In his debate against LDS apologist, Martin
Tanner, Reformed Baptist, James R. White, a long-time anti-Mormon activist,
stated during the audience Q&A session that 1 Cor 8:4-6 is a “Trinitarian
text.” Is this the case?
Here is the Greek followed by the NRSV translation
(emphasis added):
Περὶ τῆς βρώσεως
οὖν τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων, οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ καὶ ὅτι οὐδεὶς θεὸς
εἰ μὴ εἷς. καὶ γὰρ εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοὶ εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς, ὥσπερ
εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί, ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ἐξ οὗ τὰ
πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα
καὶ ἡμεῖς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ.
Hence, as to the
eating of food offered to idols, we know that "no idol in the world really
exists," and that "there is no God but one." Indeed, even
though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth -- as in fact there
are many gods and many lords -- yet for us there is one God, the Father,
from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus
Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
There are a number of important points here—
Firstly, the term “God” is predicated upon
the Father, and it is to the exclusion of the Son. In Trinitarianism, while
there is (albeit, a very ambiguous) allowance for the distinction between the “persons”
of the Trinity, there is no allowance between a distinction of “God” (or any
other divine name or title) and the persons. However, in this text, and other New
Testament creedal texts (e.g. Phil 2:5-11; 1 Tim 2:5), Paul (as well as other
NT authors [e.g. John 17:3]) distinguishes, not just the Father from the Son,
but θεος (God)
from the Son.
Secondly, the “number”
of God is said to be “one” (εἷς). In light of how the Father has θεος predicated upon his person to the exclusion of the Son, absolutising
this verse as White et al. wish to do, this is a strictly Unitarian text, not
Trinitarian. However, this is not an issue for Latter-day Saint Christology, as
the term “God” is multivalent, as we recognise that the Father is the “one true
God,” but there are (true) deities who can properly be called “God” (cf. Deut
32:7-9 [Dead Sea Scrolls]; Psa 29; 89; etc), something neither most flavours of
Unitarianism and Trinitarianism can subscribe to.
Another refutation of
the Trinity comes from that of logic. In 1 Cor 8:6, creation is said to be εκ (from) the Father, while it is said to be δια (through/by) the Son. Now, again absolutising this pericope in the way Trinitarians wish
to do, let us examine how this pericope is another nail in the coffin of the
claim that "the Trinity flows from every page of the Bible":
First Premise: If Jesus is God within the sense of Trinitarian Christology, all things would be made from (εκ) him.
Second Premise: All things were not made from (εκ) Jesus.
Conclusion: Jesus is not God within the sense of Trinitarian Christology.
This is perfectly logical reasoning, called
modus tollens. Not only do Trinitarians have to go against careful,
scholarly exegesis of the Bible, but also logic.
It should also be noted that many Trinitarian
scholars argue that this text is not Trinitarian, but binitarian, with
this pericope “proving” that Paul did not believe, when he wrote 1 Cor 8:4-6, in the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit(!)
Daniel Wallace, a leading Greek grammarian
who is also Reformed/Trinitarian, in an interview in favour of the
Trinity (which can be found here) admitted this.
Unitarian apologist, Jaco Van Zyl, summed up the implications of this admission rather well in his response to Wallace's interview:
For Wallace to admit that NT writers did not understand the Trinity
implies that later Fourth- and Fifth-Century Christians discerned and believed
what “inspired” bible writers failed to believe. This argument is therefore no
different from the claims made by the very ones Wallace and others are trying
to help since the Jehovah’s Witnesses also proclaim that Jesus and the apostles
didn’t know that Jesus would return in 1914 C.E., or that the first Christians
did not know that the “great multitude” of Revelation 7:9 would be a second
class of Christians gathered since 1935 with a different hope than the literal
144 000 anointed class of Revelation 14, etc.; there is absolutely no
difference in argumentation. At least it can be safely said, considering Wallace’s
admission, that the first Christians did not believe in the Trinity formulated
in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries – that who and what God was to them was
different from who God was to these first Christians. The implications of this
admission are rather significant.
There are other considerations (e.g. the
refutations of Richard Bauckham’s “divine identity” argument by Blake Ostler
and Dr. Dale Tuggy), but the above should add some food for thought.
Suggested Reading:
Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism
Blake T. Ostler, Of God and Gods
Christopher R. Bruno, God is One
Dale R. Tuggy, “On Bauckham’s Bargain”
(available online here)
