Note: This is part of a series on the Trinity from a rational, non-mystical perspective. See the index here.

I like Jesse Albrecht. I do. He runs the very interesting “Rational Christian Discernment,” which is such a fantastic title for a blog. And he’s even commented on this blog.

I almost always agree with his theology (something that is quite unusual!). But, unfortunately, this time he demonstrates precisely what we criticized in “Attebury vs Charlton on the Trinity.” Specifically, he stretches specific citations much farther than is warranted into the point of wishful thinking.

In that post I wrote:

But I wrote that before Albrecht wrote his post. So rather than going through each verse once per day, I’ll just stick to one verse to show how these proof-texts do not establish what writers claim they show. Just know that we could do this for each and every one of the dozens of proof-texts out there.

Here is Albrecht’s very short post in its entirety:

I’m not a Jehovah’s Witness. I never have been, I never will be. It is impossible in large part because of our mutual disagreement on John 1:1. My refutation of Albrecht’s argument is not itself an argument in favor of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

This argument against the JWs based on John 15:13 is terribly weak. I don’t think we should use weak arguments in the defense of our own faith. They should be strengthened (by being updated after weaknesses are exposed) or rejected. So if it looks to you like I am attacking Albrecht, then you don’t understand why I am doing what I am doing.

Without even looking at any cross-references, we can immediately see that this is clearly not talking explicitly about the greatest love that God can have. God is not mentioned and the subject is clearly about men and his friends. So we are not looking at a strong logical deduction from the plain words of the text, but a much weaker inductive inference.

The context of John 15:13 is critical. It is mentioned immediately after the previous verse…

…which scripture clearly distinguishes as separate from—and secondary to—the greatest commandment:

It is obvious that both of these commands are directed at people, not God. The sacrificial love of John 15:13 is a clear example of the second greatest commandment given to people for people.

Furthermore, it is not clear that it is even philosophically possible for God—asserted to be an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinite, incomprehensible, absolute being—to experience or have love that is relative to another kind of love. Given this conception of God, to even speak of an attribute of God as being lesser to another makes no rational sense.

The word for “life” here is psychē. It often literally means “life” or “soul” and refers to the “breath of life” found in animals and men. It is non-immortal. But it can also figuratively mean refer to emotions, desires, and affections.

To the best of my knowledge—given my limited prep time for this article—nowhere in the Old Testament and the New Testament is God described as having a literal soul. When it speaks of God’s soul it is in the figurative context (e.g. when Matthew 12:18 quotes Isaiah 42:1; Levictus 26:11-12; Judges 10:16). God does not have a soul in the literal physical sense, for he does not have a living, breathing, body and he cannot die.

With this in mind, the subject of this passage must be the kind of love a man can have towards another man, specifically his friends. From a strict reading of this passage, without any speculation, there is no indication that this is—or even can be—referring to anything other than what men can do.

The JWs read this passage as if it’s not talking about the greatness of love relative to God, thus rendering Albrecht’s objection irrelevant. However, by his assumption that “greatest” stands in contrast to God, Albrecht is presuming that it is including both God and mankind. Albrecht argues:

See his assumption at work? Now, let’s examine that assumption by looking at a cross-reference:

This is the closest analogue I could find. Here, Paul repeats the Gospel of John’s idea of a person dying in place of another person.

Three times in this passage the phrase “in place of” (hyper) is used to show that Jesus was a substitute for sin. But, pay attention to who is taking responsibility for the offering, who is taking credit for the act of sacrifice. It is God himself. Paul indicates that despite Jesus being the sacrifice—the one who is offered and the one who is offering—it is God the Father himself who is the cause. Given this, even if we ignore the linguistic, contextual, and philosophical evidence in John 15:13, we still have a biblical theology where God the Father is the one showing the greatest love: sacrificial love. God is ultimately the responsible party. Jesus is the agent performing his own action of sacrifice on behalf of another.

Thus, logically speaking, it is simply not the case that a man—Jesus—showed a greater form of love than God himself.

Now, notice one further very important logical point. Humans can sacrifice for another. This is the greatest form of love. But such a sacrifice does not cleanse their friend of sin! Despite being the greatest form of love, it’s still not enough. How can the greatest sacrifice not be the greatest? Because it is still just a sinful man doing the offering of his own accord. But not so with Jesus’ sacrifice!

Albrecht’s argument hinges on the idea that making the greatest sacrifice is equivalent to being God. But it is obvious not only that any man can make that sacrifice and remain merely a sinful human, but also that Jesus’ sacrifice is a greater act of love than any man has ever sacrificed for another, despite them all being the greatest act of love. The act of love itself —despite being the greatest—is not sufficient to infer godhood. Nor does performing the greatest act imply that it is the greatest possible instance of that greatest act. JWs—and likely any Christian—acknowledge that Jesus’ sacrifice was greater than any other man’s sacrifice, despite all being the greatest love a man can show another person.

Such nuance exposes how Albrecht’s argument lacks precision by attempting to be too precise. In stretching the passage to try to get it to say as much as he can squeeze out of it, he inadvertently renders an insufficiency of meaning.

But we have one more cross reference to examine. It is closer to the Gospel of John because it is also said to be written by the same author:

God sent his son. God did it. Why? To be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Jesus absolutely did offer himself freely, but it was God who did it. The greatest love any man has ever shown to another man? God was responsible for it. God sent Jesus to die, Jesus did not send himself.

If we take Albrecht’s premise, for sake of argument, that God must show the greatest form of love because he is God, then we are forced to conclude that the reason Jesus’ sacrifice was the quintessential and ultimate form of the greatest form of love—sacrifice for another—it is not because Jesus was divine, nor even that he died for everyone, but because Jesus was God’s agent: God was the one who sent him.

This is why many Trinitarians say that Jesus—the second person of the Trinity—sent himself (per John 10:30 and Philippians 2:6-8), even though John always assigns this to the Father’s command (John 3:16; John 8:42; John 10:17-18; John 4:9-10) and Jesus’ obedience. As John’s Gospel tells us many times, Jesus did nothing apart from God. That includes his sacrifice.

So let’s round back to the original point. There is fundamentally no reason or justification for reading John 15:13 in light of the doctrine of the Trinity. It isn’t explicitly about the Trinity, nor is it explicitly about Jesus divinity. Nothing in the linguistics, immediate context, philosophy, or greater scriptural context (cross-references) demands that it must be about Jesus divinity.

It is absolutely possible for Albrecht—or anyone else—to build a theology that is compatible with Jesus being divine in John 15:13. But, it is simply not possible for anyone to take John 15:13 as a logical proof of divinity without, almost certainly, engaging in multi-step circular reasoning. The only way to conclude from John 15:13 that Jesus was divine is to presume at the outset that he was divine.

Throughout this series, I have stated quite plainly what the majority of Christians have taught throughout the century. The doctrine of the Trinity is an inexplicable mystery. It is not accessible to reason. Any attempts to apply reason to the doctrine of the Trinity will fail because proving the Trinity is logically impossible.

I respect Jesse Albrecht, but his attempts to find the Trinity in scripture are doomed to fail. Debunking his proof-texts is like shooting fish in a barrel.