It is easy to prove from Scripture that God is One, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that the Holy Spirit is God's Spirit. But it is not so easy to prove the existence of a Godhead consisting of three equal persons - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
My first questions about the trinity came about after seeing a painting of the 'Trinity'. The painting depicted three men who looked alike in every way. I certainly didn't imagine God to be like that! To me the painting simply depicted three gods.
Have you wondered what God really looks like? From certain passages in the Bible it would seem that God has ears, nostrils, a mouth, and feet (2 Samuel 22:7-10) eyes (2 Chronicles 16:9) hands, (Deuteronomy 2:15) and arms (Isaiah 53:1). But if this is correct then God would also have to have wings and feathers! "He shall cover you with His feathers, And under His wings you shall take refuge; His truth shall be your shield and buckler." -- Psalms 91:4
Since no one has seen God (John 1:18) we cannot even assume that he has a body of any type. After all, God is a Spirit, (John 4:24) not a physical being. The Scripture says, "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him." -- James 1:5
Studying this subject from the Bible gave me a better understanding of the nature of God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. God gave me the understanding that I sought. On the other hand many of my preconceived "trinitarian" notions failed to give me any understanding of God. In fact I believe that some of the common misconceptions are positively misleading God's people. Trying to understand the trinity doctrine is fruitless. Real understanding comes from knowing God personally not doctrinally. I hope that sharing what I have learned will help you get to know Him a little better.
Is our God one, two, or three persons? Does the Bible say? Positively, yes! In both the Old and New Testaments, and whilst quoting Christ himself, the Bible always associates the number "one" with God - never the numbers two or three. Let's look at a few examples.
"And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." John 17:3 (Jesus speaking of the Father)
"Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." Mark 12:29 (Jesus)
"yet for us there is only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we live for him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live." 1 Corinthians 8:6 (Paul the Apostle)
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," 1 Timothy 2:5 (Paul)
We often come to the wrong conclusions because we approach a subject with preconceived notions. It is necessary therefore to rid ourselves of these notions and begin afresh. Imagine a group of tourists being taken on a guided tour along a country track. "On the left-hand side of the coach" announces the driver, "are the ruins of an old gold mining town". Everyone looks out to the left at the scattered ruins of the ghost town. But no-one saw the huge gleaming nugget of gold that protruded from the embankment on the right-hand side of the bus! Have you been taken on a misleading 'guided tour' of the Bible? You may be surprised by what may lie on the other side of the track! So prepare yourself for some unexpected discoveries.
Lets begin a journey in time, starting at man's first encounter with God. In this way we will follow (from the Scriptures) how the knowledge of God unfolds according to His Word.
The Lord also appeared to Isaac saying, "I am the God of your father Abraham; do not fear for I am with you. ....." Genesis 26:24. Jacob's first encounter with God was during a dream. God identified himself as "the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac." A little further on in time, Jacob, renamed Israel, wrestled with God who once again took on the form of a man. This time it was not in vision or dream, but face to face. Israel said, "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." Genesis 32:30
Over four hundred years later God appeared to Moses at the burning bush and identified himself saying, "" I am the God of your father -- the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God." Exodus 3:6 Shortly afterwards, God revealed for the first time the name YAHWEH. (Exodus 6:3)
In all these instances, and many afterwards, God appears as having a definite shape or form, yet he appears in different ways at different times. To one, he is as a man, to another, he is too awesome to look upon. It is as though he appears with differing degrees of glory. When Moses asked to see the glory of God, presumably in its fullness, God replied, "you cannot see my face; for no man shall see me and live." (Ex. 33:18-23) But the common feature of all these encounters with God is that God appeared as a visible, tangible being. A being who, though at times awesome, was not unlike a man in form. By contrast, the gods of the Egyptians and Canaanites were often portrayed as gruesome creatures, half man and half beast, having horns or wings.
In fact a key truth in understanding who God is, is the fact of God's omnipresence. Genesis 11:5 tells of the Lord coming down to see the city and the tower (of Babel) which the sons of men had built. As though on a "royal visit", the Lord is pictured as being unaware of man's activities. Is he everywhere in the universe at the same time? Or is he simply the commander of an enormous army of angelic eavesdroppers? Similarly, in Gen. 18:20,21 the Lord says "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to me; and if not I will know." Without deeper study, it is difficult to accept these words as coming from the one who has "the very hairs of our head numbered". (Matt 10: 30)
Other parts of scripture do portray God as being everywhere, at the same time. "Where can I go from your Spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend into heaven, you are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, you are there." Psalms 139:7,8
" .... Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain you; .... " 2 Chronicles 6:18
"Heaven is my throne, And the earth is my footstool. ......" Isaiah 66:1
""Am I a God near at hand," says the Lord, "And not a God afar off? Can anyone hide himself in secret places, so I shall not see him?" says the Lord; "Do I not fill heaven and earth?"says the Lord." Jeremiah 23:23,24
With the benefit of these latter scriptures we should not be misled by the accounts in Genesis where God seems to be out of touch with mankind. They are unique in their message because they both precede horrific judgements by God which are types. They emphasize that God does not send disaster on men without first justly considering their case. He does not act upon hearsay evidence.
It is evident then that God is not limited by geographic boundaries. Yet he is visible, having a "shape" or "form" which has been seen by men in various ways. There is only one conclusion that can be drawn. God fills the universe with his presence but at the same time has the ability to "focus" himself into a specific geographic location so as to appear before men or angels. (Job 1:6) This concept is entirely different to the incorrect notion that God can vary in size or shape so as to be, at one moment visible, and then later to assume proportions so large as to have infinite boundaries. So, does the fact that the omnipresent God has a "form" constitute two persons of a Godhead? Do we need to separate God into two beings; the visible and the invisible? Not yet. Remember, at this stage we are looking from the point of view of the light of Old Testament scripture in order to bring us to a place where the New Testament can teach us as it also taught the new church when it was being written.
To begin with let us be sure that the Jews, including the disciples considered God to be a singular being. We are concerned at this stage with the time prior to Christ's teaching. There are some that would argue along the lines that the Hebrew word used for God in Genesis is the word "Elohim" which is plural in form. Hence the translation,
"Then God said,"Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness;". Genesis chapter 1 verse 26.
However, if the word "Elohim" has been chosen to teach us that our God is plural (i.e. Gods) then why do the adjacent verses revert back to the use of singular pronouns in reference to God.
"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Genesis 1:27
"And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, ..... " Genesis !:29
To help understand the use of the word "Elohim" allow me to quote from The New Bible Dictionary published by Inter-varsity Press;
" ......, El is a proper noun, the name of the Canaanite 'high god' whose son was Ba'al. The plural of `el is elohim, and when used as a plural is translated 'gods' (but see below). These may be mere images, 'wood and stone' (Dt.iv.28), or the imaginary beings which they represent (Dt.xii.2). Though a plural form (elohim), Elohim can be treated as a singular, in which case it means the one supreme deity, and in the EVV is rendered 'God'. Like its English equivalent, it is, grammatically considered, a common noun, and conveys the notion of all that belongs to the concept of deity in contrast with man (Nu. xxiii. 19) and other created beings."
Although the Old Testament continually speaks prophetically of the coming Christ, (e.g. Psalm 110:1) there is no mention of the existence of two or more divine beings making one God. (e.g. the Father and Son.) And though the Spirit of God is mentioned several times in the Old Testament, references alluding to the "person" of the Spirit of God are nonexistent. As far as the Old Testament teaches, God is one. And the Almighty God emphasized this many times.
"Hear O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one" -- Deut 6:4 "Thus says the LORD (YAHWEH), the King of Israel , And his Redeemer, the Lord (YAHWEH) of hosts: "I am the First and I am the Last; Besides me there is no God." -- Isaiah 44:6
It was the custom in the days of Jesus, that whenever the scriptures were read, the name Yahweh was not pronounced. Instead a substitute word was used. When Jesus quoted the Old Testament commandment, "Hear O Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one" (Deut 6:4) the gospel writers substituted the Greek word 'KURIOS' (meaning Lord) instead of using the name Yahweh. It is not without significance that in New Testament Greek this is the same Greek word that the Apostles (and Jesus himself) freely used as a title of The Lord Jesus Christ.
The Old Testament only refers to God as a father in the context of his relationship to his people. (Isaiah 63:16, 64:8 Exodus 4:22, Deut 14:1) The use of this title "Father" does not indicate the existence of a divine son. Isaiah 9:6 reveals that the Messiah (not God the Father) will be called Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. It is important to be aware that God's father/son relationship, understood in human terms, did not exist until that day when God said ".....You are my Son, today I have begotten you." Psalm 2:7 Fortunately, the Bible leaves us in no doubt as to just when that was. We derive from the Scriptures that Jesus was sent by God and was conceived by the miracle of the virgin birth. We know from Philippians 2:6 that he was "in the form of God" before he humbled himself and came in the likeness of men. Prior to his birth, Christ, referred to by John's gospel as The Word, "was with God and was God." (John 1:1)
When a child is conceived, two living beings unite to form a third, new, living being. The father gives part of his own body to be united with part of the mother's body to form a new person. Mary was the mother of Jesus. She gave birth to her son Jesus. But Mary was not the mother of The Word. He existed before she was born. Similarly, the Father did not become the father of the Mary's child Jesus until the day that Jesus was conceived.
See Appendix C
Therefore, when we speak of the Father/Son relationship with respect to God we should be careful not to confuse the eternal relationship between God and the Word and the latter and distinct anthropomorphic (human-like) relationship between God the Father and Christ his Son. Remember that God said "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.", nominating the definite period of time when the 'begotten Son' came to be. (Psalm 2:7; Hebrews 1:5) So there was a time when a certain aspect of Christ's sonship and God's fatherhood began. Though it my be demonstrated that a type of Father/Son relationship existed between God and The Word, we should be careful (for the sake of avoiding confusion) not speak of the eternal Sonship of Christ and corresponding Fatherhood of God without due consideration of the 'begetting'.
How did Jesus Christ qualify to be called God's son? God gave of Himself, as a father gives of himself. Mary provided the human side of the equation. God provided the life and spiritual side. This meant that Jesus was conceived out of a creative union between God and woman. "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" Matthew 1:20 This was not a sexual or physical act of union but was a miracle of God. So where does "the Word" fit in? The Word was that part of God which was joined to Mary to produce a living human being with the very nature of God, inherent. "And the Word become flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, ..." John 1:14 To put it more clearly God manifested Himself in human life form to be born as Jesus of Nazareth; yet his ancestry (according to the flesh) came from the fathers of Israel. (Romans 9:5)
Recalling Chapter One, where it was shown that God has a 'visible form' yet his presence at the same time fills the universe, it is suggested now that the incarnation was effected by God placing his visible form (The Word) into union with Mary's ovum. That is to say that He actually became part of the single cell that developed within Mary's womb. Therefore, the Christ to be born was the literal "image" and "likeness" of God. The new life formed was not merely a reflection of God, not something similar, but the 'exact impression' of God, who can now rightly be called Father. God was still in heaven (filling the universe) but his visible form was on earth dwelling with us in the form of a human being.
(John 5:26 NKJV) ""For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,"
Let's repeat that thesis again. God placed his own visible form within Mary's womb to enable the conception of a human life that would rightly be called God's son.
Colossians 1:15 "He is the image of the invisible God,....."
Hebrews 1:3 "Who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person,....."
Philippians 2: 5,6 "Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God,...."
2 Corinthians 4:4 "..... of Christ, who is the image of God, ..."
Here we see that Christ is the visible likeness of the invisible God. (visible likeness - G.N.B.) Because Christ is God's visible image, one can readily understand why making a graven image of Yahweh was such an abomination to him, as it insulted Christ's (or the Word's) purpose. Christ exists so that men may know God. He became flesh so that men might see Him and know Him more fully. He is now the mediator between God and man. During his human life, Christ taught the disciples about the Father. The Father was indeed the same God that they and their ancestors worshiped. But God had changed, in that His visible form was now living as a man.
(John 5:26 NKJV) ""For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,"
He walked and talked to the people everyday and yet they did not recognize him or "see" who he was. Their eyes and ears expected to see and hear something completely different.
Jesus spoke plainly to Philip. John 14:8,9 "Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" John 12:45 "And he who sees me sees him who sent me."
But didn't seventy elders see God at Sinai, and didn't Moses see God?
"and they saw the God of Israel." Exodus 24:10
Didn't the children of Israel see him face to face? (Numbers 14:14) Yes! But in actual fact the Israelites saw the pre-incarnate Christ known then as the Angel of the LORD (Yahweh), the visible likeness of God. The disciples also saw him, spoke to him, and longed for his return. It is clear that the New Testament verses (quoted above) refer only to the Father whom no one has seen and the O.T. verses refer to the Word, (Christ) whom they did see. Therefore we conclude that prior to the incarnation God's visible form was The Word.
Secondly, the prophetic word of Psalm 110 clearly uses the name "Yahweh" to designate the Father in conversation with the Son.
"The LORD (Yahweh) said to my Lord (Christ) sit here at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool." (Cf. Hebrews 1:13)
There are only two conclusions that can be drawn from these two facts, either; (1) What we have discussed is correct and the name Yahweh pertained equally to The Word (as God's appearance and spokesman) and to the Father as one God; or (2) The Father is Yahweh, He spoke to Israel and appeared to them, and both Jesus and the New Testament writings contradict the Old Testament in regard to the visibility of God.
We conclude that if Jesus said that the Father cannot be seen then the visible form of God must be the Word.
Now lets look at some of the other "names" or more correctly the titles which God and Christ share.
| Title |
|
Christ (Messiah) |
| God
Mighty God Almighty Lord of Lords Lord of Glory Holy One I am Saviour King First and Last Rock Father Shepherd |
Psalms 89:26
Jer 32:18 Gen 17: 1 Deut 10:17 Psalms 29:10 Isaiah 12: 6 Exodus 3:14 Isaiah 43:10 Psalms 29:10 Isaiah 44:6 Deut 32: 4 Matthew 6:9 Psalms 23:1 |
|
Could two beings share common titles? According to God's own words, NO! Isaiah 44: 6 states "I am the First and I am the Last; Besides me there is no God." ("Elohim" used here) Isaiah 43:11 "And besides me there is no saviour." Isaiah 44: 8 "Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one."
A word can be written or sounded out. It can appear in different forms, as in different languages. It retains its meaning despite translation. It means the same whether it is written or spoken. A word conveys meaning. It brings to its hearer or reader the understanding and knowledge which was hidden beforehand. A word is tangible whereas the concept or idea which it conveys may be intangible. The word itself is not the concept but is rather the way in which the concept is manifested. It serves the concept by becoming the means by which it is communicated. Your name is a word. Your name stands in your place and represents all that you are. When your name appears on a traffic ticket it is not the name that is fined but you. Don't try to separate the word that is your name and call it a different person or entity and put the blame on it. It cant be done! You and your name are inseparable because you are 'John Citizen' and John Citizen is you. You and your name are one.
Picture a warm sunny day beside the sea. Children are playing on the beach and swimming in the surf. Suddenly the peaceful scene is disturbed by the word "help". Now just think how much that word conveys. It is a plea for assistance. In this setting, it sends anxious thoughts of a child drowning. It warns of a coming danger and possibly death. It demands action - the selection of a saviour. It urges the rescuer to be swift. That single word has conveyed the understanding of a whole spectrum of matter that was much more than what the word itself stood for.
Recall Colossians 1:15, "He is the visible likeness of the invisible God" (Good News Bible)
Now we can instantly see a parallel: Because a word can be said to be - The audible likeness of an inaudible concept. Or in reference to the written word, The visible likeness of an invisible (but audible) word, or invisible concept. The word is the tangible and the concept is intangible. The selection of this word "logos", is the greatest illustration of the relationship between Christ and God that we are privileged to have. Christ is seen, the Father is unseen. Christ the mediator communicates God and what he is like to mankind, just as the word communicates the concept. Christ is "the Word" and the word "spells" God! Christ is seen (appears to man) on behalf of God, Christ speaks on behalf of God. He is the vehicle of God's expression. That does not make Christ less than divine. "For in Christ all the fullness of the Diety lives in bodily form." (Col 2:9 N.I.V.)
Do you understand now why the Bible calls Christ the express image of God, and the form of God? When Jesus spoke to those who would not accept him as the Son of God, He said of the Father, "You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form." But to those who believed in him he said, "and from now on you know him and have seen him." (John 5:37, 14:7) The same is true today, if you know Jesus and have heard his voice, then you know the Father and have heard him. The only way to the Father is through the Son.
P.K. Jewett expresses the opinion of many Bible scholars when he concedes that, "The Spirit of God, or the Spirit of the Lord, is repeatedly mentioned in all parts of the OT. The term was never used to clearly imply that the Spirit is a Person distinct from the Father and Son." (The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Volume 3, p. 184.)
The most common terms used when speaking about God's Spirit, are the phrases "Spirit of the Lord" and "Spirit of God". The term "Holy Spirit" is very rarely used, in fact, and when it is, (Isaiah 63:10,11; Psa. 51:11) the word "holy" is simply used as an adjective meaning sacred or 'belonging to God'. But more importantly the words "holy Spirit" are preceded by the pronouns "his" or "your", referring to God.
The Old Testament use of the term "Spirit of God" does not reflect an archaic pre-Pentecost understanding of God but is fully consistent with the New Testament concept of the Godhead. (If the Old Testament is inspired by the Spirit of God and is the true revelation of God, then logic demands that this Inspirer must impart an accurate understanding and communication of His own being.) The term "Holy Spirit" is incorrectly used today as though is was a proper noun, that is to say, someone's name. In this modern age, we have lost sight of the fact that God's Spirit is His; an integral part of God, not a separate being. I have a spirit, but my spirit is not another person, it is my spirit.
We are living models. Let's look at ourselves. The Bible teaches that a human being is made up of body, soul, and spirit. That doesn't mean we are three persons. And likewise, God has parallel "components". (to use an inadequate word) The human body is the form that is seen and it is a representation of the one we know as "The Word"; the soul is the life, nature and character of a person and is paralleled in The Father; and the spirit of a man is modeled after God's Spirit.
The Bible does not call God's Spirit a "person". Yet, in the New Testament we encounter many places where God's Spirit seems to act as a separate being. For instance, God's Spirit is lied to (Acts 5); grieved (Ephesians 4:30); teaches (John 14:26) and speaks. (Acts 8:29) But on the other hand, on many other occasions, the Spirit is spoken of as a force or power; something that can be poured out, divided up or given as a gift. A man/woman can be baptized with the Spirit, filled with the Spirit, or be full of the Spirit.
These uses of the term should be given equal consideration. One should not jump to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is a person just because it appears so in one or two verses. If we throw away our preconceived notions we will see that God's Spirit is as much a part of Himself as your arm is a part of you. So if we grieve the Spirit of God we grieve God, not someone else. If we lie to the Spirit we lie to God, (Acts 5:3,4) and if God speaks to us or teaches us then it is generally accomplished through his Spirit.
Jesus said that "God is a Spirit,...." John 4:24. So when the Bible speaks about God's Spirit working, inspiring, or empowering then it means nothing else but God Himself becoming active in the lives of men. Not a servant or equal of God but God Himself. It would be an insult to God to attribute his works to someone else! If you have the Holy Spirit residing in you, then God the Father's Spirit is in you, and Christ's Spirit is in you. (Romans 8:9)
(John 14:23 NKJV) "Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him."
There is no difference, the Father and Jesus Christ share a common spirit. That is, the Holy Spirit.
Does the New Testament call the Holy Spirit "it" as well as "he". Yes! You'll find examples in: John 1:32 Romans 8:16, Romans 8:26 and John 14:16,17. But you'll have to use a translation (or Interlinear) which literally translates the Greek, because translators have changed the gender. Find an old King James Bible (Authorized Version) and look up the first three verses. "It" is used. Now go to most modern translations (including the New King James) and you will see that the pronoun "him" is substituted. (The basis for this substitution is doctrinal. The gender of the Greek word "pneuma" translated 'spirit' is neuter. Literal translations are simply following the original language.) Just as it is not right to ignore the places where the Spirit is without gender, so it would be wrong to ignore the places where gender is indicated. That is to say where the Spirit is a "he". (e.g. John 16:13) I explain these, by asking you to remember whose Spirit we are talking about. If you substitute the term "Christ's Spirit" or "God's Spirit" when you read "Holy Spirit", you will begin to see God as one not three.
Let me illustrate. Have you ever heard the Queen's Christmas Message on the radio? Did you hear the voice of our monarch, Elizabeth II. Did you listen to what IT said? What did IT say? Did IT have a message for her loyal subjects? Did you hear IT mention her children?
Doesn't the pronoun "it" become uncomfortable! We were in fact only referring to the voice of the Queen not the Queen herself when we used "it". Yes, the Queen's voice is an "it", but when she speaks we forget the mechanics. We don't listen to a voice. We listen to her! God's voice speaks to us and we listen to Him, not "it". In the same way, when God's Spirit speaks to our hearts we listen to Him, that is, to God. Some may still ask why in the Gospel of John, Jesus consistently refers to the Spirit (the Comforter) as a "he". The answer is that Christ is speaking of his own Spirit. Jesus said, "I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." --- John 14:18 Christ knew that in the power of God's Spirit he would be dwelling in us. He therefore naturally referred to himself as "he". So there is really no necessity to hide the neuter gender and the true meaning of the Spirit of God, unless you wish to promote the idea that the Spirit of God is not His Spirit but another God-Being. We have no right to tamper with the word of God.
Translators are sometimes guilty of altering the word of God to "make sense" of the text within the framework of their private theology. Fortunately for us these great minds are sometimes caught out. Such an example is in 1 John 5:7. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"
This verse is not contained in any Greek manuscript earlier than the 15th century, but the text appears in the Latin Vulgate as early as the eighth century. Although the name of the originator of this interpolation is not known, it is generally regarded by scholars as spurious. These words are not the words of God! What is also known is that its insertion gives false support to the doctrine of the trinity. But why would anyone tamper with this verse in order to promote the doctrine of the trinity if it already has adequate Scriptural support?
So when we speak of Yahweh God, we include Father, Son and the Holy Spirit as one entity. But if it is necessary to separate Father and Son then we must see them in the light of their relationship to each other not as separate 'people'.
However if you go to the New Testament and read the accounts of the baptisms performed you will not find one single reference to baptism in the name of any other but that of the Lord Jesus Christ! It is not likely that the apostles forget or disobeyed the command of Christ so soon after he had given it. So how do we explain it? Consider that the only name of the Almighty God is Yahweh. It was not considered to be lawful to even pronounce this name. It is however the true name I believe, of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit when referred to as one. Now notice, the title "The Lord Jesus Christ" has three components. "Lord" refers to the Father. 'Kurios' being the common substitute word for Yahweh. "Jesus" is the name given to the Son. "Christ" (meaning the Annointed One) is added to the title to denote the anointing Holy Spirit. In baptizing in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ the apostles did fulfill the command to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
We still have one more difficulty to overcome. That is, how do we explain the fact that many verses seem to place Christ in a subordinate position to the Father? As Jesus said,
(John 14:28) ".... for my Father is greater than I."
and as restated by Paul in 1 Cor 15:27-28 (NKJV) "For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. {28} Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."
It would seem that there is only one God above all, and his visible manifestation, Jesus Christ, though 'one' with him is not somehow equal in status. Why? Simply because Jesus Christ is God's visible manifestation, and the Almighty God is more than just his visible form. Likewise, God's Spirit alone is not all that God is, because God is invisible spirit as well and visible manifestation. Therefore the visible manifestation of God (Jesus Christ) assumes a subordinate role to all that Almighty God is in Himself, i.e. Father, Son and Holy Spirit, just as your body assumes a role which is subordinate to your whole self.
Although we have sought the self-revelation of God according to the Scriptures, we have not arrived at a doctrine of God which uses the terminology and definitions that have come to us within the doctrine of the Trinity. We have not come across the term trinity itself in the Scriptures nor definitions of terms such as essence, substance, or person etc. To do this we must look beyond Scripture into the historical records of the first four centuries of the Christian churches. Essential to an understanding of the doctrine of the trinity is an awareness of the historical background of its formation.
Constantine could hardly be called a Christian. "Eleven years after winning the battle at Milvian Bridge Constantine murdered his already vanquished rival Licinius; former Emperor in the East; then killed his wife, by having her boiled alive in her bath, and his own son - hardly the action of a true follower of Jesus." ('Jesus The Evidence' Ian Wilson P.160) The fact is that he was a staunch follower and chief priest of the Sol Invictus cult, a sun-worshipping pagan religion. The cult was imported from Syria and involved elements of Baal and Astarte worship. It held the sun god as the one supreme being, although he was viewed as being the sum of all attributes of all other gods.
The cult of Sol Invictus agreed with the cult of Mithras on so many points that the two are often confused. The following three beliefs were shared 'trade marks' of these two religions; the deification of the sun, the honouring of Sunday as a sacred day, and the celebration of a major birth festival on December 25th. Mithraism also stressed the immortality of the soul, a future judgment and the resurrection of the dead. Constantine saw that the common beliefs of Christianity, Mithraism and Sol Invictus could be used to bring political unity and strength to the Empire and deliberately chose to blur any distinctions between the three.
Constantine's baptism into Christianity only occured on his deathbed. His goal throughout his life was to unite all the religions of the day for political purposes. In 321 A.D. Constantine proclaimed that all Roman subjects, with only a few exceptions, should observe 'the venerable day of the sun' as a day of rest. The new born liberty enjoyed by sabbath-keepers both Jew and Christian was now severely threatened.
The aim of the council was not to discover truth. It was to resolve
differences of opinion and create political unity. The means, Compromise.
The council was mainly concerned with 'what' Christ is rather than 'who'
Christ is. It could not agree on Christ's relationship to God. The form
and nature of God and his Son was at the heart of the dispute. Presiding
over the meeting was Constantine the Great, robed in finery. The statement
of belief put forward by Eusebius of Caesarea was rejected. The creed finally
accepted was based on this statement but included the principle of Christ's
equality i.e. 'being of one substance with the Father'. The Holy Spirit
was not declared a 'person' at this council. In fact, the only mention
of the Holy Spirit in the creed relates to a simple belief in the Holy
Spirit. The phrase "...and in the Holy Ghost", is at the very end; tacked
on like an afterthought. The doctrine of the Trinity, as we know it today,
was not formulated at this council. The later amplification of this creed
and interpretation of its meaning resulted in the paradoxical Three-in-one
concept. But a doctrine had indeed been formed. A doctrine based on the
politically motivated decision of a pagan Roman emperor, not on the Word
of God. Pressure was brought to bear on those who would not agree with
the Emperor's decision. The motivation for compromise was fear as evidenced
by the confession of several delegates who later regretted their signing
of the ruling, and after summoning their courage, wrote to the Emperor,
"We committed an impious act, O Prince, by subscribing to a blasphemy from
fear of you". (quoted by Ian Wilson in 'Jesus -The Evidence' Page 168.)
At the time of the decision there were some who firmly believed in
the oneness of God reflecting their Jewish origins. Being strongly monotheistic,
they found it difficult to accept the ruling of the Emperor. Others easily
accepted a belief in more than one divine person reflecting their background
of Hellenistic polytheism. The widely respected teachings of Plato had
already infused the "Three in One" concept into the minds of philosophers
and theologians.
Edward Gibbon's in The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire writes, "the three archical or original principles were represented in the Platonic system as three Gods, united with each other by a mysterious and ineffable generation; and the Logos was particularly considered under the more accessible character of the Son of an Eternal Father, and the Creator and Governor of the world. ...... and the theology of Plato might have been for ever confounded with the philosophical visions of the Academy, the Porch, and the Lyceum, if the name and divine attributes of the Logos had not been confirmed by the celestial pen of the last and most sublime of the Evangelists."
Of course, it is not suggested here for one minute that the Apostle John embraced the philosophy of Plato. It is suggested rather that those who did follow the teachings of Plato misused John's terminology for their own ends. The apparent contradiction between the one God of the Torah and the existence of Father, Son and Holy Spirit acknowledged by the New Testament writings was 'resolved' by the paradox of the "Three in one" which took the name 'Trinity'. (The first recorded use of the term 'Trinity' was by Tertullian in the third century A.D. but the accepted doctrine as we know it today, was a much later development.) The discussions at Nicea over the relationship between God and His Son Jesus Christ became embroiled in a heated political debate and continued fiercely until 381 A.D. when the relentless Athanasius secured a final ruling at the Council of Constantinople.
The Council of Nicaea also saw the memorial of Christ's sacrificial death held on the Passover date tossed away in favour of Easter, the christianized feast of Ishtar or Astarte. The rot had set in. In flagrant defiance of the law of God "The mystery of lawlessness" was at work within the Church. (2 Thess 2:7)
Later councils approved the use of idols or images in the church. Each successive council further removed the church from the sound doctrinal basis of the scripture. The Councils of the Church clearly overruled the Word of God. Had the Nicene Council sought the truth rather than the favour of the Emperor of Rome, the face of Christianity today would be vastly different.
The essence of the trinity doctrine is embodied in the Athanasian Creed (circa 8th Century A.D.) Complete with damnatory clauses in its prologue and epilogue, the creed was formulated to protect the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity against a number of diverse theories spawned by widespread dissatisfaction with the doctrine as an adequate explanation of the Godhead.(1)
"The [Catholic] Church employed these creedal statements not only to counter heresy but also to regulate baptism, order its corporate worship and shape its catechetical instruction."(2)
At an institutional level the creed may still stand as a valid test of "orthodoxy" among the majority of the mainstream Churches of Christendom. Yet, when taken in a descriptive rather than a prescriptive sense, the statement is not an accurate portrayal of the practice of the laity. Several noted theologians have recently voiced their concern with Rahner that "despite their orthodox confession of the Trinity, Christians are, in their practical life, almost mere monotheists."(3)
Theologians of all persuasions are now re-examining the doctrine of the Trinity and although there is considerable diversity in their perspectives many are united in an attempt to show that the Trinity is both pertinent to the Christian faith and relevant to practical worship.
The Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity
Renewed interest in the doctrine of the Trinity in contemporary theology is primarily due to the prominence given to it by Karl Barth in his Church Dogmatics. Barth's emphasis on the Trinity was a timely answer to Liberalism's erosion of the doctrine and Immanuel Kant's assertion that "absolutely nothing worthwhile for practical life can be made out of the doctrine of the Trinity taken literally".(4) Barth's treatise on the Trinity, based firmly on revelation rather than philosophical speculation, was well received in the Reformed and Lutheran traditions. He was followed in Roman Catholicism by Karl Rahner who restored a doctrine of the Trinity founded on the self-communication of God in salvation history.
The Christian faith in practice relates individually to the Father as God, Jesus as his Son "God incarnate" and the Holy Spirit as the indwelling presence of God. A faith relationship with God is a result of his self-revelation and self-communication in the acts and events of salvation history and hence our interaction with the Godhead is largely from the "economic" (God in his relationships to us) perspective.
Contemplation on the nature of the "immanent" Godhead (God as he is eternally in Himself) has survived as a matter of concern for theologians though largely irrelevant in daily faith and practice. T.F. Torrance believes that much of the reason for this can be attributed to the emphasis on the transcendence and inaccessibility of God in Western theology where too often the doctrine of the One God was separated from the doctrine of the Triune God.(5)
Karl Rahner ruefully admits that, "should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false, the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged."(6)
Brunner makes the surprisingly bold comment that: "we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian New Testament message, nor has it ever been a central article of faith in the religious life of the Christian Church as a whole, at any period in its history." (7)
It seems difficult, without qualification, to speak of the doctrine of the Trinity as a universally understood and accepted dogma of the universal Church. In practical terms, worship of the Trinity does not epitomise the Catholic faith and in a variety of ways modern trinitarian theology seeks to address this anomaly.
One God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
Within contemporary trinitarian perspectives the distinctives of two ancient strands of theological tradition are evident. The Augustinian influence in the West affirms the scriptural principle of the oneness of God and formulates its theology of God's apparent "threeness" from that starting point. The East, in the tradition of the Cappadocian Fathers, begins with acknowledgment of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and from the three develops its theology of the unity of God. The inclusive clause "one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity" embraces both viewpoints neither giving priority to one nor constituting a synthesis of the two. Both schools of thought therefore coexist as heterodoxy within orthodoxy and while each hold a doctrine of the Trinity their differences remain unreconciled. The lack of precision within the term "Trinity" is supplemented in the Athanasian Creed by the clause "Neither confounding the Persons or dividing the Substance". This qualification precludes the extremes of Arianism, Apollinarianism and Sabellianism but lacks the detail to exclude a range of contemporary positions which vary from moderate Modalism to virtual Tritheism. As it stands, the statement tolerates a variety of theories and therefore cannot function as a test of doctrinal uniformity. It is rather a definition of the perimeters of ecclesiastically acceptable theological speculation. As attention now turns to some of the more specific issues of contemporary theological work on the doctrine of God the straining of these creedal boundaries will become apparent.
Neither confounding the Persons
In order to arithmetically arrive at the number three it is first necessary to identify a commonality between the units added. To this end, the Church Fathers reluctantly settled on the Greek term hypostasis and the Latin term persona although their precise definitions are still matters of debate. St. Basil wrote, "There is one God and Father, one Only-begotten, and one Holy Ghost. We proclaim each of the hypostases singly; and, when count we must, we do not let an ignorant arithmetic carry us away to the idea of a plurality of Gods. For we do not count by way of addition, gradually making increase from unity to multitude, and saying one, two, and three, -- nor yet first, second, and third."(8)
Similarly Rayner holds that: "When we say: "there are three persons in God, . we generalise and add up something which cannot be added up, since that which alone is really common to the Father, Son, and Spirit is precisely the one and only Godhead, and since there is no higher point of view from which the three can be added as Father, Son, and Spirit."(9)
Dissatisfaction with the term "person" in trinitarian theology has continued despite its traditional use. Barth wrote, "'Person' as used in the Church doctrine of the Trinity bears no direct relation to personality".(10) He noted Augustine's acknowledgment of the inadequacy of language in respect to "person" in particular.(11) Barth preferred to substitute the Cappadocian term "mode of being" for "person". Similarly Rahner defines personality as a "distinct manner of subsisting".(12) Disfavour with the word "person" is frequently associated with its modern connation of individuality which when applied to "God in three persons" inevitably invokes a tritheistic concept. Brunner concludes that, "the idea of "Three Persons" is to be regarded with misgiving. It is indeed impossible to understand it otherwise than in a tri-theistic sense, however hard we may try to guard against this interpretation."(13)
Karl Barth
Karl Barth is representative of those modern scholars whose theology preserves the unity of the substance and discounts the contemporary understanding of "person" in the doctrine of the Trinity.(14) Barth voiced concern that retention of the term "person" (in his view now obsolete) would erroneously lead to an understanding of God which consisted of "three distinct centres of consciousness, three self-conscious beings".(15) The clause "Neither confounding the Persons" is directed against Sabellian modalism and Barth's position seems closest to this boundary. John Thompson says of Barth, "His view of the Trinity is more Western than Eastern, stemming primarily from Augustine but, rather than basing it on the one divine substance as so much Western thought does, he follows the Cappadocians and understands God's revelation as that of the one divine Lord who exists as subject in three distinct personal modes of being." (16)
Barth believed that, "The reality of God encountered in his revelation is his reality in all the depths of eternity."(17) From his understanding of this revelation Barth developed a doctrine of God within the framework of trinitarian theology which emphasised the Oneness of God. He applied the modern sense of the word "personality" to the single essence of God who is One Person (centre of consciousness) in three modes of existence. Followers of the Barthian concept readily defend it against the charge of Modalism.(18) Barth himself vigorously opposed the Sabellian notion of one God appearing at different times in three different ways.(19) In opposition to Barth, Hodgson writes, "The ground of his assertion appears to be the conviction that the other view necessarily involves tritheism. If this be so, then it would seem that his thought is governed by considerations which are essentially rationalistic rather than biblical. Instead of allowing the empirical evidence of the biblical revelation to revise his idea of unity, he insists on making that evidence conform to the requirements of his a priori conception of unity.(20)
Karl Rahner
Rahner believes that the three "distinct manners of subsisting" are not temporary roles for the sake of salvation history but are inherent in God. What God is, is who God is. His thesis is that: "The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity." There can be no "confounding of the persons" because they each exist antecedently in the immanent Trinity in accordance with the self-revelation of God to us in the economic Trinity. Consequently Rahner rejects the notion that any one of the three persons of the Trinity could have become incarnate.
"For the Father is by definition the Unoriginate, the one who is in principle "invisible", who reveals himself and appears precisely by sending his Word into the world. The Word is, by definition, immanent in the divinity and active in the world, and as such the Father's revelation. A revelation of the Father without the Logos and his incarnation would be like speaking without words."(21)
From the starting point of God's self-revelation and self-communication as given in salvation history he understands that what God is for us God is in Himself.(22) Unlike Barth, Rahner does not advocate the replacement of the word "person" but rather suggests that the term "distinct manner of subsisting" be used as an adjunct for the purpose of clarification. While Rahner, a Jesuit, is content to retain the traditional language of the Church, he nonetheless
"differentiates between the "primordial utterance of revelation" and the Church's understanding of the gospel at any point in its history. Through the Church's shared experience of Christ, the eternal truth of God is more fully perceived and more authentically formulated. Thus revelation becomes progressively actualized through the Church's creative reflection on the gospel. Hence the ancient conciliar formulae about the Trinity or Christ are necessarily inadequate formulations of the truth."(23)
Rahner is criticised for basing his understanding of the Eternal on an extrapolation backward from the incarnation.(24) Rahner's theological approach "from below"(25) is decried for collapsing the immanent Trinity into the economic, "thereby making God dependent on his historical manifestation".(26) Rahner maintains however, that a theology without a true concept of person "will have great trouble avoiding a hidden pre-reflective tritheism".(27)
Dividing The Substance
Less concerned with a shift from the historic meaning of "person" are those who maintain a concept of God which acknowledges three centres of consciousness. Baillie suggests that the tendency to sharpen the distinctions between the persons of the Trinity to the detriment of the unity of the Substance owes its current resurgence to the 1918 Gifford Lectures of Prof. Clement C. J. Webb. The concept which was refined in Hodgson's The Doctrine of the Trinity has had significant influence in Anglican theology. In a movement away from Augustinian thought, the notion of a social relationship between three distinct personal beings resembles the Cappadocian analogy of three individual men alongside each other.(28) Among the contemporary subcribers to this school of thought is Millard Erickson who writes,
"the Trinity must be understood as fundamentally a society. The Godhead is a complex of persons. Love exists within the Godhead as a binding relationship of each of the persons to each of the others."(29)
Erickson refers to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as members of the Trinity and uses the crass analogy of Siamese twins to illustrate their interdependence.(30) In contrast to Rahner's thesis he maintains that the person of the Trinity who become incarnate did so voluntarily in conjunction with the decision of the other two persons.(31) Erickson further proposes that,
"there are no references to the Father begetting the Son or the Father (and the Son) sending the Spirit that cannot be understood in terms of the temporal roles assumed by the second and third persons of the Trinity respectively. They do not indicate any intrinsic relationship among the three."(32)
At certain points in his work Erickson seems to have difficultly with the orthodox doctrine of the eternal sonship of the second person of the Trinity.(33) He quotes Wolfhart Pannenberg who maintains that a doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son cannot be adequately proved from Scripture.(34) Pannenberg also argues against Barth that Father, Son and Holy Spirit should be understood "not merely as different modes of being of the one divine subject but as living realisations of separate centres of action." (35)
Facing the social conception of the Trinity is the question of the "personality" of God. Is there a personality of God or is personality only to be found in God? If there is a personality of God (in addition to the three) it is difficult to avoid the implication of a fourth "person" in God. An alternative is to depersonalise the concept of God and regard "it" as an ideal union of three persons. Both these options present difficulties. Proponents of the societal Trinity also encounter the criticism that the concept reduces each person to a mere part of God. This charge is frequently answered with an appeal to the Cappadocian doctrine of the perichoresis which teaches that the whole of God is in each of the three Persons. However the Cappadocian Fathers "did not go the whole way with the idea that the Persons are three distinct personalities in a "social" unity even of the highest kind".(36) In fact they spoke in some cases of the three Persons as God's three "modes of existence".(37)
Another dilemma that becomes more prevalent as the concept of person is pushed toward individuality is that of the significance of gender. Thompson says, "The main criticism by feminist writers is that trinitarian language through use of the masculine gender, reinforces the paternalism of the church."(38) It is admitted that the scriptural imagery of God is generally masculine. Yet alongside the Fatherhood of God, maternal qualities exist.(39) Christ longs to gather Jerusalem's "children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings".(40) We are born of the Spirit hence the Holy Spirit 'gives birth' to the child of God, so to speak, assuming a maternal role. Jurgen Moltmann takes a mediating position.
"Moltmann draws on Count Nikoluas von Zinzendorf who in 1741 in Pennsylvania recognised the maternal office of the Holy Spirit. The Father of Jesus is our true Father, the Son our true Brother and the Spirit our true Mother."(41)
Some have suggested gender neutral terms such as Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer. However these are unsatisfactory on at least three theological grounds. First, the terms artificially separate the Godhead into modalistic offices.(42) Second, they fail to take into account the sharing of each of the Persons in the Creation, Redemption and Sustaining functions.(43) Third, they articulate the concept of God in exclusively economic terms.
From his exegesis of Genesis 1:27 Barth concludes that both male and
female are created in the image of God. Correctly understood, God is a
spirit(44), and when stripped of all anthropomorphism
is properly without gender. To ascribe the attributes of human masculinity
to God would be to fashion him after our image, a form of idolatry which,
incidentally, would apply equally to the application of femininity.(45)
Higher standards of education today demand a more plausible and intelligible doctrine of the Godhead, yet despite the variety of theologies which are essentially trinitarian there still lacks a working model of the Godhead which may be universally promulgated in order to enhance the layperson's understanding of God. Stephen Davis confesses "that we really do not know in what way God is one and in what different way he is three".(48) Christian theology appears to have failed in its attempt to confine God within the limits of the Trinitarian formula.
Although mainstream Christians may agree that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons or dividing the Substance their faith will inevitably find expression in worship practices which are based on their collective understanding of God. These may vary from a "mere monotheism" which directs worship exclusively to the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit; to a "virtual tritheism" which offers prayer singularly to each Person according to office.(49) By definition the self-revelation of God belongs in the spiritual realm(50) rather than in the intellectual realm. If the self-revelation of God is indeed spiritually discerned, we must confess that we are neither equipped with the adequate language nor with the concepts of reference to express what is essentially ineffable. Yet for the sake of the proclamation of the Christian faith we are forced agree with Rahner:
"The modern theological task demands of the Church a willingness to reformulate new questions and raise new issues, where agreement with traditional doctrine cannot be guaranteed in advance."(51)
I believe that the doctrine of the trinity has become a 'red herring'. Increasingly, it is being popularly misunderstood as an acceptable form of tritheism. A tritheistic concept of the Godhead must be rejected on the grounds of it incongruity with the biblical evidence. The Scriptures do not reveal a concept of "God in three 'persons'" where a 'person' means 'a separate centre of consciousness'.
Despite its revered place in tradition, the trinity doctrine is essentially a human construct couched in the somewhat vague terms of Greek philosophy, which to most of us are both confusing and misleading. The inadequacy of its definitions and terminology has been admitted by such theologians as Augustine, Calvin and Barth and Rahner. It is high time that Christians stopped chasing after an understanding of the 'doctrine of the trinity' and started looked into their Bibles in order to rediscover the wonderful truth about the One whom they serve.
"Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you."
The many forms of "Elohim"
by Thomas McElwain
Certain peculiarities of the word have been appealed to in support of the doctrine of the Trinity. The fact that the word is so common, appearing on nearly every page of the Bible and that Jewish scholars and congregants can hardly open the text without being confronted with it ought to make us stop short. Either Jews are not very versed in Hebrew, or our appeals to the word in support of the Trinity follow a precarious route.
The argument in favour of the Trinity points out that the word referring to God is almost always in the plural form, thus suggesting the Trinity. Let us examine how the word is actually used in the Bible.
Even a brief examination of all the texts in which the word appears would take months to accomplish. Nevertheless, it is possible to summarise all of the typical uses, and even to mention most of the texts that are less typical.
Although a singular form of this word exists, it is evident that the plural form is generally used for both singular and plural.
The context of hundreds of verses, such as Genesis 3:5; 31:30,32; 35:2,4; Exodus 12:12; etc., shows clearly that the word should be translated as "gods." This is what the translators of the King James Version (KJV) did, and most translators after them have wisely followed their lead. Such texts, of course, refer to gods other than the God of Israel, the God of the Bible. With these texts there is no problem. The problem arises when we find that the Bible, in referring to these other gods specifically and in the singular, very often uses the same plural form. Time and again (28 times in fact), this plural form is used to refer to another god, often mentioned by name, in the singular. Texts of this type that I have found are Exodus 22:20; Deuteronomy 32:39; Judges 6:31; 8:33; 9:27; 11:24; 16:23,24; 1 Samuel 5:7; 1 Kings 11:33; 18:27; 2 Kings 1:2,6,16; 19:37; 2 Chronicles 32: 15,21; Isaiah 37:38; Daniel 1:2; 3:28; 4:8; 11:36; Hosea 13:4; Amos 5:26; 8:14; Jonah 1:5; Micah 4:5; Habakkuk 1:11.
In determining the meanings of language forms, linguists examine the usage in a large body of data. Then, a descriptive grammatical rule can be made. But this rule does not govern the language; it is the language that governs the rule.
Although an examination of a large number of words suggests that the ending of the word Elohim is a plural form, the usage shows that it does not have a specifically plural function when applied to Elohim. The form is used both in the singular and plural.
This kind of phenomenon is found in most languages. There is almost always a small group of words that do not behave entirely according to the main rule; the linguist has to provide a whole area of exceptional description to accommodate them. For example, the plural form in English generally adds "-s" or "-es," yet we say "sheep" instead of "sheeps," and "oxen" instead of "oxes."
To describe the usage of either English or Hebrew plurals would take many pages. Suffice it to say that there are plural words in English which are always construed as singular-for example, a bellows and a gallows. Although a singular form does exist, in the vast majority of cases, the one form, Elohim, is used as either plural or singular.
Now let us take a look at the meanings of the word Elohim. Many translations suggest that the word can mean "angels," as shown in Psalm 8:5. Another common meaning of the word seems to be "judges." (See Exodus 21:6 and 22:8,9.) It is translated as "a goddess" in the KJV in 1 Kings 11:5,33.
The Hebrew language is very poor in adjectives, and nouns take over much of that function. Thus the word Elohim, like many other nouns, also serves as an adjective. The translators of the KJV show awareness of this by translating Elohim as "great" and "mighty" in several cases. Elohim appears as "mighty" with plural expressions in Job 41:25, Psalm 29:1, and Ezekiel 31:11. It appears with a singular word in Psalm 50:1 and Genesis 23:6. This last reference is an interesting case, where Abraham is called "a mighty prince." It would seem to me, however, that the words could be translated as "a prince of God."
Elohim is translated in the KJV as "great" in Genesis 30:8, where it is definitely plural, and in 1 Samuel 14:15, where it is definitely singular.
An adverbial use of Elohim is found in Jonah 3:3, "exceeding great city." There, Elohim is translated in the KJV as "exceeding." (In the case of Genesis 23:6, there was some ambiguity whether the word Elohim was used in an adjectival sense or not. Here, however, it seems that Elohim must modify great," rather than "city." The singular meaning is difficult to deny, even by construing "city" as a collective)
When the word Elohim applies to the God of Israel, as it does in the overwhelming number of cases, its context generally shows it to be a singular noun. In Hebrew, the true adjective and the verb used with a noun always indicate the number. There is no neutral form in most situations, so the number is apparent in literally thousands of texts, although this might not be true in English translations.
For example, throughout Genesis 1, "and God said" uses a verb with Elohim which is outrightly and uniquely masculine singular and nothing else. This is true even in Genesis 1:26.
There are, in fact, three exceptions. The word Elohim, as applied to God, takes a plural adjective in 1 Samuel 17:26, and a masculine plural verb in 2 Samuel 7:23. In Genesis 20:13 ("When God caused me to wander. . . "), the literal wording is "when gods (Elohim) caused me to wander. - " In this case, the verb is a masculine plural.
A remarkable usage of the word Elohim is found in Exodus 7:1. In this case, there is no word in the context to mark number (as singular or plural) except the second person singular suffix, "And the Lord said unto Moses, 'See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.' " Here, "a god" is Elohim.
I do not know if on the basis of this text, the historical critical method finds the four textual sources of Moses in a quadrinity, but I should not be surprised.
It seems to me that to find a plurality, or even a collective, in the word for God does not serve any purpose. On the contrary, the Trinity is not meant to indicate a plurality at all, but one God in three persons. If the word is construed as a plural, the only conclusion that can be drawn is polytheism (many gods). Elohim, as a plural, does not in fact support the doctrine of the Trinity, nor any other of the alternatives found to be heretical by the historical church councils.
To understand the word Elohim as a functional singular when it refers to God in the Bible is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity. It is, of course, consistent with every other alternative doctrine Christians have presented as well.
Let us be honest searchers for truth, rather than searchers of supports for our pet beliefs. No doctrine of God can be based on Hebrew word formations, and we do well to seek out more serious foundations for our beliefs.
(Reprinted from an article appearing in the "Sabbath Recorder" by permission of the author.)
We believe in One God , the Father Almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Only begotten of the Father, that is to say of the substance of the Father, God of God and Light of Light, very God of Very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation, came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again on the third day, went up into the heavens, and is to come again to judge both the quick and the dead; and in the Holy Ghost.
If God had simply created Jesus (without using Mary's genetic material) and placed him as an embryo in her womb; he would not be related to the human race and could not be called the seed of David.
(Rom 1:3-4 NKJV) concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, {4} and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.
His flesh could not be said to have been derived from the same origin as ours and the Edenic promise cannot be Messianic.
(Gen 3:15 NKJV) And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.
The Scripture says the Messiah was "of the seed of David according to the flesh."
(Acts 2:30 NKJV) Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne
On these grounds this model must be rejected.
2. Semi-Creation
Similarly, if God had formed Jesus' body using Mary's ovum and newly created material for the purpose of 'fertilisation', he would not be fully human being only half the seed of Eve since half of his genetic composition would be the product of that special later creation. As previously stated, the Scriptures describe him as the seed of the Woman and "of the seed of David according to the flesh" and this flesh comes exclusively from Israelite stock.
(Rom 9:3-5 NKJV) For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, {4} who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; {5} of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
(2 Tim 2:8 NKJV) Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel
(Gal 4:4-5 NKJV) But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, {5} to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
On this ground this option should also be rejected.
In Scripture it is a matter of importance that Christ was actually in the flesh. Jesus defines flesh as "that which is born (Greek 'gegennemenon' may be translated "having been begotten") of the flesh".
(John 3:6 NKJV) That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
(1 John 4:2-3 NKJV) By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, {3} and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
3. Miraculous Conception
Another alternative for the origin of the flesh of Jesus is that God miraculously joined the sperm of Joseph with the ovum of Mary to produce the holy child. While this theory solves some difficulties, it must be rejected by those who hold the classic doctrine of 'original sin'.
4. Genetically Engineered Conception
A fourth alternative is that God (by the power of the Holy Spirit) used Mary's genetic material to enable the conception of a human being. In this way Jesus was fully man according to the flesh. Being begotten by God's intervention he is properly called God's son.
(Luke 1:35 NKJV) And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God."
In a tripartite model of humanity the non-physical components (soul and spirit) can be seen to be passed on either genetically (from one or both parents) or given by God at some point. The Old Testament would suggest that the latter is true for the spirit.
(Eccl 12:7 NKJV) Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it.
In a bipartite model the matter is much simpler. However in any case, both the soul and/or spirit of the Christ-child could have been given to him by God (possibly at conception) without violating his true humanity. If this cannot be allowed then Adam, who also was given both by God at his creation, cannot be called a 'man'. (Gen 2:7 KJV)
In fact it is most fitting that the 'new Adam' should receive soul and spirit in the same manner as did the first Adam. To avoid complications with the original sin doctrine some may find it most appropriate to have Jesus' humanity including soul and spirit brought into being by an act of God rather than by natural means.
(Heb 2:14 NKJV) Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil
(Heb 2:17 NKJV) Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
The verses above confirm that in order for Christ to destroy the devil and secure our salvation he had to share the same flesh as we have.
If we lay aside anthropomorphisms (e.g. Judges 10:16) and acknowledge that God is a Spirit who needs no flesh or soul, (John 4:24) we can more readily understand the Nature of Christ. For Christ to be fully God and fully Man at the same time, his humanity required only the addition of God's Spirit. The human spirit is able to coexist with the Divine as is evidenced in every "son of God". (Rom 8:9-11) A human embryo (in its fallen state) coexisting with the Holy Spirit has a precedent in John the Baptist (Luke 1:15) it is therefore acceptable that the Word could dwell in a specially prepared human body.
(Heb 10:5 NKJV) Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me.
(John 1:14 NKJV) And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
(1 Tim 3:16 NKJV) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.
The Deity of Christ is understood in the concept of the pre-existent Word at the very moment of conception quickening a divinely prepared yet fully human zygote.
Baillie, D.M. God was in Christ, London: Faber & Faber, 1948
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics Vol 1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936.
Berkouwer, G. C. The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth, London: Paternoster Press, 1956.
Bloesch, Donald G. Battle for the Trinity: The Debate over Inclusive Language. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Publication, 1986.
Boyd, Gregory A. Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992.
Brunner, Emil. The Christian Doctrine of God Dogmatics Vol.1 translated by Olive Wyon London: Lutterworth Press, 1949.
Demarist, Bruce A. 'Christendoms Creeds: Their Relevance in the Modern World' Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21:4 (December 1978) 387.
Erickson, Millard. God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995.
Fortman, Edmund J. The Triune God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,1972.
Gregory of Nyssa, On "Not Three Gods",The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol V Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1885.
Hodgson, Leonard. The Doctrine of the Trinity. London: Nisbet and Co. Ltd., 1943.
Kaiser, Chirstopher B. The Doctrine of God. London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1982
Klooster, Fred H. 'Barth and the Future of Evangelical Theology' Westminster Theological Journal Vol 47 #2 Fall 1985. 316
Moltmann, Jurgen. The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, translated by Margaret Kohl London: S.C.M. Press, 1981.
Otto, Randel E. 'Book Review: John Thompson, Modern Trinitarian Perspectives.' Westminster Theological Journal Vol 57 #2 Fall 1995
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology Vol 1., Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,1991.
Rahner, Karl. The Trinity translated by Joseph Donceel, London: Burns & Oates, 1970.
Richardson, Cyril C. The Doctrine of the Trinity. New York: Abingdon Press, 1958.
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, VolIII Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910.
St. Augustine. 'On the Trinity' Book 7:4:8, The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1885.
St. Basil. 'On the Spirit' Vol 8, Chapter18, The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1885.
Thompson, John. Modern Trinitarian Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Torrance, Thomas F. The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.
Torrance, Thomas F. Towards Doctrinal Agreement. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.
Wainwright, Arthur. The Trinity in the New Testament London: SPCK, 1962
1. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VolIII (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910) 689ff.
2. Bruce A. Demarist, 'Christendoms Creeds: Their Relevance in the Modern World' Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21:4 (December 1978) 387.
3. Karl Rahner The Trinity translated by Joseph Donceel (London: Burns & Oates, 1970) 10.
4. Immanuel Kant Der Streit der Fakultaten, quoted in Jurgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, translated by Margaret Kohl (London:S.C.M. Press, 1981), 6.
7. Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God Dogmatics Vol.1 translated by Olive Wyon (London: Lutterworth Press, 1949) 205.
8. St. Basil 'On the Spirit' Vol 8, Chapter18, The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1885) 28.
10. Karl Barth Church Dogmatics Vol 1., 351.
11. St. Augustine 'On the Trinity' Book 7:4:8, The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1885) 110.
13. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God, 227.
14. D.M. Baillie, God was in Christ, (London: Faber & Faber, 1948) 134.
15. Baillie, God was in Christ, 135.
16. John Thompson, Modern Trinitarian Perspectives, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) 85.
17. Barth, Church Dogmatics Vol 1/1, 479.
18. Fred H. Klooster, 'Barth and the Future of Evangelical Theology' Westminster Theological Journal Vol 47 #2 Fall 1985. 316 accuses Barth of developing and new form of Docetism and a new form of Modalism. Berkouwer, The Triumph of Grace, 390 defends Barth.
19. Baillie, God was in Christ, 137.
20. Leonard Hodgson, The Doctrine of the Trinity (London: Nisbet and Co. Ltd., 1943) 229.
23. Bruce A. Demarist, 'Christendoms Creeds: Their Relevance in the Modern World' Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21:4 (December 1978) 351.
24. Erickson, God in Three Persons, 307.
25. Gary Babcock, 'Karl Rayner, the Trinity and Religious Pluralism' The Trinity in a Pluralistic Age ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1997) 144.
26. Randel E. Otto, 'Book Review: John Thompson Modern Trinitarian Perspectives.' Westminster Theological Journal Vol 57 #2 Fall 1995.
28. Baillie, God was in Christ, 139.
29. Millard Erickson, God in Three Persons: A ContemporaryInterpretation of the Trinity, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995) 221.
31. Ibid. 309. He speculates that any member of the Trinity could have become incarnate. 310.
33. Ibid. 309. Cyril Richardson, The Doctrine of the Trinity (New York : Abingdon Press, 1958) 19, makes the point that the relationship between the Father and Son which includes the question of subordination is a key issue in the trinitarian debate. This is however outside the scope of this essay.
34. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Vol 1., (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,1991) 306-307.
35. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Vol 1. 319.
36. Baillie, God was in Christ, 142.
37. Gregory of Nyssa, On "Not Three Gods",The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol V (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1885) 336.
38. John Thompson, Modern Trinitarian Perspectives, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) 114.
39. Psalm 17:8; 36:7; 57:1 91:1,4 Deut 32:11,12, & 18 (NASB) Isa 31:5.
41. Thompson, Modern Trinitarian Perspectives, 116.
42. Donald G. Bloesch, Battle for the Trinity: The Debate over Inclusive Language (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Publication, 1986)
43. Thompson, Modern Trinitarian Perspectives, 116.
45. Thompson, Modern Trinitarian Perspectives, 115.
46. For a comprehansive study of the Biblical evidence see A. Wainwright, The Trinity in the New Testament (London: SPCK, 1962)
48. Erickson, God in Three Persons, 253.
49. See Ibid 327, 344 where Erickson makes this suggestion.
50. (1 Cor 2:14 NKJV) "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
51. K. Rahner, "Pluralism in Theology and the Unity of the Church's Profession of Faith," Concilium 46 (June 1969) 103 ff. quoted by Bruce A. Demarist, 'Christendoms Creeds: Their Relevance in the Modern World' Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 21:4 (December 1978) 351.