Category: theology-acst

Chapter 14 introduced the idea that God is transcendent.1 The term implies that God is not a part of the universe, but is separate from it. In the words of the Julie Gold song, made popular by Bette Midler, “God is watching us from a distance.” J. Gresham Machen insisted that this attribute of God is “absolutely fundamental in the Bible” and “absolutely necessary in order to render intelligible all the rest.”2 One of the reasons that God must be seen as separate from his creation is that the creation has been adversely affected by sin, but God has not.

The Old Testament fiercely preserves and protects the
transcendence of God, precisely because it fiercely preserves
and protects the holiness of God. Angels, particularly the
mysterious Angel of the Lord, seem to appear in the narrative
of the Hebrew scriptures for this very purpose – to allow
divine interaction with the corruptible world of created
beings, while at the same time preserving the distance between
God and all that is corruptible.3

Chapter 14 also introduced the theological flipside to the issue of transcendence. God is not only separate from his creation, but he remains active within it, intervening whenever and wherever he pleases.4 This concept is included in the doctrine of the immanence of God, defined as “God’s intimacy and closeness to all creatures.” He is immanent without losing his transcendence, or without “ceasing to be the free and sovereign Lord of all.”5

Putting both of these biblical concepts together reveals a God who is both sovereign over creation and independent from it. Yet it poses a problem: if God is independent from the universe which he created, how can we prove his existence?
The short answer is that we cannot. His transcendence makes it impossible for us to point to God and tell the world “there he is.”

Yet his immanence makes it entirely possible that we can point to God’s work as evidence that he exists. He has left footsteps in the sand to show that he has been here among us, and that evidence keeps reoccurring to show us that he still walks among us. The majority of the world still believes in a deity of some kind because of this evidence, but most suppress this truth. For that reason, simply recounting examples of this evidence may not achieve much. Nevertheless, it will not hurt to try!

Evidence from Creation

For most of human history, the sciences have come to the aid of theology in providing evidence for God’s existence because they examined the universe, both on a macro (telescope) and micro (microscope) level. The evidence science has catalogued indicated that “the universe manifests order and purpose that can only be the result of a conscious intelligence.”6 We see this order in the patterns that repeat themselves in creation: the petals on a flower, or the rotation of the planets in a solar system.

In the past century, as technology has continued to improve, science has become more and more capable of presenting this type of evidence, but, ironically has been distracted from that task. Science has been held captive by a philosophical belief system which refuses to acknowledge the possibility of anything supernatural about nature itself, especially its origin. This has resulted in the disenchantment of nature itself, and has been partially responsible for the exploitation of the environment that has left the planet with a number of ecological problems.7 We do not have to deify nature in order to solve the ecological crisis. We merely need to rediscover how important nature is as a means of connecting us to its Creator.

The psalmist tells us that nature is constantly communicating both the existence and majesty of God.8 It does this by presenting to us evidence that demands us to consider its design and thus postulate the existence of its designer. Even if we are not ready to speculate on the nature of that designer, logic demands that we imagine at least that there is one.

Many of us may not fully grasp the purpose of Stonehenge,
but we immediately recognize that it is the result of
intelligent design and not natural processes. This is
because Stonehenge contains a complex arrangement of
stones that match a pattern. We may know very
little about the purposes, beliefs, or identity of the
designers of Stonehenge, but we know it was designed.9

Like Stonehenge, nature gives us clues to its creator. We see in both the microcosm and the macrocosm an almost infinite number of recognizable patterns, complex machine-like systems working on the basis of complex encoded data. To suggest that all of what is there “just happened” defies logic, and requires a faith in chance that goes way beyond the faith required of any god in any religion.

Evidence from Philosophy

Some of Christianity’s earliest theologians were philosophers as well, and sought to bring their philosophical disciplines to bear on the subject of God’s existence as well. One of the first, and most effective of these was Thomas Aquinas. His five ways that nature evidences God’s existence show how the human mind keeps stumbling over the fact of God’s existence when simply thinking about the nature of what is.10

1. The fact that the entire universe is in motion leads us to suspect an unmoved mover as its creator.

2. The fact that everything that exists appears to have a cause leads us to suspect that it was all created by an uncaused cause capable of bringing everything into existence.

3. The fact that the universe exists leads us to surmise an uncreated creator, because nothing happens without a reason. If there was ever a time when nothing (or no one) existed, there could have been nothing (or no one) to bring the universe into existence.

4. The fact that we can appreciate excellence in the universe leads to the suggestion that a being exists who is the standard by which all else is compared. Since the universe contains degrees of complexity from inanimate objects to complex beings, it follows that an even more complex being than humanity is possible.

5. The fact that the universe manifests order and direction suggests a conscious intelligence directing it, and building order into its structure.

Arguments like these are constantly debated among philosophers, and rarely yield agreement. Even Aquinas did not come to faith in God by virtue of his appreciation of God’s evidence in nature. It was the other way around: after finding God through Christ, Aquinas was able to see the evidence for God’s existence in nature. Faith became a lens by which Aquinas was able to see creation more clearly, and thus detect the marks which God, the creator had left upon it.

However, Aquinas’ faith does not negate his logic. A witness’s testimony is not negated when she is able to give a more accurate story since she was wearing corrective lenses when she saw the incident. Her testimony is actually deemed more reliable. In the same way, believers who approach the question of God from the book of creation are not out of bounds and in error simply because they have access to the supplemental revelation of faith or scripture.

In fact, there are a number of thinkers in this planet who come to accept the fact of God’s existence without those corrective lenses. They are theists, but not believers in any particular god. They see sufficient evidence in nature and elsewhere for the assumption of a deity, while remaining agnostic as to his, her, or it’s identity. This fact lends credence to arguments like Aquinas’s five ways. It suggests that such arguments are not merely reflections of religious bias, tainting pure science. Like the citizens of Athens, they knew enough about God to know that he existed, but not enough to know who he was.11

Evidence from Human Nature

A particularly revealing chapter in the book of nature is the book of human nature. The thoughts and feelings within the human heart show an impression upon us that cannot be explained by merely blaming the environment or our past history. One example of these thoughts and feelings is the tendency all humans have of assessing the acts of other humans, or societies with the categories of justice or injustice. All human beings are not in agreement on what is fair and what is unfair. Neither has there been consistent agreement throughout time as to which actions are just, and which are unjust. Nevertheless, it is true that throughout time all human beings of whatever race, culture or creed have retained the concept of justice.

One question to ponder, then, is where did this concept of justice come from? It is too simplistic to say that such concepts are merely taught by parents and reinforced by society. Many, because of conscience, are led to reject the teaching of their parents, or rebel against their governments.

It is also too simplistic to assume that such ideas are programmed into us by the processes of evolution. To suggest that our moral consciences are merely throwbacks to the decisions our prehistoric ancestors had to make to survive does not account for the justice decisions people make all the time which are clearly not in the interest of personal or corporate survival. If there is a justice gene embedded in human DNA, then why is it that humans and nations are consistently inconsistent on what justice is?

From whence, then, do these ideas and policies come which seek fairness for all? Christians have an answer. We blame God for wiring all humans in such a way that we see actions as potentially right or wrong, fair or unfair, just or unjust. In fact, we often go beyond the concept of justice, and ask “what would be the caring or loving thing to do.” We seek reconciliation rather than retribution. Christians argue that these concepts did not emerge through a gradual process from the primordial ooze. They have been with humanity since creation, and are inherited from a loving God who wishes his creatures to imitate his character.

The Difference Christ Made

As good as the above arguments are, each of them is inadequate. Although they can lead some to be theists, they are not sufficient to dispel the agnosticism of Athens. It takes revelation to do that. So, Paul at Athens said…
The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31 ESV)

This man is Jesus. His resurrection was the evidence, or assurance (pistis) that God offered to humanity still in ignorance (agnoia) of his existence. The resurrection of Jesus is all the proof the world will ever need that everything said in the Bible is true. As evidence supplied by God himself, it covers the issue of origins, the issue of our responsibility to God as his creatures, and everything in between. Thus it was on the basis of the resurrection of Christ that Paul commanded the Athenians to repent, and warned them of coming judgment.

Now that Christ has been raised from the dead, no human being will be able to stand before God and excuse her failure to pay attention to his word. The gospel message redirects a world that has ignored God’s message back to it. Once we return to God’s word, the gaps in our knowledge of him are filled in by it.

Evidence from the Bible

The Bible tells us that God exists, and progressively reveals more and more of his character and identity as it tells his story. Without this essential piece to the puzzle, crucial elements of the story of the universe and the story of humanity would remain a mystery. This explains why cultures who deny God’s existence are apt to bring harm to their environment and themselves. Conversely, those people and societies who care enough to seek God through the Bible find that the resulting relationship leads to a proper stewardship of the earth’s resources, and a better care for society as a whole. Knowing God makes a difference.

We saw in previous chapters that the Bible reveals a God who cannot be defined in the terms which we use to define everything else in the universe. He is immeasurable. That makes him independent of the universe which he created. Although he can affect change upon the universe, he cannot be changed by it. He is immutable. All around the universe change is happening, including the ultimate change of death, but God is not capable of such change. He alone has immortality.

Although analogies from nature (such as the shamrock, or water) have been used to illustrate the Trinity, nature is really insufficient to teach the doctrine. The Bible, however, has no such limitation. From the beginning of Genesis, where we see a God who is both a “he” and an “us,” the triune nature of God comes through. The holiness of God is also best seen in his relationship with man and nations, which is brought out best through the history given in divine revelation.

What we see as the evidence from scripture piles up around us is that God is not the same as the universe he created. He is the Independent One. His sovereign acts within history and his words revealing himself and his plan are just ways that he has chosen to connect with his creatures. They are adequate to give us glimpses of his existence and attributes, and that is all that faith truly needs. Skepticism and doubt are free to ignore that evidence, but that ignorance is a choice, not an excuse.12

Human beings have every capacity to recognize the clues to God’s existence in nature, thought, human nature and the Bible, but some choose not to do so. The reasons why this is so are found not in the nature of God, but in human nature, particularly that nature as it currently presents itself, marred by original sin. Thus logically we proceed to a study of those issues.

_____________________________
1 cf. page 98.

2 J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism. (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 2009), 54. “From beginning to end the Bible is concerned to set forth the awful gulf that separates the creature from the creator.”

3 Kevin W. Mannoia and Don Thorsen, The Holiness Manifesto. (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 2008), 47.

4 cf. page 100.

5 Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004), 413.

6 Douglas J. Soccio, Archetypes of Wisdom. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2009), 226.

7 cf. Alister McGrath, The Re-enchantment of Nature. (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2002).

8 Psalm 19:1-6.

9 H. Wayne House, Intelligent Design 101. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2008), 241.

10 My summary of Aquinas is based on Patrick J. Clarke, Questions about God. (Gloucestershire, UK: Nelson Thornes, 2001), 30-31, and Soccio, 226-230.

11 Acts 17:23.

12 Romans 1:20.

If the concept of a triune God seems rationally incomprehensible for some, the concept of holiness may seem absolutely alien for most. Perhaps in a previous era theologians could have easily spoken of the holiness of God and gained a sympathetic audience, but those days are gone now. To most of the world, the concept of holiness is an outdated, archaic, almost prehistoric idea. In fact, aside from being used as a mild intensive (holy smoke!), the term is rarely used anymore. So, before we can speak of God’s holiness in today’s context, the term will need some careful definition.

The term holy in Hebrew is kadesh, which originally connoted something or someone that was unique. In the ancient Near East, the term holy came to be associated with the gods of the various tribes, and with things, animals, times or places or people related to the worship of these gods. This explains why the Hebrews used the term kadesh for pagan male cult prostitutes and kedeshah for female cult prostitutes. The term implied that these individuals were unique (in that they had sexual relations as part of their cult rituals, and not as part of a normal married life. They would also be seen as exclusively devoted to the deity they represented while performing those cult rituals.

The God of the Bible is represented as unique – kadesh as well. He told the Hebrews to consecrate themselves and be holy because he is holy (Lev. 11:44). Through the prophet Isaiah he asked his people “to whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? says the Holy One.” Of all the “gods” of the nations, none can compare to him. The New Testament represents him as light, with no darkness at all. In fact, the Bible represents God as exclusively holy. To emphasize this point, he is described as “Holy, Holy, Holy.” Without redemption, humanity does not even have access to God.

But the God of the Bible is not just holy because he is different. His holiness is his goodness. Although goodness is an attribute that is communicable (that is, we can imitate God by being good) there is a purity which we cannot attain. His righteousness makes ours look like filthy rags in comparison. His holiness is a mixture of moral attributes that set him apart from all his creation.

A good summary of those moral attributes is found in God’s revelation of himself to Moses in Exodus 34.

The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD,
the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and
abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping
steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and
transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the
guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children
and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth
generation.”
Exodus 34:6-7 ESV

The LORD is Merciful.

His mercy keeps him from administering swift justice because he has compassion on sinners. It does not keep him from seeing when sin has been committed. In fact, his merciful nature is made that more astounding because he does see everything that happens. He is more aware of our sin than we are. Yet he has chosen within the depths of his own goodness to forego punishing us as we deserve because he wants the best for us. Any parent knows this dilemma: there are times when you know that your child has done something wrong yet something within you yearns to let it be, to let this one go. Perhaps that parental yearning comes close to manifesting God’s attribute of compassionate mercy.

The LORD is Gracious.

The same God, who withholds punishment out of compassionate mercy, gives constant blessing and undeserved favor out of his supply of graciousness. Anyone who has ever stopped to count their blessings knows that no matter how bad things get, the scale is always overbalanced in their favor. Knowing that we do not deserve anything but swift, immediate destruction from God, we are overwhelmed to think of all the blessings we have received.

When horrible things happen to us or the ones we love, we are tempted to tell God that he is not being fair. But those are the words of a spoiled child. They are a reflection of a life so filled with enjoyment and blessing that one is shocked when something does not go as he expected it to. They are the words of someone to whom blessing is normal. We expect blessing normally because our God is gracious.

The LORD is Slow to Anger.

This attribute parallels that of mercy, but communicates something extra by how it is said. The Hebrew idiom actually says that God is long of the nostrils. The idiom does not mean that God physically has a long nose, but it suggests that God takes a long deep breath before reacting emotionally. Anger management suggests that we stop and count to ten before reacting to something that we object to. This text implies that God does the same thing. It tells us that God has the capacity to be angered by the wrongs so often manifested in this rebellious world, but that his anger is under control.

The LORD Abounds in Steadfast Love.

The NET translates this attribute as “loyal love.” It is the stubborn, relentless devotion to his own people that led God to powerfully rescue them from bondage in Egypt. Moses depended upon God’s steadfast love to guide the children of Israel to the Promised Land. He also appealed to God to forgive his people based on the same attribute. This attribute parallels that of graciousness, but adds to it the concept of covenant loyalty.

The LORD is Faithful.

Whereas steadfast love implies that God is faithful to his people, faithfulness implies that he is true to himself. He is a firm and solid rock because he never wavers from one position to another. What is true about him remains true about him. In theological terms, he is immutable. In practical terms, he can be trusted. Abraham’s servant found that God could be trusted to lead him to a wife for Isaac. Jacob found he could be trusted to bring him prosperity. David found that God’s rules could be trusted to keep him on the right path.

In the animistic culture of the ancient near east from which the Old Testament emerged, gods were not trustworthy. A sacrifice to one’s favourite idol might bring one a good crop this year, but might not be enough to avert famine the next. If one god refuses to answer the plea for help, there were always others you might try. The gods of the nations were fickle. One could not expect consistency. The God of the Hebrews was different. Not only was he true to himself, he could be trusted to be true to his promises. He was (and is) faithful.

The LORD Keeps His Covenant Love for Generations

There is comfort for the parent and grandparent here. It tells them that their God has a vested interest in their descendants. It is not a guarantee that their children will be believers, since they will have the same freedom their ancestors did (to accept or reject God’s grace). But it is God’s assurance that he will love them just as much. He will remain faithful to his covenant because that is who he is.

The LORD Forgives Iniquity, Transgression and Sin.

There are three words for sin here, and each highlights a different way a person can offend his Maker. He can offend God by willfully harboring an unholy thought or unrighteous word or deed. That is to commit iniquity. He can offend God by breaking his Law. That is transgression, whether it is done through rebellion of simple carelessness. He can also offend God by not measuring up to his standard. That is sin, even if it is done in error.

The good news is that God has them all covered. He offers forgiveness for each of these types of offense. The gods of the nations usually only offer the opportunity for sinners to make up for their sins by means of gifts, rituals, or acts of penance. The LORD actively bears the punishment for the sins himself. That is forgiveness. He can offer such lavish grace because he has already paid for the price of all the sins of humanity by the death of Christ on Calvary’s cross.
The LORD Sends Consequences upon Sinners.

The holiness of God is both sweet and sharp. God promises his goodness, grace, love and mercy because his nature is holy and you can expect these good things from a holy God. But God’s holiness also demands that he actively deal with sins that are not confessed. He is a God who is “a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day” (Psalm 7:11). If a sin is not covered by the blood of Jesus (through personal confession and forgiveness) it causes God to be angered.

The results of God’s anger are two-fold. Ultimately all unconfessed sins will be dealt with at the lake of fire, called Gehenna, on the judgment day. But God loves sinners too much to simply wait until they get the punishment they deserve. So he sends consequences of sinful behavior. These consequences may even last long enough to affect the lives of the sinner’s great-grandchildren.
The purpose of these consequences is also two-fold. First, they vindicate God’s holiness by sending punishment upon offenders. However, their primary purpose is not specifically to punish the sins. Their purpose is to get the sinners’ attention so that they can repent. Even the sharpness of the consequences of sin is caused by the sweetness of his love for the sinner. They can be compared to a parent’s discipline, which is not administered to cause the pain, but to prevent a greater pain.

Practical Applications

The first practical application to these truths about God’s holiness is not hard to detect: God’s unique goodness should lead his people to worship him. In fact, that was Moses’ reaction after God revealed these moral attributes to him. The scripture says that “Moses quickly bowed his head toward the earth and worshiped”. It is only right that we human beings who aspire to be morally correct would feel compelled to show appreciation for our creator, who always has been holy.

A second application also suggests itself. Seeing the holiness of God manifest itself in the way he deals with his creatures, it is only right for us to attempt to imitate these moral attributes. We should do so for several reasons: 1) the author of Hebrews instructs us to “strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord”; 2) God encourages his people to be holy because he is holy; 3) the Apostle Paul encouraged believers to “be imitators of God, as beloved children”. If we dare to be more holy as we relate to the world around us, perhaps that world will dare to believe that the holy God of whom we speak is real after all.

Evangelical Christians have inherited a rather bizarre sounding doctrine of God. Many believers take this doctrine for granted, but would be hard pressed to explain it to anyone. Some openly reject the doctrine as unbiblical. This is the doctrine of The Trinity. It teaches that the God of the Bible is a complex being consisting of three equally divine persons, but that these three persons comprise one divine essence, not three gods. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not each 1/3 God, but each is fully God, while each is distinct from the other persons.

This trinitarian formula has been passed down to Christianity from its earliest days, and is the result of hashing over the biblical data in search of what it systematically tells regarding the question of the nature of the Father God, the nature of Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and their relationship to each other.

Unfortunately, most of that hashing over of the biblical data took place a long time ago. As a result, many sincere Christians fail to see the connection between the doctrine as it is expressed today, and the texts it developed from. The formula as it stands today is not substantially altered from that expressed by the creed of the Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD.

Challenges

Alternate theories have developed. This chapter will seek to address some of those theories by identifying the points where they depart from trinitarianism, and their reasoning for doing so. Usually these objections to trinitarian language are trying to protect some other aspect of orthodox theology. For that reason, these arguments should be welcomed in academic theological study, even if at the end their premises are rejected.

The Biblical Data

The first place to turn, however, is not to the theories, but to the word of God. A survey of the Bible’s teaching about the nature of God reveals that the authors of the trinitarian formula were trying to summarize the biblical data when they developed the formula.

The very first verse in the Bible contains a grammatical contradiction. In Genesis 1:1 the verb bara’ is properly translated “he created.” But the subject of that verb – God, the one who created – is called ‘Elohim, which in form is masculine plural. The Jews developed many explanations for this apparent contradiction, but at least it suggested that the God who created the universe could not easily be defined. In the same chapter, God says “let us make man in our image” (1:26) which suggests again that God’s nature is a plurality of some sort. There is nothing in the context that suggests that God was talking to anyone else but himself. The occasional use in the Old Testament of plural pronouns when God is referring to himself,1 and plural verbs when referring to God’s activities2 and times when the titles “God” or “LORD” seem to refer to two persons at the same time3 seem to suggests that a raw Unitarianism does not capture God’s nature.

The contradiction is more than a grammatical one, because basic to Judaism is the concept of monotheism. The Bible affirms that monotheism in a number of places. In Deut. 6:4 the LORD is proclaimed to be one. In the face of pagan nations who claim that other beings are equally divine, God tells the Israelites that he alone deserves the title deity. This is more than simply a protest against idolatry. It is a fundamental testimony to the nature of God. But Moses, who wrote Deut. 6:4, is the same author who penned Genesis 1. Either he is contradicting himself, or he is suggesting a fundamental monotheistic deity who (in some sense) is also a plurality.

In the New Testament, this fundamental monotheism of Deut. 6:4 is retained in statements of essential theology. James takes it as a standard of orthodoxy to believe that “there is one God” (2:19). Paul repeats these words numerous times (1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5). Yet when Jesus commands baptism in the name of this one God, he tells the church to baptize believers in the name of “The Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). Notice that there is only one name mentioned. “The Father” is not a name, it is a title. “The Son” is likewise a title. “The Holy Spirit” is a title as well. If Jesus had in mind a name here, it could only be the name which, in our English Bibles is translated LORD. The name in Hebrew is YHVH. Thus the term which the Bible uses most for God applies equally to all three members of the Trinity.

The monotheism that the Bible proclaims is preserved by the trinitarian formula because each of the three persons of the trinity is called by the same name, identifying each with the same being, the same God. God is one “what” and three “whos” at the same time. There is no trickery here. If the data that the Bible presents allowed some other explanation, then the trinitarian formula should be renounced.

But the trinity is often rejected for another reason: it does not make sense. The reason is does not make sense is that it is an attempt to describe God’s nature. His nature is difficult to describe because there is no one else to compare it to. The Bible constantly affirms that there is no one else like God.4 We have already seen in the previous chapters that some aspects of God’s nature are exclusive to him alone. We should not expect to fully understand or relate to those attributes which are exclusive to God. God’s triune nature is one of those attributes.

Each of the persons of the Trinity is revealed in the Old Testament, and his existence and purpose is clarified in the New Testament. Psalm 2:7 records a conversation between God the Father and someone else. The Father is speaking to someone else who is in heaven with himself, and proclaims to that person “”You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” That other person was not an angel, as is made clear by the author of Hebrews (1:5). The New Testament affirmation is that this statement was made to Jesus Christ before he was born (Acts 13:33; Hebrews 5:5).
So trinitarian thought affirms that Jesus (in addition to being fully human) is also fully God, so preexisted his own incarnation.

Jesus constantly spoke of the Father sending his Son into the world.5 It was clear that he was not sent in the same way that the prophets were sent, because behind each of these references is that incarnational appointment as high priest under the new covenant (Hebrews 5:5). He was not sent just to be a messenger to the world, but he was sent to be its Savior, as Paul6 and John7 would proclaim in their epistles. A prophet could come from earth, and be a sinner just like us. But a Savior had to come from heaven,8 — from above9 –and be sinless, like God.

So, when Jesus did finally make his appearance in the flesh among the human race, God the Father declared that he was unique, because of his special relationship with him. Other people were God’s children by virtue of creation and subsequent procreation. Jesus was God the Father’s only begotten Son in whom the Father is well-pleased, and upon whom the Holy Spirit dwells and remains without limitation.10 He is uniquely the Son of God,11 therefore he knows the Father like no one else, and is equally known by the Father.12

Jesus also infuriated the Jewish leaders by claiming that special relationship. They correctly understood that Jesus was making himself to be equal with God. They were right in accusing him of blasphemy if his statements were not true.

John 10:22-33 ESV
At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem.
It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the
colonnade of Solomon. So the Jews gathered around him and
said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are
the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you,
and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s
name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because
you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and
I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life,
and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out
of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater
than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s
hand. I and the Father are one.” The Jews picked up stones
again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you
many good works from the Father; for which of them are you
going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a
good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy,
because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

It was a serious thing to reject what Jesus was saying about himself here. Those who refused to listen to his voice were not part of his flock. He was not claiming to be the Father, but he was claiming to be one (that is, equal) with his Father. He was claiming full deity just as the Father has full deity.

Another factor that leads to trinitarian thought is how the biblical record treats the Holy Spirit. The language used of him is personal, and, when taken seriously, prevents the assumption that the Holy Spirit is just another name for the Father, or some influence or power sent from the Father. Although the title “Spirit” is neuter in Greek, the New Testament authors do not treat the Holy Spirit as a mere influence. They insist on using masculine pronouns when referring to him. He is a “he,” not an “it.”13 The actions he is said to perform are actions of a person who can communicate and whose words can be rejected, and even blasphemed against.14 The “he” in question is not the Father. The Son was sent from the Father. The Spirit was also from the Father but was sent by the Son (John 15:26).

Like the Son, the Spirit will have a mission, and carry out that mission on earth. In fact, the Holy Spirit would take on the same mission as Christ did, so far as the discipling of Christ’s followers is concerned. This is what Jesus meant when he said that the Holy Spirit would be another Helper. In John 14:16 Jesus predicts that the Father (one person) will answer his (another person’s) prayer and send another Helper (third person) who would be with the disciples forever. By using the term “another” here, Jesus implies that he (Jesus) was the first helper.

The term “another” is also significant because the Greeks used two words that can be translated into English as “another.” The term heteros means another of a different kind. We see that word in our English word heterosexual. A heterosexual has sexual relations with another person of a different gender. The opposite is a homosexual, who prefers relations with a person of the same (homos) gender. The point is, if the Holy Spirit were merely an influence from God, an impersonal power, then the Greek word John would have used in John 14:16 would naturally be heteros but it was not. Instead, John used allelos. This word also translates into English as “another” but it means another of the same kind. If Jesus, as a person, came as a helper for his disciples, then he would send the Holy Spirit, who is also a person to pick up the slack in his physical absence. For God so loved the world that he sent his Son. For Jesus so loved the world that he also sent another person: the Holy Spirit.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit had made a noticeable appearance together at the baptism of Christ.15 It was not until after the Holy Spirit appeared and began manifesting himself in the early Church that believers began putting one plus one plus one together and coming up with a God who is three persons. By the time the epistles were written, this had become so clear that invocations for blessings to God were now written not just to the Father, but to both the Father and the Son.16 And references to God’s work in believers’ lives would include all three persons.17

Objections

Not all evangelical believers see the data above as conclusive proof for the doctrine of the trinity. Some objectors, like the Arians and modern day Unitarians18 seek to preserve the monotheism by down-grading the Son to a lesser “god” with a small “g,” (which they would then argue is not God at all), and down-grading the Spirit to God in action (denying his distinct person-hood). Others seek to preserve the unity by merging all three persons into one, like the Oneness Pentecostals19 do when they insist on “Jesus Only.” They apparently see the examples of God’s plurality in speech or action as merely a plurality of manifestation of the one monotheistic God of the Bible.

Sometimes opponents of the Trinity object to it ad hominem because they believe the doctrine came from Catholicism, and thus must necessarily be wrong. While it is true that the first believers in the Trinity were Catholics, it is also true that the first believers in justification by faith and sola scriptura and the priesthood of all believers (as those doctrines came to be expressed by the reformers) were also Catholics. The fact is, the doctrines that reveal the apostate nature of Roman Catholicism had not yet fully developed when the doctrine of the Trinity was approved by the Council of Nicaea. Its creed represents a Church seeking to conform to the Bible and present the Bible’s theology.

The trinity is a touchy subject for most of us. It has even been a matter upon which evangelicals have chosen to deny membership or fellowship to those who hold different opinions. While we evangelicals are sometimes quite liberal in our acceptance of those with differing theological views, this subject often seems too sensitive for that. After all, the nature of God himself seems too essential, too basic to allow much wiggle room.

There is also a practical reason that this doctrine is held with such fervor. To lose the triune nature of God is to miss out on a God to whom relationships are part of his essential being. Both Unitarians and Oneness Pentecostals proclaim a God who is categorically one person. Trinitarians proclaim, worship and serve a God whose unity has always been a manifestation of a unique eternal relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Trinitarians like to think that knowing the Triune God teaches us something about true unity in relationships.

Sincere Advent Christians have promulgated both the Unitarian and Trinitarian positions, but the debate has not always been as irenic as it could have been. The clashes in the past were partly due to the sensitive and important nature of the debate. But some of them (to our shame) have resulted from failure to treat each other with respect. May God forgive us.

________________________
1 Gen. 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8.
2 Gen. 20:13; 35:7.
3 Psalm 45:6-7; 110:1; Hosea 1:7.
4 Deut. 4:35,39; 1 Kings 8:60; 1 Sam. 42:8; Isaiah 45: 5,6, 18,21,22; 46:9; Mark 12:32.
5 John 4:34; 5:24,30,36,37; 6:38,39,44,57; 7:16,28,29,33; 8:16,18,26,29,42; 9:4; 11:42; 12:44,45,49; 13:20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; 17:8,18,21,23,25; 20:21.
6 Gal. 4:4,6.
7 1 John 4:9,10,14.
8 1 Cor. 15:47; 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:16; 2 Thess. 1:7; Heb. 12:25.
9 John 3:31; 8:23.
10 Matt. 11:27; 24:36; Mark 13:32; Luke 10:22.
11 Matt. 4:6; 8:29; 14:33; 27:40,43,44; Mark 3:11; 12:6-8; 15:39; Luke 4:41; 22:70; compare John 1:34,49; 9:35; 11:27.
12 Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22.
13 John 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:13.
14 Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10.

Clearly, some of God’s attributes are exclusive to him alone. No one can fathom a universe containing more than one immeasurable and immutable being. Advent Christians would argue that the attribute of immortality is also exclusive to God alone – at least this side of the resurrection. We agree with the apostle Paul when he says that God “alone has immortality” (1 Timothy 6:16), and take that statement at face value.

While many of our arguments tend to address the issue of the nature of man, it is actually this fact about God which we are most anxious to defend. We feel that to claim that anyone else has this attribute is to rob God of something that the Bible claims is exclusively his. One might argue that anyone’s concept of the nature of man, while important, is hardly important enough to make a distinctive doctrine. But the nature of God was one of the first theological issues ever to be deemed important enough to create controversy in the early church. Surely the modern church cannot afford to be indifferent on this issue.

Athanasia

The Greek word for immortality that is used in 1 Tim. 6:16 is a good starting point. In the Bible, this word is never used as an attribute of anyone else but God this side of the resurrection at Christ’s second coming. The verse itself lists a number of exclusive attributes of God, namely, 1) his immortality; 2) his existence in inapproachable light; 3) his invisibility due to that exclusive existence; 4) his deserving everlasting honor and eternal dominion. Paul made concessions on neither of these points. The reader has every right to assume that Paul was referring to a God who met all of these qualifications, and that no one else did.

Yet as it pertains to that first attribute, it has come to be popular and “orthodox” to make all kinds of concessions. Matthew Henry, for example, says that God “only is immortal in himself, and has immortality as he is the fountain of it, for the immortality of angels and spirits derived from him.”1 So the hypothetical “box” in which we might put all immortal beings is actually not exclusive at all. It contains not only God, but all of those sentient creatures created by him, both human and angelic. Perhaps we should be grateful that cats and dogs did not make the grade.

Lately evangelical scholars see the dilemma in accepting what Paul said about God in 1 Tim. 6:16. Their conclusions, however, are ultimately the same as Matthew Henry’s. Peterson, for example, states the “orthodox” position quite well in his recent debate with Fudge. He said that “Plato held to the soul’s natural or inherent immortality. By contrast, evangelical Christians hold that God alone is inherently immortal (1 Tim. 6:16) and that he confers immortality to all human beings.”2 But once the “and that he confers” is added to the equation, the dilemma begins. 1 Tim. 6:16 says nothing about God conferring his exclusive attribute to all human beings. Either that attribute is exclusive or it is not. Advent Christians see no clear contrast between the view of Plato and that of our brother evangelicals who hold Peterson’s view.

The onus is ours, however, as Advent Christians, to back up this bold claim that God’s immortality is exclusive. Ours is the minority position. That is why a study of the terms used in the Bible to imply immortality is helpful. The study shows that the concept of immortality does not apply to angels and human beings by default. This adds justification for our being obstinate enough to hold to the exclusive immortality of God in spite of its being an unpopular doctrine.

The noun Athanasia only appears three times in the canonical Bible. It makes no appearance in the entire Old Testament. Besides 1 Tim. 6:16, it only appears in 1 Corinthians 15:53-54.

For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

The ESV translators, normally sticklers to word-for-word accuracy, betray their theological bias here by supplying the word body twice in verse 53, even though there is no Greek equivalent in the original. Paul actually agrees with what he stated in 1 Tim. 6:16. Since God alone is immortal, something will have to change in order for human beings, who are perishable and mortal, to become immortal. That change will take place at the resurrection.

There is no indication in the text itself that human mortality pertains only to our bodies. That is a concept that is assumed by the proponents of natural or inherent immortality, and denied by Advent Christians, who propose that immortality is only potential. 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Tim. 6:16 both serve as evidence for the potential immortality position. While 1 Cor. 15 shows that immortality (athanasia) is not currently a present possession (even for the saved), 1 Tim. 6:16 identifies the one being who is the exception to that rule, and presently has athanasia.

The Apocrypha provides seven more instances of the term. While we cannot rely on the Apocrypha as a standard for proof of a doctrine, we can consult it in order to establish how certain terms were used, which is a reflection of their understood meaning. Were we, for example, to find numerous references to athansia as a natural human attribute it might show that intertestamental Jews viewed humans as naturally immortal beings.

4 Maccabees 8-18 contains an account describing the torture of seven young men and their mother by the Tyrant (Antiochus IV). Instances of the term athanasia occur in two places. In 4 Maccabees 14:4-5 the writer says that “none of the seven youths proved coward or shrank from death, but all of them, as though running the course toward immortality, hastened to death by torture” (RSV). From this we can infer that intertestamental Jews did have the concept of immortality, but saw it as something to be earned through diligent faithfulness to God. It was certainly not an attribute taken for granted as the natural possession of all human beings.

The second occurance of athanasia refers to the mother, who, “as though having a mind like adamant and giving rebirth for immortality to the whole number of her sons, she implored them and urged them on to death for the sake of religion” (4 Maccabees 16:13). The mother is pictured as encouraging her sons to stay true to their faith in God with such zeal that it is like she was giving birth to them all over again, this time for immortality instead of mortality (as it was in the first instance of her giving birth to them). Again, there is no innate, inherent immortality described here. Immortality is something to be gained by a martyr’s death for the seven sons. Their mother, who gave them natural birth, did not in so doing impart to them immortality.

All the other instances of the term athanasia occur in The Wisdom of Solomon.
Notice this revealing statement about the destiny of the righteous:

Wisdom 3:1-4 RSV

But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no
torment will ever touch them. In the eyes of the foolish they
seemed to have died, and their departure was thought to be an
affliction, and their going from us to be their destruction;
but they are at peace. For though in the sight of men they
were punished, their hope is full of immortality.

As in 4 Maccabees, athanasia is seen as potential for humans, because the righteous will be resurrected, but athanasia is not an inherent attribute.

Wisdom 4:1-7 RSV

… in the memory of virtue is immortality, because it is known
both by God and by men. When it is present, men imitate it, and
they long for it when it has gone; and throughout all time it marches
crowned in triumph, victor in the contest for prizes that are undefiled.
But the prolific brood of the ungodly will be of no use, and none of their illegitimate seedlings will strike a deep root or take a firm hold. For
even if they put forth boughs for a while, standing insecurely they will
be shaken by the wind, and by the violence of the winds they will be
uprooted. The branches will be broken off before they come to maturity,
and their fruit will be useless, not ripe enough to eat, and good for
nothing. For children born of unlawful unions are witnesses of evil
against their parents when God examines them. But the righteous man,
though he die early, will be at rest.

Here is no denial of the reality of death, but a glimpse beyond it, to a resurrected virtuous person, known both by God and by men. The ungodly, though they might produce a prolific brood, will be uprooted. Notice, again, that there is no mention of athanasia as a common trait held by all humans. A resurrection unto immortality is only the hope of the righteous.

Wisdom 8:13-17 RSV
Because of {wisdom} I shall have immortality, and leave an everlasting remembrance to those who come after me. I shall govern peoples, and
nations will be subject to me; dread monarchs will be afraid of me when
they hear of me; among the people I shall show myself capable, and courageous in war. When I enter my house, I shall find rest with her, for companionship with her has no bitterness, and life with her has no pain,
but gladness and joy. When I considered these things inwardly, and
thought upon them in my mind, that in kinship with wisdom there is immortality…

Wisdom, as defined by the wisdom literature of the Bible and related works like The Wisdom of Solomon is the ability to make correct moral choices which lead to God’s favor. In the Bible, those correct moral choices usually led to a long healthy life, but by the time The Wisdom of Solomon was written, one’s eternal destiny was also seen as a consequence of living wisely. It is the route to eventual athanasia. It is a narrow path that does not include everyone on the planet. It is not innate, nor is the immortality it produces.

Wisdom 15:1-3 RSV
But thou, our God, art kind and true, patient, and ruling all things
in mercy. For even if we sin we are thine, knowing thy power; but
we will not sin, because we know that we are accounted thine. For
to know thee is complete righteousness, and to know thy power is
the root of immortality.

In the New Testament we found that athanasia was an exclusive attribute of God, but a hope for humanity. In this final reference to athanasia in the Apocrypha, we see a relationship with God as the only means of obtaining to that hope.

Athanatos

In the Apocrypha, there are a few instances of the corresponding adjective that we would translate immortal as well. Although this word does not appear in the New Testament, it is helpful to see how it was used.

It is said of Eleazar that “in no way did he turn the rudder of religion until he sailed into the haven of immortal victory” (4 Maccabees 7:3). The most that can be inferred from this metaphorical statement is that Eleazar is counted among those who finished the course of faith, and awaits a resurrection unto immortality. It does not imply that Eleazar was already immortal by nature.

It is said of the aforementioned seven young men that “just as the hands and feet are moved in harmony with the guidance of the mind, so those holy youths, as though moved by an immortal spirit of devotion, agreed to go to death for its sake” (4 Maccabees 14:6). All this implies about these youths is that although their devotion was undying, they were not. You cannot prove that people are immortal from a passage that records their deaths.

Later, the author of 4 Maccabees does state that these “sons of Abraham with their victorious mother are gathered together into the chorus of the fathers, and have received pure and immortal souls from God” (4 Maccabees 18:23). There is a hint of some kind of rewarded state here, but perhaps the reward is merely the certainty of a resurrection unto immortality. At any rate, 1 Corinthians 15 states that the resurrection is when the reward will be realized. If some intertestamental Jews imagined a conscious intermediate state, they were mistaken.

One use of athanatos is found which draws a distinction between God’s righteousness (which is said to be immortal) and secular man’s covenant with death.

Wisdom 1:12-16 (RSV)
Do not invite death by the error of your life, nor bring on destruction
by the works of your hands; because God did not make death, and he
does not delight in the death of the living. For he created all things
that they might exist, and the generative forces of the world are
wholesome, and there is no destructive poison in them; and the
dominion of Hades is not on earth. For righteousness is immortal.
But ungodly men by their words and deeds summoned death;
considering him a friend, they pined away, and they made a covenant
with him, because they are fit to belong to his party.

Here again, there is no mention of a man, or even a part of man, which is immortal by nature. In fact, immortality belongs to the righteous One. Human beings are mortal.
Athanatos is also found in The Wisdom of Sirach:
For we cannot have everything, human beings are not immortal. What is brighter than the sun? And yet it fades. Flesh and blood think of nothing but evil. He surveys the armies of the lofty sky, and all of us are only dust and ashes (Sirach 17:30-32 New Jerusalem Bible).

Here is perhaps the clearest expression of human mortality in the Apocrypha. It says that men do not have the attribute that Paul said only God has. He will always last, but we are “dust and ashes.” The statement is in perfect agreement with the New Testament.

Afthartos

Another adjective – sometimes translated “immortal” in versions of the New Testament – emphasizes the unfailing, imperishable, or incorruptible nature of the noun it modifies. If this adjective were found applied to beings other than God, it would serve as evidence that the NT authors assumed that these beings possessed immortality.
In Romans 1:23 Paul explained that idolatrous humanity “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” Notice that only God is placed in the “beings having immortality” box. Man and animals are comfortably placed in the “all others” box.

In 1 Tim. 1:17 Paul ascribes “honor and glory for ever and ever” “unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God.” If the term immortal applies to all other created beings (or at least the higher ones: angels and humans) one wonders why Paul would bother mentioning the attribute. But if the attribute is exclusive to God alone (as Paul later states in chapter 6), his mentioning it here makes perfect sense.

Some might argue that the term “immortal” is appropriate to describe men’s spirits or souls, but not their bodies. As such it might be appropriate to speak of God being immortal in an absolute sense. He has no body to corrupt or perish. This logic only applies if the principles of Platonic anthropology are true. Plato argued that the soul of man is immortal because it is simple, and cannot be divided into composite parts. The notion of human immortality is the result of combining this principle from pagan philosophy with biblical theology. One question Advent Christians ask is “can the Bible be left alone to answer the question of human mortality, or must we borrow from pagan theology to do it?”

All other references to afthartos3 in the New Testament use the term to describe the hope of believers after the resurrection, or some kind of character trait that is imperishable in the sense that it does not fade away with time. There is not one single use of the term applied to human nature itself, body or soul. If this attribute is such an essential part of human identity, one would expect this adjective to be used repeatedly throughout the New Testament in reference to human nature itself.

God’s Identity

Often when God is identified in the Bible, this exclusive attribute is part of his title, identifying him as different from all other beings. He is the Living God.4 He is the eternal God.5 He is the immortal God.6 He is the everlasting God.7 His name and attributes endure forever.8

By contrast, humans are God’s creatures. As such they are dying.9 They are mortal.10 They are perishable.11 They fade away like the color on a leaf.12 They return to the dust from which they were made.13

The Spirit World

Just as the Bible is silent as to the supposed immortality of humanity, it also fails to express what many take for granted as regards the nature of angelic beings in the spirit world. There is no biblical record of the death of any angelic being in the Bible. That fact, however, merely proves that none of these beings have died. It does not prove that none of these beings can die. Those who assume that angels and demons are immortal are not taking careful consideration of two facts: 1) only God is immortal (as is shown by the texts above), 2) longevity is not the same thing as immortality.

A being can live for a billion years and not be immortal. God sets the time-table for the longevity of all his creatures. Some angels created thousands of years ago will apparently never die. They are the “elect angels” who will accompany redeemed humanity into the next age. Although they will never die, they are not – by virtue of this fact – immortal. Their lives are in God’s hands.

Some angels – created at the same time as those “elect angels” – fell from their state of protection by following Satan when he rebelled against God. From that moment when they rebelled their fate was settled. They would join the devil in the lake of fire, where they would face eternal death. Although God had placed them on the divine council, they will die like men (Psalm 82:1,6-7). They have a date with destiny. Their lives will end. From the standpoint of eternity, it makes absolutely no difference that that date has not come yet. They are mortal and they know it. They dread that time of torment and death that awaits them (Mat. 8:29).

Some Fortunate Humans Who Will Not Die

There are some human beings who will also live what seems an inordinate amount of time. Most believe that Enoch and Elijah did not die, yet there is some biblical evidence to suggest that they did.14 But even if they did somehow avoid the event of death, that does make them immortal. Each of them is still entirely dependent upon God for their next breath.

Regardless, there will be a multitude of believers who are alive at Christ’s second coming who will be immediately translated, transformed and glorified without ever going through death. Oh, that you and I would be among them! But even that great event does not overrule the principle that God’s immortality is exclusive. These believers will receive their immortality from the only one who is qualified to give it.

We Cannot Recant

The texts which our brothers use to claim immortality for humans and angelic beings can be dealt with without destroying God’s exclusive immortality.
These texts will be treated later in this book. However, the issue of God’s exclusive immortality is one on which Advent Christians are simply not prepared to concede. We feel that to do so would be to rob God of one of his exclusive attributes.

___________________-
1 Matthew Henry – The Matthew Henry Commentary on the Bible (1 Tim. 6:16).

2 Robert A Peterson, in Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 88.

3 1 Cor. 9:25; 15:52; 1 Pet. 1:4, 23; 3:4

4 Deut. 5:26; Josh. 3:10; 1 Sam. 17:26, 36; 2 Kgs 19:4, 16; Psa. 42:2; 84:2; Isa. 37:4, 17; Jer. 10:10; 23:36; Dan. 6:20, 26; Hos. 1:10; Matt. 16:16; 26:63; Acts 14:15; Rom. 9:26; 2 Cor. 3:3; 6:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; 4:10; Heb. 3:12; 9:14; 10:31; 12:22; Rev. 7:2

5 Deut. 33:27; Rom. 16:26

6 Rom. 1:23

7 Gen. 21:33; Isa. 40:28

8 1 Chr. 16:34, 41; 2 Chr. 5:13; 7:3, 6; 20:21; Ezra 3:11; Psa. 100:5; 106:1; 107:1; 111:3, 10; 112:3, 9; 117:2; 118:1ff, 29; 119:160; 135:13; 136:1ff; 138:8; Eccl. 3:14; Jer. 33:11; 2 Cor. 9:9

9 Gen. 35:18; 2 Chr. 16:13; 24:22; Job 24:12; Luke 8:42; John 11:37; Heb. 11:21

10 Job 4:17; Rom. 1:23; 6:12; 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:53f; 2 Cor. 4:11; 5:4; Heb. 7:8

11 1 Cor. 15:42, 50, 53f; 1 Pet. 1:23

12 Psa. 37:2; Isa. 64:6; Jam. 1:11

13 Gen. 3:19; Job 10:9; 34:15; Psa. 90:3; Eccl. 3:20

14 Dr. John Roller, in a recent email post, stated “I believe that they are both dead. It’s easy (in my opinion) to prove that Enoch is dead, since Genesis 5:23 clearly states, “and all the days of Enoch were 365 years.”” If Enoch were still alive, he’d be 5,500 years old by now. If Genesis 5:23 is true, then he died before his 366th birthday. It’s a little harder to prove that Elijah is dead, since the Bible nowhere clearly states his age (at death, or at any other time in his life). He was seen going up into heaven [the sky]by a whirlwind [a tornado] (there was a chariot of fire there, but the Bible DOESN’T say that Elijah rode in it) in 852 BC (2 Kings 2:11); but, 9 years later, in 843 BC, according to 2 Chronicles 21:12, King Jehoram received a writing [a letter] from him, discussing all the things that he had been doing since Elijah’s tornado-trip (Jehoram wasn’t even the king yet, when the tornado-trip happened). How did that happen, if Elijah wasn’t still alive, somewhere on Earth? After that, we hear no more about him. My guess is that he was living in a cave on a mountain somewhere in the desert, and that he died there, sometime before 800 BC. If that’s not what you believe, I’d love to hear a better explanation. Be sure to include the part about the letter he wrote to King Jehoram! And, yes, I know all about the theory that both Enoch and Elijah went to Heaven and are up there to this day; but, according to John 3:13, “no man has ascended up to Heaven, but He that came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man who is in Heaven.” In my opinion, that’s as clear a statement as any that you can find in the Bible, and it totally rules out the idea that Enoch and Elijah (or any other human beings, except Jesus) are in Heaven today, or ever have been.”

Clearly, some of God’s attributes are exclusive to him alone. No one can fathom a universe containing more than one immeasurable and immutable being. Advent Christians would argue that the attribute of immortality is also exclusive to God alone – at least this side of the resurrection. We agree with the apostle Paul when he says that God “alone has immortality” (1 Timothy 6:16), and take that statement at face value.

While many of our arguments tend to address the issue of the nature of man, it is actually this fact about God which we are most anxious to defend. We feel that to claim that anyone else has this attribute is to rob God of something that the Bible claims is exclusively his. One might argue that anyone’s concept of the nature of man, while important, is hardly important enough to make a distinctive doctrine. But the nature of God was one of the first theological issues ever to be deemed important enough to create controversy in the early church. Surely the modern church cannot afford to be indifferent on this issue.

Athanasia

The Greek word for immortality that is used in 1 Tim. 6:16 is a good starting point. In the Bible, this word is never used as an attribute of anyone else but God this side of the resurrection at Christ’s second coming. The verse itself lists a number of exclusive attributes of God, namely, 1) his immortality; 2) his existence in inapproachable light; 3) his invisibility due to that exclusive existence; 4) his deserving everlasting honor and eternal dominion. Paul made concessions on neither of these points. The reader has every right to assume that Paul was referring to a God who met all of these qualifications, and that no one else did.

Yet as it pertains to that first attribute, it has come to be popular and “orthodox” to make all kinds of concessions. Matthew Henry, for example, says that God “only is immortal in himself, and has immortality as he is the fountain of it, for the immortality of angels and spirits derived from him.”1 So the hypothetical “box” in which we might put all immortal beings is actually not exclusive at all. It contains not only God, but all of those sentient creatures created by him, both human and angelic. Perhaps we should be grateful that cats and dogs did not make the grade.

Lately evangelical scholars see the dilemma in accepting what Paul said about God in 1 Tim. 6:16. Their conclusions, however, are ultimately the same as Matthew Henry’s. Peterson, for example, states the “orthodox” position quite well in his recent debate with Fudge. He said that “Plato held to the soul’s natural or inherent immortality. By contrast, evangelical Christians hold that God alone is inherently immortal (1 Tim. 6:16) and that he confers immortality to all human beings.”2 But once the “and that he confers” is added to the equation, the dilemma begins. 1 Tim. 6:16 says nothing about God conferring his exclusive attribute to all human beings. Either that attribute is exclusive or it is not. Advent Christians see no clear contrast between the view of Plato and that of our brother evangelicals who hold Peterson’s view.

The onus is ours, however, as Advent Christians, to back up this bold claim that God’s immortality is exclusive. Ours is the minority position. That is why a study of the terms used in the Bible to imply immortality is helpful. The study shows that the concept of immortality does not apply to angels and human beings by default. This adds justification for our being obstinate enough to hold to the exclusive immortality of God in spite of its being an unpopular doctrine.

The noun Athanasia only appears three times in the canonical Bible. It makes no appearance in the entire Old Testament. Besides 1 Tim. 6:16, it only appears in 1 Corinthians 15:53-54.

For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

The ESV translators, normally sticklers to word-for-word accuracy, betray their theological bias here by supplying the word body twice in verse 53, even though there is no Greek equivalent in the original. Paul actually agrees with what he stated in 1 Tim. 6:16. Since God alone is immortal, something will have to change in order for human beings, who are perishable and mortal, to become immortal. That change will take place at the resurrection.

There is no indication in the text itself that human mortality pertains only to our bodies. That is a concept that is assumed by the proponents of natural or inherent immortality, and denied by Advent Christians, who propose that immortality is only potential. 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Tim. 6:16 both serve as evidence for the potential immortality position. While 1 Cor. 15 shows that immortality (athanasia) is not currently a present possession (even for the saved), 1 Tim. 6:16 identifies the one being who is the exception to that rule, and presently has athanasia.

The Apocrypha provides seven more instances of the term. While we cannot rely on the Apocrypha as a standard for proof of a doctrine, we can consult it in order to establish how certain terms were used, which is a reflection of their understood meaning. Were we, for example, to find numerous references to athansia as a natural human attribute it might show that intertestamental Jews viewed humans as naturally immortal beings.

4 Maccabees 8-18 contains an account describing the torture of seven young men and their mother by the Tyrant (Antiochus IV). Instances of the term athanasia occur in two places. In 4 Maccabees 14:4-5 the writer says that “none of the seven youths proved coward or shrank from death, but all of them, as though running the course toward immortality, hastened to death by torture” (RSV). From this we can infer that intertestamental Jews did have the concept of immortality, but saw it as something to be earned through diligent faithfulness to God. It was certainly not an attribute taken for granted as the natural possession of all human beings.

The second occurance of athanasia refers to the mother, who, “as though having a mind like adamant and giving rebirth for immortality to the whole number of her sons, she implored them and urged them on to death for the sake of religion” (4 Maccabees 16:13). The mother is pictured as encouraging her sons to stay true to their faith in God with such zeal that it is like she was giving birth to them all over again, this time for immortality instead of mortality (as it was in the first instance of her giving birth to them). Again, there is no innate, inherent immortality described here. Immortality is something to be gained by a martyr’s death for the seven sons. Their mother, who gave them natural birth, did not in so doing impart to them immortality.

All the other instances of the term athanasia occur in The Wisdom of Solomon.

Notice this revealing statement about the destiny of the righteous:

Wisdom 3:1-4 RSV

But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no
torment will ever touch them. In the eyes of the foolish they
seemed to have died, and their departure was thought to be an
affliction, and their going from us to be their destruction;
but they are at peace. For though in the sight of men they
were punished, their hope is full of immortality.

As in 4 Maccabees, athanasia is seen as potential for humans, because the righteous will be resurrected, but athanasia is not an inherent attribute.

Wisdom 4:1-7 RSV
… in the memory of virtue is immortality, because it is known
both by God and by men. When it is present, men imitate it, and
they long for it when it has gone; and throughout all time it marches
crowned in triumph, victor in the contest for prizes that are undefiled.
But the prolific brood of the ungodly will be of no use, and none of their illegitimate seedlings will strike a deep root or take a firm hold. For
even if they put forth boughs for a while, standing insecurely they will
be shaken by the wind, and by the violence of the winds they will be
uprooted. The branches will be broken off before they come to maturity,
and their fruit will be useless, not ripe enough to eat, and good for
nothing. For children born of unlawful unions are witnesses of evil
against their parents when God examines them. But the righteous man,
though he die early, will be at rest.

Here is no denial of the reality of death, but a glimpse beyond it, to a resurrected virtuous person, known both by God and by men. The ungodly, though they might produce a prolific brood, will be uprooted. Notice, again, that there is no mention of athanasia as a common trait held by all humans. A resurrection unto immortality is only the hope of the righteous.

Wisdom 8:13-17 RSV
Because of {wisdom} I shall have immortality, and leave an everlasting remembrance to those who come after me. I shall govern peoples, and
nations will be subject to me; dread monarchs will be afraid of me when
they hear of me; among the people I shall show myself capable, and courageous in war. When I enter my house, I shall find rest with her, for companionship with her has no bitterness, and life with her has no pain,
but gladness and joy. When I considered these things inwardly, and
thought upon them in my mind, that in kinship with wisdom there is immortality…

Wisdom, as defined by the wisdom literature of the Bible and related works like The Wisdom of Solomon is the ability to make correct moral choices which lead to God’s favor. In the Bible, those correct moral choices usually led to a long healthy life, but by the time The Wisdom of Solomon was written, one’s eternal destiny was also seen as a consequence of living wisely. It is the route to eventual athanasia. It is a narrow path that does not include everyone on the planet. It is not innate, nor is the immortality it produces.

Wisdom 15:1-3 RSV
But thou, our God, art kind and true, patient, and ruling all things
in mercy. For even if we sin we are thine, knowing thy power; but
we will not sin, because we know that we are accounted thine. For
to know thee is complete righteousness, and to know thy power is
the root of immortality.

In the New Testament we found that athanasia was an exclusive attribute of God, but a hope for humanity. In this final reference to athanasia in the Apocrypha, we see a relationship with God as the only means of obtaining to that hope.

Athanatos

In the Apocrypha, there are a few instances of the corresponding adjective that we would translate immortal as well. Although this word does not appear in the New Testament, it is helpful to see how it was used.

It is said of Eleazar that “in no way did he turn the rudder of religion until he sailed into the haven of immortal victory” (4 Maccabees 7:3). The most that can be inferred from this metaphorical statement is that Eleazar is counted among those who finished the course of faith, and awaits a resurrection unto immortality. It does not imply that Eleazar was already immortal by nature.

It is said of the aforementioned seven young men that “just as the hands and feet are moved in harmony with the guidance of the mind, so those holy youths, as though moved by an immortal spirit of devotion, agreed to go to death for its sake” (4 Maccabees 14:6). All this implies about these youths is that although their devotion was undying, they were not. You cannot prove that people are immortal from a passage that records their deaths.

Later, the author of 4 Maccabees does state that these “sons of Abraham with their victorious mother are gathered together into the chorus of the fathers, and have received pure and immortal souls from God” (4 Maccabees 18:23). There is a hint of some kind of rewarded state here, but perhaps the reward is merely the certainty of a resurrection unto immortality. At any rate, 1 Corinthians 15 states that the resurrection is when the reward will be realized. If some intertestamental Jews imagined a conscious intermediate state, they were mistaken.

One use of athanatos is found which draws a distinction between God’s righteousness (which is said to be immortal) and secular man’s covenant with death.
Wisdom 1:12-16 (RSV)

Do not invite death by the error of your life, nor bring on destruction
by the works of your hands; because God did not make death, and he
does not delight in the death of the living. For he created all things
that they might exist, and the generative forces of the world are
wholesome, and there is no destructive poison in them; and the
dominion of Hades is not on earth. For righteousness is immortal.
But ungodly men by their words and deeds summoned death;
considering him a friend, they pined away, and they made a covenant
with him, because they are fit to belong to his party.

Here again, there is no mention of a man, or even a part of man, which is immortal by nature. In fact, immortality belongs to the righteous One. Human beings are mortal.

Athanatos is also found in The Wisdom of Sirach:

For we cannot have everything, human beings are not immortal. What is brighter than the sun? And yet it fades. Flesh and blood think of nothing but evil. He surveys the armies of the lofty sky, and all of us are only dust and ashes (Sirach 17:30-32 New Jerusalem Bible).

Here is perhaps the clearest expression of human mortality in the Apocrypha. It says that men do not have the attribute that Paul said only God has. He will always last, but we are “dust and ashes.” The statement is in perfect agreement with the New Testament.

Afthartos

Another adjective – sometimes translated “immortal” in versions of the New Testament – emphasizes the unfailing, imperishable, or incorruptible nature of the noun it modifies. If this adjective were found applied to beings other than God, it would serve as evidence that the NT authors assumed that these beings possessed immortality.

In Romans 1:23 Paul explained that idolatrous humanity “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.” Notice that only God is placed in the “beings having immortality” box. Man and animals are comfortably placed in the “all others” box.

In 1 Tim. 1:17 Paul ascribes “honor and glory for ever and ever” “unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God.” If the term immortal applies to all other created beings (or at least the higher ones: angels and humans) one wonders why Paul would bother mentioning the attribute. But if the attribute is exclusive to God alone (as Paul later states in chapter 6), his mentioning it here makes perfect sense.

Some might argue that the term “immortal” is appropriate to describe men’s spirits or souls, but not their bodies. As such it might be appropriate to speak of God being immortal in an absolute sense. He has no body to corrupt or perish. This logic only applies if the principles of Platonic anthropology are true. Plato argued that the soul of man is immortal because it is simple, and cannot be divided into composite parts. The notion of human immortality is the result of combining this principle from pagan philosophy with biblical theology. One question Advent Christians ask is “can the Bible be left alone to answer the question of human mortality, or must we borrow from pagan theology to do it?”

All other references to afthartos3 in the New Testament use the term to describe the hope of believers after the resurrection, or some kind of character trait that is imperishable in the sense that it does not fade away with time. There is not one single use of the term applied to human nature itself, body or soul. If this attribute is such an essential part of human identity, one would expect this adjective to be used repeatedly throughout the New Testament in reference to human nature itself.

God’s Identity

Often when God is identified in the Bible, this exclusive attribute is part of his title, identifying him as different from all other beings. He is the Living God.4 He is the eternal God.5 He is the immortal God.6 He is the everlasting God.7 His name and attributes endure forever.8

By contrast, humans are God’s creatures. As such they are dying.9 They are mortal.10 They are perishable.11 They fade away like the color on a leaf.12 They return to the dust from which they were made.13

The Spirit World

Just as the Bible is silent as to the supposed immortality of humanity, it also fails to express what many take for granted as regards the nature of angelic beings in the spirit world. There is no biblical record of the death of any angelic being in the Bible. That fact, however, merely proves that none of these beings have died. It does not prove that none of these beings can die. Those who assume that angels and demons are immortal are not taking careful consideration of two facts: 1) only God is immortal (as is shown by the texts above), 2) longevity is not the same thing as immortality.

A being can live for a billion years and not be immortal. God sets the time-table for the longevity of all his creatures. Some angels created thousands of years ago will apparently never die. They are the “elect angels” who will accompany redeemed humanity into the next age. Although they will never die, they are not – by virtue of this fact – immortal. Their lives are in God’s hands.

Some angels – created at the same time as those “elect angels” – fell from their state of protection by following Satan when he rebelled against God. From that moment when they rebelled their fate was settled. They would join the devil in the lake of fire, where they would face eternal death. Although God had placed them on the divine council, they will die like men (Psalm 82:1,6-7). They have a date with destiny. Their lives will end. From the standpoint of eternity, it makes absolutely no difference that that date has not come yet. They are mortal and they know it. They dread that time of torment and death that awaits them (Mat. 8:29).

Some Fortunate Humans Who Will Not Die

There are some human beings who will also live what seems an inordinate amount of time. Enoch and Elijah were both apparently translated into time itself, so that their next conscious moment will be their reappearance on earth – probably at the return of Christ. Remember, however, that this fact does make them immortal. Each of them is still entirely dependent upon God for their next breath.

Likewise, there will be a multitude of believers who are alive at Christ’s second coming who will be immediately translated, transformed and glorified without ever going through death. Oh, that you and I would be among them! But even that great event does not overrule the principle that God’s immortality is exclusive. These believers will receive their immortality from the only one who is qualified to give it.

We Cannot Recant

The texts which our brothers use to claim immortality for humans and angelic beings can be dealt with without destroying God’s exclusive immortality.
These texts will be treated later in this book. However, the issue of God’s exclusive immortality is one on which Advent Christians are simply not prepared to concede. We feel that to do so would be to rob God of one of his exclusive attributes.

____________________

1 Matthew Henry – The Matthew Henry Commentary on the Bible (1 Tim. 6:16).

2 Robert A Peterson, in Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 88.

3 1 Cor. 9:25; 15:52; 1 Pet. 1:4, 23; 3:4.

4 Deut. 5:26; Josh. 3:10; 1 Sam. 17:26, 36; 2 Kgs 19:4, 16; Psa. 42:2; 84:2; Isa. 37:4, 17; Jer. 10:10; 23:36; Dan. 6:20, 26; Hos. 1:10; Matt. 16:16; 26:63; Acts 14:15; Rom. 9:26; 2 Cor. 3:3; 6:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; 4:10; Heb. 3:12; 9:14; 10:31; 12:22; Rev. 7:2.

5 Deut. 33:27; Rom. 16:26.

6 Rom. 1:23.

7 Gen. 21:33; Isa. 40:28.

8 1 Chr. 16:34, 41; 2 Chr. 5:13; 7:3, 6; 20:21; Ezra 3:11; Psa. 100:5; 106:1; 107:1; 111:3, 10; 112:3, 9; 117:2; 118:1ff, 29; 119:160; 135:13; 136:1ff; 138:8; Eccl. 3:14; Jer. 33:11; 2 Cor. 9:9.

9 Gen. 35:18; 2 Chr. 16:13; 24:22; Job 24:12; Luke 8:42; John 11:37; Heb. 11:21.

10 Job 4:17; Rom. 1:23; 6:12; 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:53f; 2 Cor. 4:11; 5:4; Heb. 7:8.

11 1 Cor. 15:42, 50, 53f; 1 Pet. 1:23.

12 Psa. 37:2; Isa. 64:6; Jam. 1:11.

13 Gen. 3:19; Job 10:9; 34:15; Psa. 90:3; Eccl. 3:20.