[This continues the email exchange between BAN@S6K and her missionary friend; this time she addresses the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, as brought up by the missionary’s reference to Genesis 1:26: Let us make man in our image . . . which has been used as a one of a few prooftexts to justify the idea that the “Old Testament” God had always been “plural” and not “singular.” —Admin1.]
————————
The doctrine of the Trinity is one doctrine we all have grown up with and have accepted as a tenet of our faith.
The belief in the union of the three divine persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into one Godhead is often defined in the following terms:
“The holy trinity is one supreme being existing in three persons, all equal in rank and in eternity and having the same substance, all united in one God-head”.
When pressed to explain it from the Scriptures, Christian theologians would respond with something like “It is a great mystery and no one can really understand it.” Christians must accept it by faith. Would YHVH give man a key teaching that could not be understood? How could HE give us a concept that is absent in the Scriptures?
We, as seekers of truth, are motivated to obtain accurate knowledge from Scriptural research, than in twisting and manipulating the scriptures to fit some preconceived man-made doctrine or dogma that we have been spoonfed with. We should be interested in truth, rather than in just believing what has been handed down to us.
Most Christians today believe that God is a Trinity and many agree that the Trinity Doctrine is not only a major doctrine of Christianity, but perhaps the main foundation of Christianity. It will take an in-depth look at verses that appear to contradict this doctrine and scriptures that are used to prove the doctrine. There is a lot of pre-Niceane creed writings to look at from the 2nd century to see if they agree, and to at look at history and a list of important events that helped develop this doctrine.
The acceptance of the doctrine of the trinity comes with little questioning and even to this day, is not really understood. A lot would wonder how Jesus can be the son of god and also be that God that he is the son of. I think it is fair to say that most Christians today who believe in the Trinity have never really checked it out to see if what they believe is taught in scriptures. Many assume that it must be correct because it is what most churches teach and this is perhaps the doctrine that most churches have in common.. This doctrine is widely accepted that people think it is wrong to question doctrines like this as it could cause doubt. But, we are supposed to test all teaching and see if it is affirmed by God’s Revelation to His people.
A thorough study of Scripture and history reveals the simple fact that the Trinity teaching was unknown to the early New Testament believers. It is not a biblical term. The doctrine cannot be discovered by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason.
HOW DID THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY DEVELOP?
(a short history)
During the days, after Jesus’ death, his disciples taught what he taught them, faithfully. We have to remember Jesus was a Jew and adhered thoroughly with the revealed words of YHVH as written in the existing scripture of his time, the Tanach. So truths found in the Tanach was what Jesus taught, hence this is what the disciples taught too. But after their death, it did not take long before the truth they taught became eroded with falsehoods. These falsehoods began when “Christianity” was accepted by the Gentiles. As Christianity grew in numbers, it was inevitable that they would gravitate to certain charismatic leaders, foremost of whom were Arius amd Athanasius, both of Alexandria, Egypt.
Arius (circa – 259-336 CE) held that Christ is the Son of God and that because he is the Son, he therefore had a beginning: “it is a necessary condition of the filial relation.” He wrote “that the Father must be older than his Son.” The Father and the Son are of “like substance” (nature) and therefore Christ is divine and worthy of worship. (A century before Arius, another believer named Novation of Rome held a similar view.)
Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, headed the opposing party which held that the Father and the Son are of “one substance” co-equal and co-eternal . They asserted that the doctrine of Arius lowered the Son making Him less worthy of worship than the Father. (It is worth noting here that the Egyptians had worshipped a triune God, Osiris the Father, Horus the Son, and Isis, the virgin.)
History records that there were many debates between these two factions. It is not far off to say that the Christians then had opinions concerning the nature of Christ. Theological warfare between Arius’ and Athanasius’ doctrinal camps became intense. Constantine, the then emperor realized that his empire was being threatened by the doctrinal rift. Constantine began to pressure the church to come to terms with its differences. As the controversy dragged on, he finally summoned the first General Council of the Church of Nicea in 325CE to settle this dispute and to reunify the Church. (Note that this happened 294 years after the death of Christ.)
In this council, Arius was defeated. The main point declared was, the Son was of the “same substance” with the Father. Arius was branded a heretic and banished to one of the remote provinces of Elyricum. The conclusion was ambiguous and settled nothing. The ruling of the Emperor was clear. He issued letters denouncing Arius and ordered that anyone found with a copy of his writings must burn it or be put to death.
Concerning the nature of Christ, the first Nicean Creed states “the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes those who say that there was a time when the Son of god was not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that he was made out of nothing, or out of another substance or essence, and is created, or changeable or alterable.”
The Nicean Creed read as follows:
I believe in one God: the father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God: begotten of his Father before all world, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made being of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made…..
At the Council of Nicea, the debate was over the nature of Christ (begotten vs. unbegotten). The nature of the Spirit was not an issue. It would be another 56 years before the institutional church would decree worship of the Holy Spirit.
History records that Emperor Constantine was a criminal. He had murdered his son, Crispus, his nephew Licerius, and suffocated in a steam bath his wife of twenty years Fausta, mother of three of his sons. A public abhorrence of his deed could not be concealed. A plaque comparing his reign to that of Nero was affixed to the palace gate. This is the same Constantine, who feigned a conversion to Christ but not wanting to antagonize his pagan subjects, waited until he lay on his deathbed to be baptized, (by an Arian bishop) fearing judgment in case there is indeed a judgment.
Even with the adoption of the Nicean Creed, problems continued and in a few years, the Arian faction began to regain control. They became so powerful that Constantine restored them and denounced the Athanasius group. Arius’ exile was ended along with the bishops who sided with him. It was now Athanasius who would be banished.
When Constantine died, his son reinstated the Arian philosophy and bishops condemned the Athanasius group. In the following years, the political foes continue to struggle and finally the Arians misused their power and was overthrown. The religious political controversy caused widespread bloodshed and killing. In 381 AD, Emperor Theodosius (Trinitarian) convened a council in Constantinople. Only Trinitarian bishops were invited to attend; 150 bishops attended and voted to alter the Nicean creed to include the Holy Spirit as a part of the Godhead. The Trinity Doctrine was now official for both the church and the state. Dissident bishops were expelled from the church and excommunicated.
THE ATHANASIUS CREED COMPLETES THE TRIUNE GODHEAD
The Athanasius (Trinitarian) Creed
The first clear reference to the Athanasian Creed was made during the 6th century. It was not written by Athanasius but adapted his name. It is Latin in origin, and in the Middle ages it was regularly used in church services. Since the Reformation, its use in worship service has been confined to the Roman Catholic church and the Anglican communion, although now, it is infrequently recited.
We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. We distinguish among the persons, but we do not divide the substance. For the Father is a distinct person; the Son is a distinct person; and the Holy Spirit is a distinct person. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal. Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being. Thus there are not three uncreated beings, not three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless being….. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. But there are not three gods, but one God.
[From the Athanasian Creed Reference]
Why the original clamor to elevate Jesus and the holy spirit to positions equal to the Judeo God? Simply because at the birth of Christianity and its propagation, the pagan world was quite used to having three gods or trinities as their deities. The trinity satisfied the majority of converts who had come from pagan backgrounds. We may think that Paganism was conquered by Christianity, but it is more accurate to say that Christianity adapted it some of its beliefs and practices. The adoption of Sunday as a day of worship is one of its adaptation. Sunday was a worship day for followers of the sun god, one of the gods, the Romans worship.
Here is a list of some New Testament verses, Trinity advocates use:
- I and the Father are one (John 10:30);
- ……. he that has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9)
- In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1)
- ….that you may know, and believe, that the Father is in me and I in Him (John 14:10)
- …Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.” (John l7:11)
- Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. “For in Him, dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:8-9)
Here is also a list of New Testament verses denying the Trinity rather than confirming it:
- Why do you call me good. No one is good but One, that is, God. (Matthew 19:17)
- …..for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)
- My doctrine is not mine, but His, who sent me. (John 7:16)
- O my Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will. (Matthew 26:39)
- My God, my God why have you forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)
- But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the son, but only the Father. (Mark 13:32)
Citing from the Hebrew Scriptures, here are some verses, Trinitarians use: Let US make man in OUR image. (Genesis 1:26)
Christians state that Jesus was part of creation with God, plural US and OUR, being the proof. This is one of the most popular verses used by Trinitarians as proof text for the Trinity. What does Genesis 1:26 really say?
With limited knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, Trinitarians take as evidence that Genesis 1:26 affirms the plurality of the godhead which was responsible for creation, because of the use of the words “Us and Ours”. Their understanding is flawed. A great number of Trinitarian scholars have long abandoned the notion that Genesis 1:26 implies plurality of persons in the godhead. Rather, these scholars overwhelmingly agree that the plural pronoun in this verse is a reference to God’s ministering angels who were created previously, and the Almighty spoke majestically in the plural, consulting His heavenly court. In our times, note that when Queen Elizabeth of England speaks to her people, she would always use the plural “We” when speaking to her people.
One very eminent evangelical Christian author, Gordon J. Wenham, who is no foe of the Trinity and authored a widely respected two-volume commentary on the book of Genesis comments on this verse: “Christians have traditionally seen Genesis 1:26 as adumbrating (foreshadowing) the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author.”
The New International Version is hardly a Bible that can be construed as being friendly to Judaism, Yet the NIV Study Bible also writes in its commentary on Genesis 1:26, “US…. OUR…OUR.. GOD speaks as the Creator -king, announcing His crowning work to the member of His heavenly court.” (see Genesis 3:22, 117; Isaiah 6:8; 1 Kings 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jeremiah 23:18)
Charles Caldwell Ryrie, a highly regarded dispensationalist professor of Biblical studies at the Philadelphia College of Bible and author of the widely read Bible commentary, The Ryrie Bible Study, writes in his :short and to the point annotation of Genesis 1:26: “Us…..OUR. Plurals of majesty.”
The 10 volume commentary by Keil and Delitzsch is considered by many to be the most influential exposition on the “Old Testament” in evangelical circles. Yet in its commentary on Genesis 1:26, they wrote,
The plural “US” was regarded by the fathers and earlier theologians almost unanimously as indicative of the Trinity; modern commentators, on the contrary, regard it either as “pluralis majestatis”…No other explanation is left, therefore, than to regard it as “pluralis majestatis.“
The question that immediately comes to mind is: What would compel these evangelical scholars, all of whom are Trinitarians, to determinedly conclude that Genesis 1:26 does not suggest the Trinity, but rather a majestic address to the angelic host of heaven? Why would comments of the above conservative Christian writers so perfectly harmonize with the Jewish teaching on the verse?
The answer is simple. If we search the Hebrew Scriptures, we will find that when the Almighty speaks of “US or OUR”, He is addressing His ministering angels. At the end of the third chapter of Genesis, the Almighty relates to His angels that Adam and his wife have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and must therefore be prevented from eating from the Tree of Life, as he will “become like one of us.”
Genesis 3:22-24 says,
Behold, the man has become like one of US, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” … therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So, He drove out the man; and He placed “cherubim” at the east of the Garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
This use of the majestic plural in Genesis 3:22-24 is what is intended by the NIV Study Bible’s annotation on Genesis 1:26. At the end of its comment on this verse, the NIV Study bible provides a number of bible sources from the Hebrew Scriptures to support its position that “God speaks as the Creator-King, announcing His crowning work to the members of His heavenly court” The verses cited are Genesis 3:22, 11:7, Isaiah 6:8, 1Kings 22:19-23, Job l5:8 and Jeremiah 23:18. These verses convey to the attentive bible reader that the heavenly abode of the Creator is filled with the ministering angels who attend the Almighty and to whom He repeatedly refers when using the plural pronoun “US.”
Another proof that Trinitarians cite is Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is one.
In Hebrew, “one” is translated “echad”. Trinitarians insist that the Hebrew word “echad” does not mean an absolute one, but rather it can only signify a “compound unity” or many things in one. They point to Numbers 13:23 which reads,
Then they came to the Valley of Eshcol, and thee cut down a branch with one (echad) cluster of grapes; they carried it between two of them on a pole…….
The second is Genesis 1:5 which reads,
.…and there was evening and there was morning, one (echad) day.
(To answer this, I will cite from the commentary of Rabbi Tovia Singer, of Outreach Judaism.)
From these verses, they say, it is clear that the Hebrew word “echad” can only mean a fusion of a number of things into one. This proof is as flawed as the doctrine it seeks to support, for those who lack an elementary knowledge of the Hebrew language, this argument can be puzzling.
The word “echad” in the Hebrew language functions in precisely the same manner as the “one” does in the English language. In the English language it can be said, “these four chairs and the table constitute one dinette set.” or alternatively, “There is one penny in my hand.” Using these two examples, it is easy to see how the English word “one” can mean either many things in one, as in the case of the dinette set, or one alone, as in the case of the penny.
Although, the Hebrew word “echad” functions in the exact same manner, Trinitarians will never offer biblical examples where the word “echad” means “one alone”. Thus by only presenting scriptural verses such as Genesis 1:5 and Numbers 23:13, it creates the illusion to the novice that the word “echad” is somehow synonymous with a “compound unity.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Deuteronomy 17:6 reads,
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death, but at the mouth of one “echad” witness he shall not be put to death.
or Ecclesiastes 4:8 reads,
There one “echad” alone, without a companion; yes has neither son…..
In the above two verses the exact same Hebrew word is used, and clearly the word “echad” is referring to one alone, not a “compound unity.”
The question that immediately comes to mind is: If the Hebrew word “echad” can signify either a compound unity or one alone, how can one tell which definition is operative when studying a verse? The answer is: In the exact same way the word “one” is understood in the English language, that is, from the context. “Four chairs and a table make up “one”dinette set” is a compound unity, and Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is ONE is unsullied monotheism. (End of commentary)
Here is one more example of a verse which Trinitarians use to support the doctrine:
Genesis 19:24 which reads,
Then the Lord caused to rain upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.”
It has been alleged by some Trinitarian theologians that there are two divine personalities mentioned in
this verse, one on earth, conversing with Abraham and the other in heaven. The one on earth, it is claimed, rained down fire and brimstone upon the two cities from the one in heaven.
There is, no grammatical basis for such an inference, In accordance with the verse, we find that in the first half of the verse, we are informed who caused the brimstone and fire to fall upon the two cities, In the second half of the verse, we are told for emphasis, not only from whom it came but also from where. The verse emphasizes that is is “from the Lord” in order to leave no doubt as to who is in command of the event.There is no scriptural reason to assume that two divine personalities are mentioned.
The above passages quoted are representative of the opposing concepts.
Christians are faced with a dilemma. The Hebrew Scriptures say—
“I, EVEN I, AM THE LORD; AND BESIDES ME THERE IS NO SAVIOUR” (Isaiah 43:11).
“Salvation belongs to the Lord…” (Psalm 3:8).
” for I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour…” (Isaiah 43:3).
According to the Hebrew Scriptures, only God can be the Saviour. In order for Jesus Christ to be the Saviour, he must also be God. If he is not God, then he cannot be the saviour. His death would be meaningless.
So Christians have invented the Trinity to explain Christ’s divinity. He is man. He is God. He is both. He must be in order to be the saviour. Unfortunately, he is ambivalent at best. Sometimes, he claims to be one with God. Sometimes, he admits God knows things which he doesn’t know and does things which he cannot do. Christians go to nearly any length to prove the Trinity including the declaration that it is a mystery and we just do not have the mind to understand it.
The founders of the early Christian church had no idea that the Trinity concept would evolve, be voted upon by politicians, forced by emperors and eventually become an integral part of Christianity such as we have it today. Is it any wonder that it is difficult to explain?
BAN@S6K
Reader Comments