|
Other
Articles on the Trinity Controversy
Beware
of Polytheism
The Doctrine of Christ
The Lord Our God Is One
Trinity Doctrinal Chart
|
The
Doctrine of Christ
Chapter 4.
Further Scriptural
Harmony
"Do your best to present yourself to
God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and
who correctly handles the word of God." (2 Tim. 2:16, NIV)
God (‘Elo-him’) in Plural
Form
The reasoning is presented that the Old Testament Hebrew word for
God is often in plural form. To the Trinitarian mind, this is
supposed to prove that God is a composite of three beings somehow
congealed into one identity. It never had such a connotation to the
Jewish writers of the Old Testament. They did not believe in a
Trinity. It is an enigma to them that, after the fact, some
Christians come along and prove the Trinity where none existed in
the minds of the writers of the Old Testament. Trinity never was in
their thinking, and therefore it was not in their ink quills.
Commenting on Gen. 1:1, where God is mentioned in the plural as
‘elohim,’ Dr. Rotherham says: "It should be
carefully observed that, although ‘elohim’ is plural in
form, yet when, as here, it is construed with a verb in the
singular, it is naturally singular in sense; especially since the
‘plural of quality’ or ‘excellence’ abounds in Hebrew in
cases where the reference is undeniably to something which must be
understood in the singular."
Oxford scholar R. B. Girdlestone writes on this matter in his
Synonyms
of the Old Testament: "Many critics, however, of
unimpeachable orthodoxy, think it wiser to rest where such divines
as Cajetan [a theologian] in the Church of Rome and Calvin among
Protestants were content to stand, and to take the plural form as a
plural
of majesty, and as indicating the greatness, the infinity, and
the incomprehensibleness of the Deity."(1) The truth on this
matter is clearly perceived by many scholars, but it is hard to
restrain some hard-pressed Trinitarians from stretching the truth to
prove the unprovable.
It should be mentioned also that the Hebrew "elohim"
is used to describe pagan gods such as Dagon (1 Sam. 5:7) and
Marduck (Dan. 1:2). These were singular gods. No one has claimed
they were triune gods. Hence, it seems many Trinitarian scholars
wince at excesses of their brethren. The higher ground for the
Trinitarian is still that the Trinity is not understandable, nor
explainable, and must simply be accepted as a theological mystery.
This is especially difficult for fundamentalist Bible believers to
accept. They find this an uncomfortable posture in which to be.
"Immanuel" and the
"Mighty God"
Isaiah 7:14 reads: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and
bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." We shall not
enter the discussion as to whether this verse may have had a
fulfillment other than to our Lord Jesus. Be that as it may, we have
Matthew’s application of this verse being fulfilled in Jesus’
birth (Matt. 1:23). It is, therefore, on Apostolic authority,
applied to our Lord, and that should be the end of all strife.
However, when it came time to give our Lord a name, he was not
called Immanuel, meaning "God with us," but Jesus,
"Savior" (Matt. 1:25). Hence, the name is a title, very
much as the Son of God or the Son of Man. If God was sending His
only begotten Son to dwell with men, that surely would be a sign
that God was with us, lifting up His countenance upon us and being
gracious to us. Even today we use the expression, "God be with
you." No more than this need be implied in Isaiah 7:14.
Isaiah 9:6 gives our Savior the title, "The mighty
God." But the Jewish writers were not saying that the Messiah
would literally be Jehovah. If judges of Israel were called
"gods," as in Ps. 82:1-7, what would be earthshaking about
calling Jesus the "mighty God" (Hebrew, ‘El Gib-bohr’)?
Notice, he is not called ‘El Shad-dai,’ a term
exclusively applied to Jehovah. Further, "God" in the
Isaiah text is the Hebrew EL, defined by Dr. Strong as
"strength; as adj[ective] mighty; espec[ially] the Almighty
(but used also of any deity)."(2) The fact that the same word
(EL) is used in Isa. 57:5 in describing idols shows indeed that it
is a general term used to describe any mighty being and, hence,
quite appropriately may be applied to our Savior, Jesus, in Isa.
9:6.
The following sources offer additional comments on Isa. 9:6 and
Ps. 82:1-7: The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "Even these
exalted titles did not lead the Jews to recognize that the Saviour
to come was to be none other than God Himself."(3) And the
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature,
by McClintock and Strong, says: "Thus it appears that none of
the passages cited from the Old Test[ament] in proof of the Trinity
are conclusive. . . . We do not find in the Old Test[ament] clear or
decided proof upon this subject."(4)
Scriptures with Groupings of Three Titles
Some Bible texts mention three subjects in continuity and have
been seized upon as proof of the Trinity. In 1 Corinthians 12:4-6
are found Spirit, Lord and God; 2 Corinthians 13:14 lists Christ,
God and the Holy Ghost [Spirit]; Galatians 4:4-6 lists God, Son and
Spirit of his Son; Ephesians 4:4-6 lists Spirit, Lord and God and 1
Peter 1:2 lists God, Spirit and Jesus Christ. If we were to accept
such logic as proof of the Trinity, then we would be led to believe
that Peter, James and John are a Trinity because they are listed
together. (See Luke 9:28.) 1 Timothy 5:21 says: "I charge thee
before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels."
Does this make angels a part of the Trinity?
Then there is the great commission text, "Go ye therefore,
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the son, and of the Holy Ghost [Spirit]" (Matt. 28:19).
However, sentiment is mounting that this text is a forgery. In every
other instance where baptism is mentioned in the New Testament, it
is shown to be in the name of Jesus. Further, many of the early
Church fathers, in quoting this passage, leave out the Trinitarian
formula and say simply "in my name"; that is, in the name
of Jesus alone the baptism was to be carried out. In 1960, The
British & Foreign Bible Society published a Greek Testament, and
in Matt. 28:19 the phrase "in my name" is given as an
alternative reading, with Eusebius cited as the early Church
authority.
Let us note what some theologians have to say on this matter:
Dr. Adam Clark, a Trinitarian, in commenting on Matthew 28:19 as
proof that the Father, Son and holy Spirit were three persons, says:
"‘But this I can never believe.’ I cannot help that—you
shall not be persecuted by me for differing from my opinion. I
cannot go over to you; I must abide by what I believe to be the
meaning of the Scriptures." He then shows how the New Testament
believers in Acts 2:38; 8:16 and 19:5 were baptized in the name of
the Lord Jesus alone.(5) Also, G. Kittel, in his
Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, states forthrightly: "The
N[ew] T[estament] does not actually speak of triunity. We seek this
in vain in the triadic formulae of the NT."(6) Hence, there is
such a thing as trying too hard to use Scriptures to infer meanings
not intended, and some scholars refuse to do that.
"My Lord and My God"
One verse often used in an attempt to prove the Trinity doctrine
is John 20:28. "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord
and my God." First, let us notice Thomas did not mention the
holy Spirit. He would have needed to do so for this verse to sustain
any Trinity connotation. Failing in this, it becomes, at best, a
stool with only two legs—not good to stand on. This verse reveals
Thomas’ happy response on finding his Master appearing before him.
He was slow to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, and it took this
personal interchange with the Master to make a true believer out of
him. He was the last of the Apostles to have been honored with a
visit from the Master after his resurrection. This probably hurt his
feelings to think that so many others had met with the resurrected
Lord and he had not been so blessed.
Thomas resolved: "Except I shall see in his hands the print
of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and
thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe [in his
resurrection]" (John 20:25). Did Thomas believe that it was God
the Father who was dead? Surely not. But if he believed Jesus was
God, how could he believe that it was Jesus who was dead? Yet if
anything at all is clear, it is that Thomas did believe Jesus was dead
and was overjoyed to find him alive.
When Jesus offered to fulfill all the necessary conditions to
make him believe his resurrection, Thomas cried out, "My [the]
Lord and my [the] God" (John 20:28). God here is a translation
of the Greek THEOS, which is defined by Dr. Young as
"God, a god, object of worship."(7) It is a general term in
the New Testament, used frequently to denote the Heavenly Father
(such as in Matt. 27:46, "My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me," and in many additional places). However, it is
also used to depict other beings, whether good or bad. THEOS
is used to describe Satan, "the god of this world" (2 Cor.
4:4), the saints, "gods, sons of the Most High" (John
10:34, 35, from Ps. 82:6, RSV), idols, or fabricated "gods who
will go before us" (Acts 7:40), and heathen gods, "the
gods have come down to us in human form!" (Acts 14:11, 12).
Hence, THEOS is quite general in its application in
Scripture, and the fact that it is occasionally used of Jesus should
not be taken as proof that he was God the Father. Such usage alone
is not conclusive to warrant such a distinction.
The Jews had earlier accused Jesus of blasphemy because, being a
man, he made himself "God"—but this was a false and
exaggerated accusation against Jesus which he never is recorded as
saying. Jesus’ response was, "Is it not written in your law,
I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of
God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom
the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou
blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" (John
10:34-36). Even to be called God was not earthshaking. Jesus pointed
out that those to whom the Word of God came were called
"gods." (The original early manuscripts were written with
all capitals. Hence, translators must decide whether to capitalize
or not.) But Jesus did clarify who he was. He said, "I am the
Son of God."
Did Thomas now believe something different than Jesus claimed for
himself? If those to whom the word of God came were called
"gods," what would be extraordinary about Thomas calling
Jesus "My Lord and my God"? Herod’s voice was called
"god’s" voice, and Paul was called "god" (Acts
12:22; 28:6). This, undoubtedly, was a very emotional moment for
Thomas and certainly not an attempt on his part to offer advanced
theology. The fact that he says "the Lord" and "the
God" seems appropriate to his emotional state wherein he
accepts Jesus as his resurrected "the Lord" and "the
God." His very Jewishness prohibits us from concluding he
thought Jesus was "God the Father." He could not possibly
have fused Jesus and God the Father into one. Jesus had been his
"Lord" (or "Master"), and now, believing his
resurrection, he accepts him as his "God" (or "mighty
one").
In addition to the foregoing, there is an alternative explanation
that should be considered. This was an emotion-filled moment for
Thomas, a moment about which he had spent much time in prayer to
God. It may be that Thomas was merely crying out to God, his Father,
"My Lord and my God" as an exclamation for answering his
prayers. Today, people cry out "My God" in moments of
overwhelming sorrow or joy. Jesus cried out, "My God, my
God" on the cross. This may be what Thomas meant by his
expression on this occasion. There is nothing to preclude this
thought. One thing we know, his assertion did not include the holy
Spirit, and therefore the Trinity cannot have been implied.
The Apostle John, who wrote his Gospel long years after
Pentecost, likewise did not believe Jesus was God. John quotes Jesus’
reminder to Mary, saying, "I ascend to my Father, and your
Father; and to my God, and your God" (John 20:17). Jesus had
the same Father and God as Mary. Additionally, John sums up his
lesson covering these momentous events, saying, "But these are
written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God; and that believing ye might have life through his name"
(John 20:31). The Apostle Thomas was a Jew who held to the view that
the "Lord our God is one." To argue that he forsook his
Jewish religious training at the moment in question and received
Jesus as (the) God the Father is an unlikely scenario. John, who is
aged and serene while writing his Gospel, summarizes this entire
chapter saying, "Jesus is the Christ, the son of God."
That’s what he wanted us to believe—and that’s what Thomas
believed as well.
"In Three Days I Will Raise
It Up"
In John 2:19 we read: "Destroy this temple, and in three
days I will raise it up." The argument is made that Jesus was
God and that he raised himself from the dead. This is said in spite
of the clear and oft repeated statement of Scripture that "God
raised him from the dead." (Please see our Bible readings in
Chapter VI.) The testimony of Scripture is so complete and
overwhelming that God raised Jesus from the dead that there cannot
be any shade of doubt about it.
Now let us examine some of our Lord’s statements on this to see
if they can be harmonized. In Matthew 17:22, 23, Jesus said,
speaking of his approaching death: "The Son of man shall be
betrayed into the hands of men: and they shall kill him, and the
third day he shall be raised again." (See also Luke 9:22; Matt.
16:21.) The angels quoted our Lord’s words to the women who
witnessed his resurrection, saying: "Remember how he spake unto
you when he was yet in Galilee saying, the Son of man must be
delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the
third day rise again. And they remembered his words" (Luke
24:6-8). These verses fit in with the Bible testimony that God
raised Jesus on the third day.
However, in John 2:19, Jesus said, in response to the Jews’
request for a sign from him: "Destroy this temple, and in three
days I will raise it up." John quotes Jesus and then gives the
proper understanding of Jesus’ words. He says, "But he spake
of the temple of his body" (John 2:21). Here the aged John is
suggesting what Paul confirms: "For as the body is one, and
hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many,
are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all
baptized into one body. . . . Now ye are the body of Christ, and
members in particular" (1 Cor. 12:12, 13, 27). Further insight
is provided in 2 Cor. 4:14, which reads: "Knowing that he which
raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by [with,
through] Jesus, and shall present us with you." In John 6:44 we
read a similar thought: "No man can come to me, except the
Father . . . draw him: and I will raise him up at the last
day." This shows that God’s power would not be exercised
independently but through Jesus in the resurrection of the Body of
Christ.
Hence it is Jesus who will take an active role in raising his
Church from the dead. John shows in 14:2, 3 when that will be. He
says: "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come
again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be
also." So it is at Jesus’ second advent that his faithful
followers will be rewarded. Other Bible texts detail the timing of
the Church’s resurrection yet further. Peter declares that
"One day is with the Lord as a thousand years" (2 Pet.
3:8). If we divide the time from man’s creation into one-thousand
year days, Jesus was crucified and resurrected on the fifth
(thousand year) day. If he returns in three days to raise his body
members, counting inclusively from the fifth day, we arrive at the
seventh (thousand year) day, which is the grand Millennial Day of
blessing.
Now let us examine John 2:19—"In three days I will raise
it up"—from another standpoint. The disciples had come to
regard Jesus’ death and resurrection as a precursor of their own
resurrection. They remembered his promise: "Because I live, ye
shall live also" (John 14:19). Hence we read: "When
therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that
he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the
word which Jesus had said" (John 2:22). We must remember that
before Pentecost, Jesus’ disciples did not entertain a heavenly
hope. The last thing they asked our risen Lord before he ascended
was: "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to
Israel?" (Acts 1:6). Subsequently, they came to realize they
were to be a part of the body of Christ and that God would
"raise up us also by Jesus" (2 Cor. 4:14). That is what
they remembered Jesus’ words to mean.
Challenges of Interpretation
Some while back, a 31-page booklet entitled
"Should You
Believe the Trinity?" was circulated, which caused quite a
stir in Trinitarian circles. Robert M. Bowman, Jr., rose to the
occasion and wrote an entire book in reply entitled Why You Should
Believe in the Trinity. His work enables one to see how a
Trinitarian studies the Bible and how he comes to his conclusions.
It demonstrates that an effort can be made to defend the Trinity and
that Bible verses may be used in an endless array to justify said
beliefs. Yet, despite a valiant overall effort, Mr. Bowman clearly
falls short of the mark in at least one direction—and that is in
clarifying the doctrine for us. After attempting at length to
explain the unfathomable mystery of the Trinity, he finally admits
in summary: "The choice is therefore between believing in the
true God as he has revealed himself, mystery and all, or believing
in a God who is relatively simple to understand but bears little
resemblance to the true God. Trinitarians are willing to live with a
God they can’t fully comprehend."(8)
Most of his arguments pertain to Bible verses where God and
Christ may be, with a little effort, fused into one Being. The hard
part was in adding the holy Spirit to make Trinity complete. He
says, to lay the foundation for his argument: "The Holy Spirit
is nothing less than God himself. God is present everywhere, so he
has no problem controlling his works. He needs no force outside
himself to do his works, nor does he need to emanate some of his own
energy to places far from his presence in order to ‘be there.’"(9)
Unfortunately, he asserts God is "everywhere" without a
Bible citation. One must suppose this is accepted in theology.
However, our Lord Jesus taught us to pray, "Our Father, which
art in heaven" (Matt. 6:9). Jesus could have helped theology if
he taught us to pray: "Our Father, which art everywhere,"
but he did not say this.
Such reasoning comes close to New Age theology which teaches that
God is everywhere and in everything and if we identify with the
earth, sun, water, etc., we become a part of God. The wise man said:
"God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words
be few" (Ecc. 5:2). When Moses wished to see God’s glory, God
caused a representation of Himself to pass before Moses. The
restriction was that Moses would see God’s "back parts"
(Ex. 33:23). How could a God who is everywhere be represented by God’s
glory as it passed by? How long would it take for everywhere to pass
before Moses? Also God is said to dwell in "light which no man
can approach unto" (1 Tim. 6:16). If God is everywhere, he must
also be in the dark holes of the universe. How could it be said:
"God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John
1:5)?
If God is everywhere, then Jesus is everywhere and so also the
holy Spirit. This raises a question in logic. In John 14:3, Jesus
promises: "I will come again." How does someone who is
everywhere come again to somewhere? Jesus also promised in John
15:26: "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto
you . . . he shall testify of me." How do you send someone who
is everywhere? Why would you need to? How can everywhere be moved to
somewhere?
Mr. Bowman asserts God "needs no force outside himself to do
his works, nor does he need to emanate some of his energy to
places." It is doubtful if many theologians would back such an
extravagant assertion. This would seem to rule out any use of the
holy Spirit as the mind, influence, power, etc., of God. For a case
in point, God says: "I will pour out my spirit upon all
flesh" (Joel 2:28). How could a God-person, who is everywhere,
be poured out on "all flesh"? Logic and common sense
require even Trinitarians to read certain verses with the same
meaning as non-Trinitarians. That is the hard part of arguing
against the Trinity; it seems everyone defending it has some
different ideas.
Greater minds than his have struggled to find the formula to
merge three persons into one and have conceded that, after having
done their best, their concepts were "incomprehensible."
Mr. Bowman concludes the same, as we have observed:
"Trinitarians are willing to live with a God they can’t fully
understand." The Trinity is a doctrine of inference—not of
Biblical statement. We doubt that many theologians would support his
position that it is unnecessary for the Spirit ever to be a power or
influence or the mind of God. His position seems untenable
here.
Finally, every Christian must realize that there is nothing they
believe that cannot be assailed by someone somewhere. The Devil
quoted the Bible trying to beguile our Lord. The Judaizing Jews
quoted Scripture verses to bring Gentiles under the Law. Were they
sincere? Probably, but misinformed. There is not a single doctrine
believed by any Christian which is not assailed with vigor and even
sometimes with forceful presentations. What do we do in such an
event? We can close our mind to all discussion and retreat to our
trenches. That is probably good if indeed our belief is well-founded
in the Word. There definitely is a cloud over the Trinity which is
very troubling to many, and we trust that such will be blessed by
this presentation.
Endnotes
Chapter IV
1. Synonyms of the Old Testament, R. B.
Girdlestone, p. 22.
2. Strong’s Concordance, Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary,
#410.
3. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XV, p. 49.|
4.
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical
Literature, McClintock and Strong, Vol. IV, "John,"
pp. 551-2.
5. Clarke’s Commentary on Matt. 28:19, p. 284.
6.
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, G. Kittel, p.
108.
7. Young’s Concordance, "God," #8, p. 419.
8.
Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Robert M. Bowman,
Jr., back cover.
9. Ibid., p. 13.
|
