never explicitly claiming a triune identity. The baptismal formula could simply be a way of associating the various figures of Christian belief without implying they share a singular essence.

When critically examining the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) and its implications for the doctrine of the Trinity, several well-known scholars and theologians have raised arguments that align with the points made above. Their works challenge the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 as a direct command from Jesus, especially when considering the historical context and the trajectory of early church developments.

1.1 Jesus’ Mission: “Sent Only to the Lost Sheep of Israel”

As previously discussed, Jesus’ mission, according to his own words, was limited to the lost sheep of Israel. This raises the question of whether Matthew 28:19 reflects Jesus’ actual teaching or if it reflects the concerns of later Christian communities.

Several scholars have noted this discrepancy. John P. Meier, a prominent scholar in the field of biblical studies, argues that Jesus’ message was initially focused on Israel, and that his teachings were directed specifically to the Jewish people. In his work A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Meier writes:

“Jesus’ mission was not initially universal. His focus was on Israel, and he himself envisioned the restoration of Israel as a precursor to the broader salvation of the world” (Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1, p. 97).

Meier suggests that the later Christian interpretation of Jesus’ mission—expanded to include the Gentiles—may reflect the influence of early church leaders, such as Paul, rather than the words of Jesus himself. This is important because the Gospel of Matthew, like the other Gospels, was written in a context where Gentile inclusion was becoming a central issue for the early church. This shift in focus may have influenced the way Matthew framed the Great Commission.

1.2. The Influence of the Early Church and the Gospel Writers

The argument that Matthew 28:19 reflects later theological developments rather than the direct teaching of Jesus is echoed by Bart D. Ehrman, a leading scholar of early Christianity. Ehrman’s works on the development of Christian doctrine suggest that the writings of the New Testament, including the Gospels, reflect evolving beliefs and church practices. In his book How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of Jesus in Early Christianity, Ehrman argues:

“The notion that Jesus is God, and that God is somehow three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—was not an original teaching of Jesus. It was a later theological development in the church, most fully developed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, long after the time of Jesus” (Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, p. 214).

Ehrman’s insight is crucial here because it aligns with the idea that the doctrine of the Trinity, and the notion of Jesus’ divinity as part of a Trinitarian Godhead, was a later theological formulation, particularly shaped by early church debates. The inclusion of the phrase “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” in Matthew 28:19, Ehrman suggests, could reflect a post-resurrection attempt to reconcile the emerging Trinitarian understanding of God, which is not something that Jesus himself explicitly taught.

1.3. Jesus’ Obedience to God’s Commands

As mentioned earlier, Jesus consistently affirmed that his actions were in obedience to God’s will. The idea that Jesus would go against God’s command to prioritize Israel and extend the mission to the Gentiles is problematic, especially considering his own words in passages like Matthew 15:24.

N.T. Wright, a leading New Testament scholar, discusses the relationship between Jesus and God’s mission in his book Jesus and the Victory of God. He writes:

“Jesus saw his mission in the context of the fulfillment of Israel’s destiny. His kingdom was to be one in which Israel would be restored, but this restoration was not to be immediately inclusive of the Gentiles. The mission to the Gentiles came later” (Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 522).

Wright’s observation helps to emphasize that Jesus’ focus was on Israel’s restoration, not on expanding the mission to the Gentiles during his earthly ministry. If Jesus were truly committed to the idea of bringing the Gospel to all nations, it would contradict his repeated emphasis on the Jewish mission and his strict adherence to God’s commands.

1.4. Theological Development in the Early Church

The development of the doctrine of the Trinity, particularly in the second and third centuries, involved attempts to reconcile the diverse views within early Christian communities. Some scholars have argued that Matthew 28:19 may reflect these later theological concerns, particularly the desire to formalize the belief in a triune Godhead.

Larry Hurtado, a renowned scholar of early Christian theology, discusses how the concept of Jesus’ divinity and the development of Trinitarian thought evolved over time in his book Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. He writes:

“The earliest Christians did not think in terms of a Trinitarian formula, and the language of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as ‘one God’ would emerge only later, as part of the church’s attempt to make sense of Jesus’ divinity in light of the monotheistic framework of Judaism” (Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, p. 262).

Hurtado’s work helps to shed light on how the language of the Trinity in Matthew 28:19 may have been influenced by later Christian theological concerns, rather than being a direct representation of Jesus’ teaching. The theological development of the Trinity—especially in the context of debates over the nature of Jesus and the relationship between God and the Holy Spirit—would have been crucial to later Gospel writers, who sought to align Jesus’ mission with this emerging understanding.

1.5. The Historical Context of Matthew’s Gospel

Lastly, scholars have pointed out that the Gospel of Matthew was written after the events of Jesus’ life and ministry, and it reflects the changing priorities of the early church. In The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, Craig S. Keener notes:

“Matthew’s Gospel was written in a post-Resurrection context, a time when the early church had already begun its mission to the Gentiles, and thus Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus’ final words reflects the growing mission to all nations” (Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 606).

This suggests that Matthew’s presentation of the Great Commission might have been influenced by the expanding mission to the Gentiles, which became central after Jesus’ resurrection. This aligns with the idea that the Great Commission is not a direct reflection of Jesus’ mission during his lifetime, but rather an interpretation of his message in light of the later church’s experiences.

Conclusion

The arguments raised by well-known scholars such as John P. Meier, Bart Ehrman, N.T. Wright, Larry Hurtado, and Craig Keener provide critical insights into the development of early Christian thought and the possible influence of the early church on the Gospel narratives. These scholars support the view that Matthew 28:19, while central to Trinitarian theology, may reflect the theological concerns of the post-resurrection church rather than the direct teachings of Jesus. Jesus’ consistent focus on Israel and his obedience to God’s commands raise questions about the authenticity of the Great Commission as a reflection of Jesus’ mission during his earthly ministry. Thus, Matthew 28:19 may be more a product of theological development and later church priorities than a direct command from Jesus himself.

2. The Baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:15-17)

The writer’s argument here hinges on the presence of three distinct figures: Jesus, the Spirit descending, and the voice of God from heaven. While this is indeed a powerful image, it does not establish a “Trinity.” The writer interprets this as showing the “separation” of each “person” within the Godhead, but the context of this event reflects a public affirmation of Jesus’ unique mission. N.T. Wright (in Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 381) argues that such moments of the Spirit’s descent show Jesus being affirmed by God, not co-equal persons in a triune relationship. The Spirit is presented as empowering Jesus for his mission, not as an independent divine person. The voice of God affirms Jesus as the chosen Messiah, which fits with the larger narrative of God’s Kingdom, but it doesn’t support the idea of a triune divinity.

3. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) and “One Name”

The writer claims that “baptizing in one name” affirms the co-equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, this interpretation overlooks the Jewish context in which Jesus spoke. In the ancient world, the “name” in religious context did not always imply the same essence or nature of a deity, but often their authority or reputation. Moreover, as John Shelby Spong notes in The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic (p. 122), “the absence of a precise definition of the Trinity within the New Testament is a significant clue.” Jesus’ words about baptism were more about invoking the authority of these three figures rather than expressing ontological unity. Also, the early Christian community did not uniformly baptize using this formula; some early Christian texts, such as the Didache, show that baptisms were performed in the name of Jesus only.

4. Deuteronomy 6:4: “The Lord our God, the Lord is one” and the “Echad” Debate

The writer claims that “Echad” (often translated as “one”) implies a form of unity that allows for a triune nature. However, Mark S. Smith, in The Early History of God (p. 217), explains that “Echad” in the Hebrew Scriptures refers to a composite unity, such as the union of two or more elements into one, not an ontologically indivisible unity. Therefore, the use of “Echad” does not support the idea of a co-equal, co-eternal Trinity. It emphasizes God’s singularity and unity, which is in line with Jewish monotheism.

5. John 1:1 and the Divinity of the Son

The writer invokes John 1:1 (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”) to argue that Jesus is divinely equal with the Father. However, the interpretation that “the Word was God” has been debated extensively.

Let’s now critically examine John 1:1, taking into account its broader context, the meaning of “the Word” (Logos), the theological implications, and how this passage has been interpreted by various scholars, including Bart Ehrman and others. This passage, and its theological underpinnings, are critical for discussions surrounding the divinity of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity.

5.1. John 1:1: The Text Itself

The verse John 1:1 states:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

On the surface, this passage is foundational for Christian claims of the divinity of Jesus Christ. It suggests that the “Word” (Logos) existed from the very beginning, was in the presence of God, and was, in fact, divine.

However, as you pointed out, when interpreting this passage, we need to consider both the broader context of the biblical narrative and the meaning of the Word (Logos).

5.2. The Meaning of “The Word” (Logos)

In ancient Jewish thought, the term “Word of God” had significant theological implications. The “Word” of God is typically associated with God’s creative power. This idea is found throughout the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) in various forms. For example:

Psalm 33:6: “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.”Isaiah 55:11: “So is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.”Genesis 1:3: “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.”
In these instances, the “Word” refers to the creative utterance of God. The act of creation is not described as a physical act, but as something that occurs by God’s command, his Word. This concept of God’s Word is not limited to a person or entity but encompasses everything that God speaks into existence.

In Jewish thought, the “Word of God” was seen as the means by which God created and sustained the universe, but it did not necessarily imply that the Word itself was a personal, distinct entity or God Himself. The concept of the Word was more of an extension of God’s will and power, not a separate being.

5.3. The “Word Became Flesh” (John 1:14)

In John 1:14, the Gospel adds:

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.”

This verse is often interpreted by Christians to mean that Jesus, as the Logos, is the Word made incarnate—God in human form. However, the phrase “the Word became flesh” can be interpreted more broadly. The Word could refer to God’s ultimate expression or act of revelation, which could include not only Jesus but the entire process of divine revelation, starting from the creation of the world, including Adam and Eve.

Bart Ehrman, in his book How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of Jesus in Early Christianity, offers an alternative interpretation. He writes:

“In the prologue to John, the Logos is not simply a description of Jesus but a theological framework that explains how the pre-existent Christ was involved in the creation of the universe. But the Gospel of John was written long after the life of Jesus, at a time when Christians were already developing a doctrine of Christ’s divinity, and the notion of the Logos would have had more traction in light of these later theological developments” (Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, p. 193).

Ehrman’s point is that the concept of the Logos in John 1:1 likely reflects later theological developments in the early Christian community, rather than a clear, pre-existing Jewish understanding. By this point, Christian thought had developed the idea that Jesus was somehow involved in creation, and the prologue to John reflects this belief. However, Ehrman argues that this should be seen as part of a later stage in the evolution of early Christian theology, not as a teaching directly attributable to Jesus or his early followers.

5.4. The Role of Adam and the “Word” in Creation

The connection between “the Word” and the creation of Adam is also important here. The Bible in Genesis explains that Adam and Eve were the first humans created, and it was God’s Word that brought them into existence. In this view, the Logos (the divine Word) is not necessarily tied only to the person of Jesus, but can be understood as part of a broader theological concept that includes the entire created order, from the first human being onward.

The claim that “the Word became flesh” doesn’t only refer to Jesus’ incarnation but may also be interpreted to refer to the idea that all human beings are created through the Word. Adam and Eve, as the first humans, were part of God’s Word made flesh in the sense that they were brought into existence by God’s creative command. This interpretation challenges the traditional Christian view that John 1:14 is only about Jesus’ birth but rather invites a broader view of creation as involving the Word itself becoming flesh.

5.5. Theological Considerations and Broader Context

Looking at the broader context of John’s Gospel, it’s clear that the author was writing with a theological agenda that sought to explain Jesus’ divinity within a framework that was familiar to Hellenistic Jews (who were familiar with Greek philosophy, particularly the idea of the Logos). The prologue of John presents a high Christology—the belief that Jesus is not just a human being but has a divine pre-existence and was involved in the creation of the world.

However, John’s Gospel is unique in its portrayal of the Logos, and many scholars have noted that it diverges from earlier Christian traditions, which emphasize Jesus as a man who became divine after his resurrection. In this context, John 1:1 might reflect the early church’s attempts to make sense of Jesus’ nature and his relationship to God.

5.6. Scholarly Opinions

Several scholars have provided critical insights into the theological nuances of John 1:1. Larry Hurtado, in his work How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?, discusses the development of early Christian Christology, noting:

“The earliest Christians did not initially think of Jesus as pre-existent. It was only later, particularly in the Gospel of John, that a more developed Christology emerged that depicted Jesus as a divine figure, pre-existent and involved in creation” (Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?, p. 123).

Hurtado points out that the Gospel of John reflects the development of a divine Christology that was not present in earlier Christian writings, like those of Paul. This fits with Ehrman’s view that the prologue of John reflects the later theological evolution in the church rather than something Jesus himself directly taught.

James D.G. Dunn, a well-known New Testament scholar, also addresses the problem of the Logos in relation to John’s Gospel. He writes in his work Christology in the Making:

“John’s Logos Christology…is a later development in Christian thought, one that reflects the philosophical and theological environment of the time rather than the simple historical reality of Jesus” (Dunn, Christology in the Making, p. 180).

Dunn’s comment reinforces the idea that John’s presentation of the Logos should be viewed as a theological construct developed by the early church, rather than a reflection of Jesus’ original mission or message.

5.7. Conclusion: A Critical Examination of John 1:1

When considering John 1:1 within its broader theological and historical context, it’s evident that the passage has undergone significant interpretation and development in the early church. The term “Word” (Logos) in the Old Testament refers to God’s creative power and expression, and while the Gospel of John does extend this concept to Jesus, it is essential to note that this Logos theology is not something that was part of Jesus’ explicit teachings, but rather an interpretation that developed later within the Hellenistic-Jewish context.

The idea that the Word became flesh is not be limited to Jesus, but also involve the entire process of creation—beginning with the creation of Adam and Eve as the first humans. This makes the passage broader than just a Christological statement. Moreover, Bart Ehrman, Larry Hurtado, and James D.G. Dunn all provide scholarly evidence that the Logos as described in John 1 reflects a later theological development, not the original message of Jesus or his early followers.

Thus, John 1:1 must be critically examined within the framework of theological evolution and the broad understanding of the Word of God as it relates to both the creation of the world and the incarnate revelation of God in Christ. This makes it clear that the passage, while foundational to Christian theology, should not be seen as evidence of the pre-existent, divine nature of Jesus as traditionally understood, but rather as a later interpretative development and is therefore not proof of Jesus divinity.

 
6. Jesus’ Divinity and Forgiveness of Sins

The writer references Jesus’ ability to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6) and other passages to argue that only God has the authority to forgive sins. While it is true that Jesus claimed authority over sin, this does not automatically imply divinity. In the Jewish context, Jesus’ role as a prophet and Messiah could include authority over sins in a representative sense, exercising God’s authority in the world. Scholars like Geza Vermes in Jesus the Jew (p. 234) suggest that Jesus saw himself as the agent of God’s Kingdom, exercising divine authority but not necessarily identifying himself as God. Moreover, the phrase “Son of Man” that Jesus often uses refers to a human figure in Jewish apocalyptic thought, which conflicts with the later interpretation of Jesus as a co-eternal, divine second person of a Trinity.

7. John 8:58 and “I Am”

To properly analyze John 8:58—where Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I am”—we must first examine it within its broader context in terms of Jesus’ mission, his relationship to God, and his own self-understanding. Jesus spoke God’s words, not his own, and that he and the Father were unified in mission. This interpretation offers a nuanced understanding of the verse, particularly in light of the broader theological and historical context of Jesus’ mission, his relationship with God, and the concept of the Word in Scripture.

Let’s break this down further in relation to John 8:58, especially in light of the unity of Jesus and God and the concept of the Word of God that Jesus represents.

7.1. Jesus’ Relationship with God: Speaking God’s Words

Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus consistently emphasizes that he speaks God’s words, not his own. For example, in John 7:16, Jesus says:

“My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me.”

And in John 12:49, Jesus declares:

“For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken.”

These statements reveal that Jesus was utterly subordinated to the Father and acted as God’s mouthpiece on Earth. His role was not to promote his own ideas but to deliver the message God had given him to proclaim to Israel. Therefore, when Jesus speaks, he is not simply expressing personal thoughts; he is articulating the will of God.

7.2. Unity of Purpose Between Jesus and God

In John 10:30, Jesus says:

“I and the Father are one.”

This statement should not be understood as an explicit claim of divinity in the way later Christian theology would interpret it (i.e., as a claim of Jesus’ co-equal nature with the Father in the Godhead). Instead, it emphasizes the unity of purpose and the shared mission between Jesus and God. They are unified in their message and in their work.

From this perspective, Jesus’ “I am” statement in John 8:58 can be understood as a declaration of his oneness with God’s eternal Word. It is not a claim about his physical pre-existence but rather about the timelessness and eternal nature of the message he carries—the Word of God that transcends human history and was present even before Abraham.

7.3. The Word as God’s Message

The key concept here is “the Word”. In the Gospel of John, particularly in John 1:1-3 as explained above, the Word (Logos) is said to be with God and was God from the beginning:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”

Jesus is the embodiment of God’s Word, a Word that eternally existed as the vehicle through which God communicated with His creation, including humanity. Therefore, Jesus, as the messenger of God, carries God’s eternal Word.

When Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I am”, Jesus is affirming the timeless nature of God’s message. Jesus’ mission was to deliver the eternal Word of God to Israel, and this Word—God’s plan, purpose, and message—existed before Abraham. Abraham was a key figure in salvation history, but Jesus’ message, the Word that he represents, predates Abraham.

7.4. Jesus Representing the Word Before Abraham

In this light, Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 can be interpreted as:

“Before Abraham was, I am” – the Word I speak, the message I bring, existed before Abraham. I am the fulfilment of God’s eternal message that was present before the foundation of the world and before the patriarchs like Abraham.

This interpretation is consistent with Jesus’ role in the Gospel of John as the one who reveals the Father’s message to the world. As the embodiment of God’s Word, Jesus represents the eternal truth of God’s plan of salvation, which existed before any human figure such as Abraham, Moses, or David.

If Jesus’ statement in John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I am,” is interpreted as a claim to be God, it creates a contradiction with his entire mission and teachings. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus repeatedly emphasizes that he was sent by God, that his words were not his own but were given to him by God (John 7:16, 12:49), and that he performed miracles by the power of God (John 14:10). If Jesus were truly God, as this interpretation suggests, then he would not be sent by anyone or commanded by anyone, as God is inherently self-sufficient and does not rely on another’s direction. Furthermore, God cannot speak the words of another God, nor can he perform miracles through the power of another. This would create an inherent theological paradox, as God, by nature, is independent and unaccountable to any other authority. Therefore, interpreting Jesus’ statement as a claim to divinity would be inconsistent with his own testimony that he is subordinate to God, operates in submission to God, and carries out God’s will alone. This suggests that Jesus’ role is not about asserting his divine nature in a literal sense, but rather fulfilling the mission of God and delivering God’s eternal Word to humanity.7.5. Bart Ehrman’s Perspective on John 8:58

In line with the argument that the Word Jesus represents pre-dates Abraham, Professor Bart Ehrman—a renowned New Testament scholar—has pointed out that Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 can be understood as an affirmation of Jesus’ role as the divine messenger rather than as a literal claim of pre-existence in the physical sense. Ehrman explains that:

“Jesus’ declaration, ‘Before Abraham was, I am,’ is best understood not as a direct claim to be God but as a way of asserting that Jesus’ message is timeless, rooted in the eternal purposes of God” (The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 6th Edition, p. 114).

This interpretation aligns with the understanding that Jesus embodies the Word of God, which has existed since the beginning of creation, and through him, this Word is now being revealed to the people of Israel.

7.6. Raymond Brown on the Pre-Existence of the Word

Raymond Brown, in his work The Gospel According to John, elaborates on the concept of the pre-existence of the Word (Logos) and how it relates to the ministry of Jesus:

“The idea of the Logos, the Word, as pre-existing before Abraham is central to the Johannine understanding of Jesus’ mission. Jesus is not just a man speaking for God; he is the one who, as God’s Logos, carries the eternal truth of God’s plan for salvation, a message that transcends human history” (Brown, The Gospel According to John, Vol. 1, p. 356).

Brown further suggests that the Logos does not necessarily imply a pre-existent physical person, but rather an eternal principle or message from God that is embodied in Jesus. This Logos, or Word, has been present since creation and is now revealed in Jesus’ teachings.

7,7. Conclusion: The Timelessness of the Word

Thus, John 8:58 can be interpreted as Jesus’ affirmation of the eternal nature of God’s Word, rather than a literal claim of pre-existence in terms of his physical body. Jesus is not asserting that his physical existence predates Abraham, but that the Word of God—the message he carries—has existed since before Abraham, and this Word was revealed to Abraham and the patriarchs in different ways.

This interpretation fits seamlessly with the broader context of Jesus’ mission as a divine messenger who speaks only what God has given him to speak. As God’s spokesperson, Jesus is the one who reveals the eternal Word of God to Israel and to the world, and this message has existed since the foundation of the world, before any human figures like Abraham.

In conclusion, Jesus’ “I am” statement is a profound declaration of the timeless nature of the Word of God that he embodies. It highlights Jesus’ role in bringing God’s eternal message to humanity, a message that transcends the limits of human time and history, and predates even Abraham.

8. John 16:13-15 and the Holy Spirit

Finally, the argument that John 16:13-15 shows the Holy Spirit’s equality with the Father and Son is more complicated than the writer suggests. While the passage demonstrates the Holy Spirit’s role in revealing the truth of God, this does not imply full ontological equality. The Holy Spirit is presented as the one who speaks on behalf of the Father and Son, not as a separate, co-equal person. Scholars like James Dunn in The Holy Spirit in the New Testament (p. 214) argue that the Spirit’s role is subordinate to the Father and the Son, not co-equal with them.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the concept of the Trinity as commonly understood within Christian theology does not align with the explicit teachings of Jesus or the broader narrative of the Scriptures, both in the Old and New Testaments. Jesus consistently emphasized his role as the servant and messenger of God, sent to fulfill God’s will and deliver His message. He repeatedly stated that his words were not his own, that he could do nothing apart from God, and that he was completely dependent on God for authority and power. In addition, Jesus’ mission was specifically to the lost sheep of Israel, with a clear command from God that he should focus on this task, not on an open mission to all nations as suggested by Matthew 28:19. This Great Commission in Matthew could be seen as a later editorial addition, possibly influenced by the emerging Christian doctrine and the inclusion of Gentiles, rather than a direct command from Jesus himself.

Furthermore, the key verses often cited in support of the Trinity, such as John 1:1 and John 8:58, when examined in context, reveal a focus on the message of God—the Word—rather than a personal claim to divinity by Jesus. The “Word” in John 1 refers to the eternal message of God, which has been consistently present throughout history, including the creation of Adam, and not to Jesus as a separate, pre-existent being. Similarly, Jesus’ statement “I am” in John 8:58 should be understood in the context of his representing God’s will and delivering God’s eternal message to humanity, rather than claiming to be God himself.

In light of these observations, the Trinitarian interpretation of these Scriptures seems to arise from later theological developments, rather than from a clear, direct teaching by Jesus himself. The idea of God as one in essence but three in person does not align with the portrayal of God in the Old Testament, where God is unequivocally understood as a singular, indivisible entity. It also conflicts with Jesus’ mission, which was to act as God’s servant, completely obedient to God’s will, and to deliver God’s message, not to declare himself as part of a divine triad. Therefore, a critical, contextual examination of the Scriptures suggests that the traditional doctrine of the Trinity may not be a reflection of the original teachings of Jesus, but rather a later theological construct developed by the early church to explain the evolving understanding of Jesus’ nature and relationship to God.

References

Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford University Press, 1961.BeDuhn, Jason. Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament. University Press of America, 2003.Collins, John J. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. Eerdmans, 2016.Dunn, James D.G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Eerdmans, 1996.Ehrman, Bart D. How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee. HarperOne, 2014.Rubenstein, Richard E. When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome. Harcourt, 1999.Tuggy, Dale. What is the Trinity? Thinking About the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. CreateSpace, 2017.