Milton on the Son of God – Part 3

Milton on the Son of God – Part 3

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note:  Page numbers enclosed in parentheses are references to Milton on the Son of God and the Holy Spirit from His Treatise on Christian Doctrine by John Milton. The author’s comments are enclosed in brackets.]

      Some Trinitarians claim that according to some passages, “Christ is God; now if the Father be the only true God, Christ is not the true God; but if he be not the true God, he must be a false God” (p. 58). To this assertion, Milton replies “that the conclusion is too hastily drawn; for it may be that he is not ‘he that is true,’ either because he is only the image of him that is true, or because he uniformly declares himself to be inferior to him that is true. We are not obliged to say of Christ what the Scriptures do not say” (pp. 58-59). The Scriptures do not call Christ true God. Moreover, “he is not to be called a false God, to whom, as to his beloved Son, he that is the true God has communicated his divine power and glory” (p. 59).
      Trinitarians use Philippians 2:6 (“who being in the form of God”) to support their doctrine. Milton replies:

But this no more proves him to be God than the phrase which follows — “took upon him the form of a servant” — proves that he was really a servant, as the sacred writers nowhere use the word “form” for actual being. But if it be contended that “the form of God” is here taken in a philosophical sense for the essential form, this consequence cannot be avoided, that when Christ laid aside the form, he laid aside also the substance and the efficiency of God; a doctrine against which they protest, and with justice (p. 59).

According to Milton, “‘To be in the form of God,’ . . . seems to be synonymous with being in the image of God; which is often predicated of Christ, even as man is also said, though in a much lower sense, to be the image of God, that is, by creation” (p. 59).
      About Trinitarian gymnastics with the Scriptures, Milton writes:

It is singular, however, that those who maintain the Father and the Son to be one in essence, should revert from the gospel to the times of the law, as if they would make a fruitless attempt to illustrate light by darkness. They say that the Son is not only called God, but also Jehovah, as appears from a comparison of several passages in both testaments. Now Jehovah is the one supreme God; therefore the Son and the Father are one in essence (p. 61).

Further, Milton notes that the name of Jehovah is applied to angels when they represent his divine presence and speak his words. In support, he cites numerous verses (pp. 61-65).
      Then, citing several passages, he illustrates the absurdity of assuming that when one name is mentioned twice in the same sentence that the name is applied to two persons (pp. 65-66).
      Next, he discusses Exodus chapter 23 and 33 where God sends an angle to guide the Israelites. The angel addresses the Israelites as though he was Jehovah — he is called Jehovah. If the Israelites understood the angel to be Jehovah:

it follows that they must have conceived either that there were two Jehovahs, or that Jehovah and the angel were one in essence; which no rational person will affirm to have been their belief. . . . If the people had believed that Jehovah and that angel were one in essence, equal in divinity and glory, why did they mourn, and desire that Jehovah should go up before them, notwithstanding his anger, rather than the angel? . . . If, on the contrary, they did not consider the angel as Jehovah, they must necessarily have understood that he bore the name of Jehovah in the sense in which I suppose him to have borne it, wherein there is nothing either absurd or histrionic (pp 67-68).

      Some Trinitarians argue that this angel was Christ himself — citing 1 Corinthians 10:9 as support (p. 67). Therefore, he was Jehovah. Milton replies, if this angel had been Christ, he would have acted as a moderator and mediator (p. 68). He adds that “whether Christ, or some angel different from the preceding, the very words of Jehovah himself show that he was neither one with Jehovah, nor co-equal, for the Israelites are commanded to hear his voice, not on the authority of his own name, but because the name of Jehovah was in him” (p. 68). Continuing, he remarks, “[If] the angel was Christ, this proves no more than that Christ was an angel, according to their interpretation of Gen. xlviii. 16, ‘the angel which redeemed me from all evil’; and Isa. Ixiii. 9, ‘the angel of his presence saved them’” (p. 68).
      Next, Milton cites several passages from Revelations that he interprets as supporting his Christology (p. 70). Then he comments on the difficulties that they have caused some Trinitarians. For example, one Trinitarian accused the Arians of transposing and confusing some of the verses in the last chapter of Revelations; thus, he rearranged these verses to support his Trinity Doctrine (p. 70). Milton notes that action would have been unnecessary if this Trinitarian had observed that throughout the Old Testament, “angels are accustomed to assume the name and person, and the very words of God and Jehovah, as their own; and that occasionally an angel represents the person and the very words of God, without taking the name either of Jehovah or God, but only in the character of an angel, or even of a man” (p. 71) — for example, Judges 2:1.  About this issue, Milton writes:

But according to divines the name of Jehovah signifies two things, either the nature of God, or the completion of his word and promises. If it signify the nature, and therefore the person of God, why should not he who is invested with his person and presence, be also invested with the name which represents them? If it signify the completion of his word and promises, why should not he, to whom words suitable to God alone are so frequently attributed, be permitted also to assume the name of Jehovah, whereby the completion of these words and promises is represented? Or if that name be so acceptable to God, that he has always chosen to consider it as sacred and peculiar to himself alone, why has he uniformly disused it in the New Testament, which contains the most important fulfilment of his prophecies; retaining only the name of the Lord, which had always been common to him with angels and men? If, lastly, any name whatever can be so pleasing to God, why has he exhibited himself to us in the gospel without any proper name at all (pp. 71-72)?

[Some ancient manuscripts of Matthew do contain the name Jehovah, Yahweh.]
      Continuing, Milton discusses Isaiah 8:13, 14 along with 1 Peter 2:7, 8, Zachariah 11:13, 12:10 along with Acts 2:33 and John 19:37, and Malachi 3:1 to illustrate that Jehovah’s messenger is at times called “Jehovah” (pp. 72-75). Concluding, he adds, “That the name and presence of God is used to imply his vicarious power and might resident in the Son, is proved by another prophecy concerning John the Baptist, Isa. xl. 3, ‘the voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah; make straight in the desert a highway for our God’”(pp. 75-76).
      Milton states “that the Son himself professes to have received from the Father, not only the name of God and of Jehovah, but all that pertains to his own being —  that is to say, his individuality, his existence itself, his attributes, his works, his divine honours; to which doctrine the apostles also, subsequent to Christ, bear their testimony” (p. 76). Then he cites John 3:35, 8:3, and Matthew 11:27 to support this conclusion.
      Next, he comments on Trinitarians using the two natures of Christ to “evade any arguments that may be brought against them. What Scripture says of the Son generally, they apply, as suits their purpose, in a partial and restricted sense; at one time to the Son of God, at another to the Son of Man — now to the Mediator in his divine, now in his human capacity, and now again in his union of both natures” (p. 77). [According to Trinitarians, Christ is 100 percent man and 100 percent God with no commingling of the two natures.] However, “the Son himself says expressly, ‘the Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand,’ John iii. 35 — namely, because ‘he loveth him,’ not because he hath begotten him — and he hath given all things to him as ‘the Son,’ not as Mediator only” (p. 77).
      If Christ’s Deity had remained what it was before he became the mediator as Trinitarians claim, then “why does he ask and receive everything from the Father, and not from himself? If all things come from the Father, why is it necessary (as they maintain it to be) for the mediatorial office, that he should be the true and supreme God” (pp. 77-78). Therefore, all things that the Father gives the Son are the Father’s gifts to the Son (p. 78). In support, Milton cites John 16:15, Acts 17: 9, 10, Isaiah 9:6 (evidence that he receives his name from the Father), Philippians 2:9, Hebrews 1:4, and Ephesians 1:20, 21 (pp. 78-79).
    About the names given the son, Milton writes, “We need be under no concern, however, respecting the name, seeing that the Son receives his very being in like manner from the Father. John vii. 29, ‘I am from him.’ The same thing is implied John i. 1, ‘in the beginning’” (p. 79).
      About John 1:1, Milton notes:

[T]he notion of his eternity is here excluded not only by the decree, . . . but by the name of Son, and by the phrases — “this day have I begotten thee,” and “I will be to him a father.” Besides, the word “beginning” can only here mean “before the foundation of the world,” according to John xvii. 5, as is evident from Col. i. 15-17, “the first born of every creature: for by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, etc., and he is before all things, and by him all things consist” (p. 79).

[Milton believes that the son created the heavens and the earth. This is also a commonly held belief of Trinitarians. Some unitarians disagree with Milton on this point.]
      About the Son being eternal, Milton remarks, “Him who was begotten from all eternity the Father cannot have begotten, for what was made from all eternity was never in the act of being made; him whom the Father begat from all eternity he still begets; he whom he still begets is not yet begotten, and therefore is not yet a Son; for an action which has no beginning can have no completion” (p. 80). Moreover, “it seems to be altogether impossible that the Son should be either begotten or born from all eternity. If he is the Son, either he must have been originally in the Father, and have proceeded from him, or he must always have been as he is now, separate from the Father, self-existent and independent” (p. 80).  He adds, “If he was originally in the Father, but now exists separately, he has undergone a certain change at some time or other, and is therefore mutable. If he always existed separately from, and independently of, the Father, how is he from the Father, how begotten, how the Son, how separate in subsistence, unless he be also separate in essence (p. 80)?”
      According to Milton, and contrary to Trinitarians, “the Father and the Son differ in essence” (p. 81). Both reason and the Scriptures support this conclusion. Milton writes a lengthy explanation for why they cannot have the same essences (pp. 81-83).
      Next, he comments on the existence of the Son: The Son derives his existence from the Father. In support, he cites John 5:26, 6:57, and Hebrews 1:8, 11, 12 (p. 83).
      About the Son being omnipresent, Milton remarks that “if the Father has given all things to the Son, even his very being and life, he has also given him to be wherever he is” (p. 83). [The Son is not truly omnipresent. A truly omnipresent being cannot move. There is no place where he can move because he is already there. Moreover, if he leaves a place, he is no longer omnipresent because there is a place where he is not. The Son ascended into heaven and will some day descend from heaven — thus, the Son moves from one place to another.] He argues that the apparent omnipresence of Jesus in John 1:48 (“before that Philip called . . . I saw thee”) cannot be used to prove that the Son is of the same essence as the father (pp. 83-84). Likewise, Matthew 18:20 (“there am I in the midst of them”) and 28:20 (“I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world”) do not assert absolute omnipresence (p. 84). [Omnipresence is being everywhere simultaneously. Being many places at once is not omnipresence. For example, a radio broadcast is in many places at once, but it is not omnipresent; it is not everywhere simultaneously.]
      Next, Milton discusses omniscience and cites many verses that purport that Jesus is omniscient (pp. 84-85). Then Milton notes that the Son did not know all things absolutely and cites several verses showing his lack of omniscience (p. 85). [According to Trinitarians, when Jesus appears to be omniscience, for example, John 21:11 {“thou knowest all things”}, he is acting in his divine nature. When he lacks knowledge, as when he did not know when the time of the destruction of the temple or when he would return and the end of the age would occur {Mark 13:32}, he is acting in his human nature. However, according to Revelation 1:1, Jesus is not omniscient; God has to give him the revelation. This occurred after the Son had shed his human body and could no longer be acting in his human nature.]
      Mostly by citing verses, Milton discusses the Son’s authority; his authority comes from the Father (pp. 86-87).
      Whatever omnipotence that he had, he had because all his power came from the Father (p. 87). To support this conclusion, Milton cites several verses. About the Son’s apparent omnipotence, Milton observed that “the nature of these works, although divine, was such, that angels were not precluded from performing similar miracles at the same time and in the same place where Christ himself abode daily” (p. 87) — for example, John 5:4 (“an angel went down at a certain season into the pool”). Moreover, the disciple performed the same works.
      Again citing Scripture, Milton discusses other gifts that Jesus received from the Father. They include the power of conversion (pp. 87-88), creation (pp. 88-89), remission of sins (p. 89), preservation (p. 90), renovation (pp. 90-91), conferring gifts (p. 91), mediatorial, i.e., his passion (pp. 90-91), resuscitation from death (p. 93), future judicial advent (p. 93), divine honors (p. 93), baptism in his name (p. 94), belief in him (pp. 94-96), and judgment (p. 99).
      About the passion, Milton asks, “How then can the Son be considered co-essential and co-equal with the Father (p. 92)?” About Jesus’ exclamation on the cross — “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” — he asks, “He whom the Son, himself God, addresses as God, must be the Father — why then did the Son call upon the Father (p. 92)?” Milton’s answer is that because “he felt even his divine nature insufficient to support him under the pains of death” (p. 92).
      Remarking further on Philippians 2:6, he notes that the Son’s possession of the divine gifts that the Father gave him was not robbery. Milton continues, “[I]f this passage imply his co-equality with the Father, it rather refutes than proves his unity of essence; since equality cannot exist but between two or more essences” (p. 100). He adds:

Further, the phrases “he did not think it” — “he made himself of no reputation” (literally, “he emptied himself”) appear inapplicable to the supreme God, For to think is nothing else than to entertain an opinion, which cannot be properly said of God. Nor can the infinite God be said to empty himself, any more than to contradict himself; for infinity and emptiness are opposite terms. But since he emptied himself of that form of God in which he had previously existed, if the form of God is to be taken for the essence of the Deity itself, it would prove him to have emptied himself of that essence, which is impossible (p. 100).

      Lastly, Milton proves that the Father is greater than the Son. For Jesus said, “My Father is greater than all” (John 10:29) and “my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Trinitarians respond “that Christ is speaking of his human nature” (p. 100). However, Milton doubts that “his disciples understand him as speaking merely of his human nature” (p. 100). He writes:

If therefore he said this, not of his human nature only (for that the Father was greater than he in his human nature could not admit of a doubt), but in the sense in which he himself wished his followers to conceive of him both as God and man, it ought undoubtedly to be understood as if he had said, My Father is greater than I, whatsoever I am, both in my human and divine nature; otherwise the speaker would not have been he in whom they believed, and instead of teaching them, he would only have been imposing upon them with an equivocation. He must therefore have intended to compare the nature with the person, not the nature of God the Father with the nature of the Son (p. 101).

He cites several verses to support his conclusion that the Father is greater than the Son (pp. 101-105).
      As shown above, Milton presents a unitarian argument akin to that of the Arians and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. All three believe in a preexisting Son, i.e., the Son existed before his conception. They believe that the Son has a beginning and, therefore, is not eternal. Further, they believe that the Father is the supreme God, the only true God, Jehovah of the Old Testament, and that God is one in person. Moreover, Milton was in agreement with most orthodox Christians from the mid-second century to early fourth century; they believed in a preexisting Son who was not eternal and who was subordinate to the Father. [Milton is unclear about whether Jesus was perfect man of a rational soul and the preexisting Son of a rational soul both occupying the same body without confusion of substances similar to the Trinitarian and Valentinian belief or Jesus was a human shell or sentient body with the preexisting Son providing the rational soul or mind similar to the Apollinarian belief or some other model.]

Copyright © 2018 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More religious articles.

Milton on the Son of God – Part 2

Milton on the Son of God – Part 2

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note:  Page numbers enclosed in parentheses are references to Milton on the Son of God and the Holy Spirit from His Treatise on Christian Doctrine by John Milton. The author’s comments are enclosed in brackets.]

    Not only does the Trinity Doctrine lack scriptural support, it also is lacking in reason. The “alternative therefore must be adopted, namely, that if God be one God, and that one God be the Father, and if notwithstanding the Son be also called God, the Son must have received the name and nature of Deity from God the Father, in conformity with his decree and will, after the manner stated before” (p. 25).
    Milton notes that Trinitarians insist “that wherever the name of God is attributed to the Father alone, it should be understood . . . to signify the three persons, or the whole essence of the Trinity, not the single person of the Father” (p. 27). He continues:

This is on many accounts a ridiculous distinction and invented solely for the purpose of supporting their peculiar opinion; although in reality, instead of supporting it, it will be found to be dependent on it, and therefore if the opinion itself be invalidated, for which purpose a simple denial is sufficient, the futile distinction falls to the ground at the same time. For the fact is, not merely that the distinction is a futile one, but that it is no distinction at all; it is a mere verbal quibble, founded on the use of synonymous words, and cunningly dressed up in terms borrowed from the Greek to dazzle the eyes of novices (p. 27).

He adds that “since essence and hypostasis mean the same thing, . . . [then] there can be no real difference of meaning between the adverbs essentially and substantially (hypostatice), which are derived from them” (p.27). Consequently, if  “the name of God be attributed to the Father alone essentially, it must also be attributed to the Father alone substantially” (p. 27). “If . . . the Son, who has his own proper hypostasis, have not also his own proper essence, but the essence of the Father, he becomes on their hypothesis either no ens [a real thing, entity] at all, or the same ens with the Father; which strikes at the very foundation of the Christian religion” (p. 28).
    According to the Trinity doctrine, “wherever the Son attributes Deity to the Father alone, and as to one greater than himself, he must be understood to speak in his human character, or as mediator” (p. 29). [This is a fantastic doctrine that prevents Jesus from being able to deny that he is God. Every statement that he makes or action that he takes that shows that he is not Deity can be rejected because it is merely Jesus speaking or acting in his human character and not in his divine character.] Milton concedes this concept to the Trinitarian “[w]herever the context and the fact itself require this interpretation” (p. 29). However, “it can never be inferred from hence that he is one God with the Father” (p. 29).
    Continuing, Milton remarks that “simultaneous mention is made of the Father and the Son, that name [God] is uniformly ascribed to the Father alone” (p. 29) with a few exceptions. Then he cites several verses to support his claim (pp. 29-30).
    Milton writes, “The Son likewise teaches that the attributes of divinity belong to the Father alone, to the exclusion even of himself” (p. 31). For example, in Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32, Jesus declares that only the Father is omniscient and that he (Jesus) lacks the divine trait of omniscience. [Trinitarians claim that Jesus’ human character is not omniscient, but his divine character is.]
    According to Milton, “after the hypostatical union of two natures in one person [the union of the divine nature and human nature in Jesus such that, according to the Trinitarian Doctrine, Jesus is simultaneously 100 percent man and 100 percent Deity with no confusion of substance], it follows that whatever Christ says of himself, he says not as the possessor of either nature separately, but with reference to the whole of his character, and in his entire person, except where he himself makes a distinction” (p. 32). He adds, “Those who divide this hypostatical union at their own  discretion, strip the discourses and answers of Christ of all their sincerity; they represent everything as ambiguous and uncertain, as true and false at the same time; it is not Christ that speaks, but some unknown substitute, sometimes one, and sometimes another” (pp. 32-33).
    Moreover, Jesus’ will is independent of the Father, for in Matthew 26:39, Jesus says “not as I will, but as thou [the Father] wilt.” Milton comments, “Now it is manifest that those who have not the same will, cannot have the same essence” (p. 33). Then he cites several verses to show that the Father and Son do not have “in a numerical sense, the same intelligence or will” (p. 33): Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32, and John 6:38.
    After referencing several prayers of Jesus to God the Father, Milton asks, “If these prayers be uttered only in his human capacity, which is the common explanation, why does he petition these things from the Father alone instead of from himself, if he were God? Or rather, supposing him to be at once man and the supreme God, why does he ask at all for what was in his own power (p. 34)?”
    According to Jesus, “there is none good but one, that is God” (Matthew 19:17). To this statement, Milton remarks “that he did not choose to be considered essentially the same with that one God; for otherwise this would only have been disclaiming the credit of goodness in one character, for the purpose of assuming it in another” (p. 34).
    Milton notes that “Christ assigns every attribute of the Deity to the Father alone. The apostles uniformly speak in a similar manner” (p. 35). He cites several verses as examples. Furthermore, many verses declare that the Father alone raised the Son from the dead (pp. 35-37).
    Next, Milton notes that “the Son uniformly pays worship and reverence to the Father alone, so he teaches us to follow the same practice” (p. 37). Thus, divine honors are owed to the Father. In support, he cites several verses (pp. 37-41).
    Trinitarians argue “that the Son is sometimes called God, and even Jehovah; and that all the attributes of the Deity are assigned to him likewise in many passages both of the Old and New Testament” (p. 41). Milton replies “that where the Father and the Son are mentioned together, the name, attributes, and works of the Deity, as well as divine honours, are always assigned to the one and only God the Father” (p. 41). Then he proceeds to demonstrate “that whenever the same properties are assigned to the Son, it is in such a manner as to make it easily intelligible that they ought all primarily and properly to be attributed to the Father alone” (p. 41).
    He notes that the name or title of “God” is occasionally given to angels and men. Angels are called gods in Psalm 97:7, 9 and Judges 6:22, 13:21, 22. The title “God” is attributed to angels when they appear as Jehovah’s representatives (God spoke through them). Examples are Genesis 21:17, 18 and 22:11, 12, 15, 16. In Exodus 22:28, judges are called gods “because they occupy the place of God to a certain degree in the administration of judgment” (p. 46). Moreover, the children of Israel are called gods in Psalm 82:6. Also, the house of David is called God in Zechariah 12:8, and Moses is called God in Exodus 4:16 and 7:1.
    One error that some Trinitarians make is to construe “Elohim,” the Hebrew word for God, incorrectly. Although Elohim is plural in number, it is singular in meaning. These Trinitarians assert that Elohim “is intended to intimate a plurality of persons in unity of essence” (p. 43). [Although this interpretation of Elohim was once a popular argument used by Trinitarians to support the Trinity Doctrine, few use it today. Most Trinitarians now admit that nothing in the Old Testament supports the doctrine of a triune God. However, it does consistently and emphatically support the doctrine of a unipersonal God.] Milton remarks that “if there be any significance at all in this peculiarity, the word must imply as many gods as it does persons” (p. 43).
    Continuing, Milton notes that the Son “was entitled to the name of God both in the capacity of a messenger and of a judge” (p. 46). In John 10:34-36, Jesus used this argument “when the Jews accused him of blasphemy because he made himself God” (p. 46).
    By identifying the Word as the Son, Trinitarians use John 1:1 to support their doctrine of the eternal Son. Milton responds that the verse does not say “from everlasting, but ‘in the beginning.’ ‘The Word’ — therefore the Word was audible” (p. 47). Since God cannot be seen or heard (John 5:37), the “Word therefore is not of the same essence with God” (p. 47). That the Word was with God does not necessarily mean that “he [or it as some unitarians would say] is one in essence with him with whom he was” (p. 47).
    Milton argues that John should be allowed to interpret what he means by the Word in John 1:1. In Revelations 19:13, John writes that “‘his name is called the Word of God’ — that is, of the one God: he himself is a distinct person. If therefore he be a distinct person, he is distinct from God, who is unity. How then is he himself also God? By the same right as he enjoys the title of the Word, or of the only begotten Son, namely, by the will of the one God” (pp 47-48).
    Continuing to John 1:2, Milton comments that the second verse “enforces what the apostle wished we should principally observe, not that he was in the beginning God, but in the beginning with God; that he might show him to be God only by proximity and love, not in essence” (p. 48). Unlike the Trinitarian explanation of John 1:1-2, this explanation is consistent with the remainder of John’s gospel.
    A favorite passage that Trinitarians use to prove the Trinity Doctrine is John 20:28, where Thomas says to Jesus, “My Lord and my God.” In response, Milton writes, “He [Thomas] must have an immoderate share of credulity who attempts to elicit a new confession of faith, unknown to the rest of the disciples, from this abrupt exclamation of the apostle, who invokes in his surprise not only Christ his own Lord, but the God of his ancestors, namely, God the Father” (p. 48). Yet, shortly before meeting Thomas, Jesus had declared, “I ascend unto my God and your God’ [John 20:17]. Now the God of God cannot be essentially one with him whose God he is. On whose word therefore can we ground our faith with most security; on that of Christ, whose doctrine is clear, or of Thomas, a new disciple, first incredulous, then suddenly breaking out into an abrupt exclamation in an ecstasy of wonder, if indeed he really called Christ his God? . . . [Nor] is it credible that he should have so quickly understood the hypostatic union of that person whose resurrection he had just before disbelieved” (pp. 48-49).
    Some Trinitarians claim that the lack of Jesus correcting Thomas in his remarks proves the Deity of Jesus, i.e., Jesus is God Himself, the second person of the triune God. Contrariwise, Milton argues that the lack of correction proves that Jesus is not a person of a triune God (pp. 49-50).
    Also, Matthew 1:23 (“they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us”) “does not prove that he [Jesus] whom they were so to call should necessarily be God but only a messenger from God” (p. 50).
    About Acts 16: 31, 34 (“believe on the Lord Jesus Christ . . . and he rejoiced, believing in God with all his house”), Milton remarks that “it does not follow from hence that Christ is God, since the apostles have never distinctly pointed out Christ as the ultimate object of faith; but these are merely the words of the historian, expressing briefly what the apostles doubtless inculcated in a more detailed manner — faith in God the Father through Christ” (p. 51).
    About Romans 9:5 (“who is over all, God blessed for ever”), he notes that some early church fathers omit “God” when quoting this passage. Moreover, the way translators punctuate this passage can give it different meanings. Milton concludes that “supposing that the words are spoken of the Son; they have nothing to do with his essence, but only intimate that divine honour is communicated to the Son by the Father, and particularly that he is called God” (p. 52). Continuing, he writes:

 But, it is said, the same words which were spoken of the Father, Rom. i. 25, “the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen,” are here repeated of the Son; therefore the Son is equal to the Father. If there be any force in this reasoning, it will rather prove that the Son is greater than the Father; for according to the ninth chapter, he is “over all,” which, however, they remind us, ought to be understood in the same sense as John iii. 31, 32, “he that cometh from above, is above all; he that Cometh from heaven is above all” (p. 52).

However, Milton adds that Christ “came not of himself, but was sent from the Father, and was obedient to him” (pp. 52-53). Moreover, Christ “never could have become a mediator, nor could he have been sent from God, or have been obedient to him, unless he had been inferior to God and the Father as to his nature. Therefore also after he shall have laid aside his functions as mediator, whatever may be his greatness, or whatever it may previously have been, he must be subject to God and the Father” (p. 53).
    As for 1 Timothy 3:16 (“God was manifest in the flesh”), many early manuscripts omit “God” [as do many translations since the King James]. However, Milton concedes that “when the context is duly examined, that the whole passage must be understood of God the Father in conjunction with the Son. For it is not Christ who is “the great mystery of godliness,” but God the Father in Christ” (p. 54). To support his conclusion, he cites Colossians 2:2 and 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19. Continuing, he writes, “‘was manifest in the flesh’ — namely, in the Son, his own image; in any other way he is invisible: nor did Christ come to manifest himself, but his Father, John xiv. 8, 9” (p. 54). (For more justifications of Milton’s conclusion, see pages 54-55).
    Next, Milton comments on Titus 2:13 (“the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”) in some detail and about various translations. He concludes that:

what is proposed to us as an object of belief, especially in a matter involving a primary article of faith, ought not to be an inference forced and extorted from passages relating to an entirely different subject, in which the readings are sometimes various, and the sense doubtful — nor hunted out by careful research from among articles and particles — nor elicited by dint of ingenuity, like the answers of an oracle, from sentences of dark or equivocal meaning — but should be susceptible of abundant proof from the clearest sources (p. 56).

[This advice Trinitarians ignore because the clearest passages support Unitarianism.]
    Then, Milton comments on 1 John 5:20 (“We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, (even) in his Son Jesus Christ: this is the true God, and eternal life”). Trinitarians use the second part of this verse to support their doctrine of a triune God. However, when the verse as a whole is considered, it does not support the Trinity Doctrine.
    Milton also comments on Hebrews 1:8 (p. 50), Acts 20:58 (p. 51), 1 John 3:16 (pp. 56-57), Jude 4 (pp. 59-58), Psalm 68:17-19, and Ephesians 4:5-8 (pp. 60-61).

Copyright © 2018 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1, Part 3

More religious articles.

Milton on the Son of God – Part 1

Milton on the Son of God – Part 1

Thomas Allen

    John Milton (1608–1674), who is best known as the author of Paradise Lost, believed in an unipersonal God instead of the triune God of three persons or gods in one God of today’s orthodox Christianity. Thus, Jesus is the Son of God and not God the Son. The following summaries Milton’s view of Christ Jesus, the Son of God, as presented in Milton on the Son of God and the Holy Spirit from His Treatise on Christian Doctrine (London, England: British & Foreign Unitarian Association, 1908). About 150 years would pass before Milton’s essay was published. Page numbers enclosed in parentheses are to the book referenced above. My comments are enclosed in brackets.
    Milton notes that according to the Catholic Church, the Trinity Doctrine cannot be “proved from any passage of Scripture” (p. 1). [At least Catholics are more honest than Protestants.]
    His notion that Christ Jesus is not the second person of a triune God, Milton derives from the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone. [The Trinity Doctrine relies heavily on Greek philosophy, primarily that of Plato and his followers.] For him, the Scriptures alone are “the rule of faith” (p. 1).
    First, Milton discusses generation, “whereby God, in pursuance of his decree, has begotten his only Son” (p. 3). “Generation must be an external efficiency, since the Father and Son are different persons” (p. 3), which the Trinitarians acknowledge. Whereas Milton argues that the Son has a beginning, Trinitarians argue that he is “generated from all eternity” (p. 3).
    Milton notes that “the Father be said in Scripture to have begotten the Son in a double sense, the one literal, with reference to the production of the Son, the other metaphorical, with reference to his exaltation” (p. 4). However, many Trinitarians “have applied the passages which allude to the exaltation and mediatorial functions of Christ as proof of his generation from all eternity” (p. 4). Nevertheless, they claim “that it is impossible to find a single text in all Scripture to prove the eternal generation of the Son” (p. 4).
    Citing John 1:1-3, John 17:5, Colossians 1:15, 16, 18, Revelations 3:14, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Hebrews 1:2, 5:10, Milton believes “the Son existed in the beginning, under the name of the logos or word, and was the first of the whole creation, by whom afterwards all other things were made both in heaven and earth” (p. 4). Milton states,  “All these passages prove the existence of the Son before the world was made, but they conclude nothing respecting his generation from all eternity” (p. 5). [Milton’s Christology is similar to that of the Arians and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, both of whom claim that the Son is God’s first creation. Contrary to this notion is that of Unitarians who believe that the Son first existed outside the mind of God when God begot him in the womb of Mary.]
    Citing verses concerning Christ’s “resuscitation from the dead, or to his unction to the mediatorial office” (p. 5), Milton concludes “that however the generation of the Son may have taken place, it arose from no natural necessity, as is generally contended, but was no less owing to the decree and will of the Father than his priesthood or kingly power, or his resuscitation from the dead” (pp. 6-7). Moreover, Jesus is called the Son of God “because he had no other Father besides God[:] . . . ‘God was his Father,’ John v. 18” (p. 7). God created Adam from dust and, therefore, was Adam’s creator. However, God is “properly the Father of the Son made of his own substance” (p. 7). [Trinitarians agree with him about the Son being the same substance as the Father.] He continues, “Yet it does not follow from hence that the Son is co-essential with the Father, for then the title of Son would be least of all applicable to him, since he who is properly the Son is not coeval with the Father, much less of the same numerical essence, otherwise the Father and the Son would be one person; nor did the Father beget him from any natural necessity, but of his own free will — a mode more perfect and more agreeable to the paternal dignity” (p. 7). He concludes that “the Son was begotten of the Father in consequence of his decree, and therefore within the limits of time, for the decree itself must have been anterior to the execution of the decree, as is sufficiently clear from the insertion of the word ‘to-day’” (p. 8).
    Citing several verses (John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, and 1 John 4:9) where the Son is called “only begotten,” Milton comments, “Yet he is not called one with the Father in essence, inasmuch as he was visible to sight, and given by the Father, by whom also he was sent, and from whom he proceeded; but he enjoys the title of only begotten by way of superiority, as distinguished from many others who are also said to have been born of God. . . . But since throughout the Scriptures the Son is never said to be begotten, except, as above, in a metaphorical sense, it seems probable that he is called only begotten principally because he is the one mediator between God and man” (p. 9).
    Next, he cites several verses (Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, 18, Hebrews 1:6, and Revelations 3:14) that refer to the Son as the “first born.” All these “passages preclude the idea of his co-essentiality with the Father, and of his generation from all eternity” (p. 9). [Some Unitarians disagree with Milton on his notion of the preexisting Son. According to some Unitarians, the Son existed in God’s mind as part of his foreordained plan. He did not really come into existence until his miraculous conception.]
    Milton notes that “since to generate another who had no previous existence, is to give him being, and that if God generate by a physical necessity, he can generate nothing but a co-equal Deity, which would be inconsistent with self-existence, an essential attribute of Divinity” (p. 10). Then, he inquires into “how or in what sense God the Father can have begotten the Son” (p. 10). After reviewing the Scriptures, he concludes “that God of his own will created, or generated, or produced the Son before all things, endued with the divine nature, as in the fulness of time he miraculously begat him in his human nature of the Virgin Mary” (p. 10). Moreover, “God imparted to the Son as much as he pleased of the divine nature, nay, of the divine substance itself, care being taken not to confound the substance with the whole essence, which would imply, that the Father had given to the Son what he retained numerically the same himself; which would be a contradiction of terms instead of a mode of generation” (p. 11).
    About the few verses that call the Son, God, which lead to the Trinitarian absurdity of trying to make two to be one, Milton remarks that Trinitarians could have avoided “such violence to reason” (p, 11) if they had paid attention to the Scriptures. Then he cites Psalm 82:6 where God calls the children of Israel gods and John 10:35. [Also, Moses is called God in Exodus 4:16 and 7:1. See below where Milton discusses this issue further.]
    According to the Scriptures, “there is in reality but one true independent and supreme God” (p. 13). Furthermore, “human reason and the common language of mankind, and the Jews, the people of God, have always considered him as one person only” (p. 13). Milton turns to the Scriptures to identify who this God is.
    Since Jesus, the only begotten Son, is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18), he should know who is God. According to Jesus’ testimony, the Father is the one true God. This testimony is given in Mark 12:28, 29, and 32: “‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord’ or as it is in the Hebrew, ‘Jehovah our God is one Jehovah’” (p. 14). This conversation between Jesus and the scribe shows that the “unity of God is intended his oneness of person” (p. 15). John 8:41, 54 proves that God is the Father: “[W]e have one Father, even God. . . . [I]t is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say that he is your God.” For more proof, Milton cites John 17:3 (“this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”) and John 20:17 (“I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God”). Therefore, if “the Father be the God of Christ, and the same be our God, and if there be none other God but one, there can be no God beside the Father” (p. 16).
    Moreover, Paul, like Jesus, teaches that there is but one God, the Father. [Paul does not teach a triune God or that the Father is one person in God and Jesus is another person in God, yet both are one God.] To support his argument (p. 16), Milton cites 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 (“there is none other God but one . . . there is but one God the Father”). As only one God exists, then not only are all other essences excluded, but all other persons are excluded (p. 16). In the above-cited passage, Paul clearly distinguishes Jesus Christ from God, who is the Father. Referring to 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Milton adds that if a different causation “of whom all things” applies to God the Father and “by whom are all things” applies to Christ the Son, then“if a difference of causation prove a difference of essence, he [Christ] is distinguished also in essence” (p. 16). He adds, “Besides, since a numerical difference originates in difference of essence, those who are two numerically, must be also two essentially” (p. 17).
    Milton argues that when the Scriptures declare that all things are by Christ, “it must be understood of a secondary and delegated power” (p. 18).
    Referencing Ephesians 4:4-6, Milton argues that “there is one Spirit, and one Lord; but the Father is one, and therefore God is one in the same sense as the remaining objects of which unity is predicated, that is, numerically one, and therefore one also in person” (p. 19). Then, he cites 1 Timothy 2:5 (“there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”). He states that “the mediator, though not purely human, is purposely named man, by the title derived from his inferior nature, lest he should be thought equal to the Father, or the same God, the argument distinctly and expressly referring to one God” (p. 19). Rhetorically, he asks “how anyone can be a mediator to himself on his own behalf” (p. 19). [Some Unitarians would strongly object with Milton about Jesus not being purely human. If he were not purely human, he could not have been tempted as humans {Hebrews 2:18 and 4:15} are, suffered like them, or died like them, etc. He was like a man in all respects {Hebrews 2:17}. However, Jesus was a uniquely special man in that he was a special messenger of God the Father with a divine mission whose authority came directly from God the Father. He is the one and only Son of God, who has a unique and intimate relationship with God. Moreover, he was filled with the spirit of God. Unfortunately, Milton could not wean himself from the Greek philosophy that had infected Christianity and that underlies the Trinity Doctrine. Thus, he literally interprets passages that suggest that the Son really existed before his conception. Yet, he does not literally interpret passages that declare the Son to be a real man — fully human like every other human but without sin. Consequently, for him as for Trinitarians, the Son is man but not a man. A preexisting spirit incarnated in a human body may become man, but he cannot become a man. One can only become a man if his beginning is with conception — unless all humans preexist spiritually and are incarnated in a human body, which is a concept that nearly all Christians reject — Origen and those who believe in reincarnation being exceptions.]
    Next, he quotes Romans 5:10 (“we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son”). He remarks, “To whatever God we were reconciled, if he be one God, he cannot be the God by whom we are reconciled, inasmuch as that God is another person; for if he be one and the same, he must be a mediator between himself and us, and reconcile us to himself by himself; which is an insurmountable difficulty” (pp. 19-20). [Moreover, how can an immortal, eternal God die? Trinitarians would argue that only the human nature of Jesus died; his divine nature did not. Then many of these same Trinitarians would declare that mankind could not be saved except by the death of God.]
    Milton notes “that the Father alone is a self-existent God, and that a being which is not self-existent cannot be God” (p. 20). This is so evident that no explanation should be required. Then, he remarks:

[I]t is wonderful with what futile subtleties, or rather with what juggling artifices, certain individuals have endeavoured to elude or obscure the plain meaning of these passages; leaving no stone unturned, recurring to every shift, attempting every means, as if their object were not to preach the pure and unadulterated truth of the gospel to the poor and simple, but rather by dint of vehemence and obstinacy to sustain some absurd paradox from falling, by the treacherous aid of sophisms and verbal distinctions, borrowed from the barbarous ignorance of the schools (p. 20).

[Thus, he lambastes Trinitarians.]
    Trinitarians interpret John 10:30 (“I and my Father are one”) to mean that the Son and the Father are one in essence. Milton answers, “Two things may be called one in more than one way” (p. 21). In the previous verse (John 10:29), Jesus said that his Father was greater than all. In John 10:34-36, Jesus denies making himself God. About John 10:36, Milton writes, “This must be spoken of two persons not only not co-essential, but not coequal” (p. 21).
    Moreover, by failing to mention the Holy Spirit, John 10:30 fails to support the Trinity Doctrine. “[T]he Son and the Father without the Spirit are not one in essence” (p. 22) — so argue Trinitarians.
    How are the Son and Father one? “[T]hey are one, inasmuch as they speak and act with unanimity” (p. 22). Jesus said, “believe the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him” (John 10:38) and “the words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” (John 14:10). Thus, when Jesus says that “I and my Father are one,” he means one in “intimacy of communion” (p. 22). He does not mean the unity of essence. He “declares himself to be one with the Father in the same manner as we are one with him — that is, not in essence, but in love, in communion, in agreement, in charity, in spirit, in glory” (p. 22). In support of this conclusion, he cites John 14:20, 21 and 17:21-23.

Copyright © 2018 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More religious articles.