The Trinity: First Considerations
Simon Peter answered, “You are the [Messiah], the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:16 NIV
The Son โ Perhaps the single distinguishing doctrine of Christianity is the Trinity. No other monotheistic religion embraces this claim, i.e. that God exists as three persons in one being. In fact, until the fourth century, those who claimed to be Christian (not necessarily followers of the Jewish Messiah) didnโt embrace this view. The doctrine arose through the Council of Nicaea, convened by Emperor Constantine, but was not finally constructedย until the Second Ecumenical Council convened by Theodosius in 381 CE. Since then it has been viewed as an essential theological proclamation of the Christian Church. The fact that Jewish sages and rabbis never came to this conclusion in spite of dedication to the same Hebraic Scriptures seems irrelevant, although obviously quite perplexing, since the justification of the doctrine is based primarily on New Testament implications and a re-reading of the Tanakh through the lens of a Trinitarian view of the apostolic writings.
But there are a few problems. In fact, there are some fairly significant problems since all admit that there is no definitive explicit Scriptural statement of the idea of the Trinity. The doctrine must be inferred from hints in the text, read according to a priori conclusions. Unlike other significant teachings of the Bible (e.g., Godโs sovereignty, Yeshuaโs role as Messiah and grace for forgiveness), this โfundamentalโ doctrine of the Church depends on theological inference.
Therefore, when we examine the idea of the Trinity, we are not examining clear and explicit verses in its support. We are examining verses that could be read as support if one already decides to read the verses according to the doctrine. And this brings up a serious exegetical issue.
โEvangelicals are conditioned by their denominational traditional teachings, just as much as the Roman Catholics and Eastern Greek Orthodox. In theory, they appeal to Sola Scriptura, but in practice, Evangelicals often interpret Scripture in accordance with their traditional denominational teachings. If new Biblical research challenges traditional doctrines, in most cases, Evangelical churches will choose to stand for tradition rather than Sola Scriptura . . . To be an โEvangelicalโ means to uphold certain fundamental traditional doctrines without questioning. Anyone who dares to question the Biblical validity of a traditional doctrine can become suspect as a โheretic.โ . . . Any attempt to modify or reject traditional doctrines is often interpreted as a betrayal of the faith and can cause division and fragmentation. This is a very high price that most churches are not willing to pay.โ[1]
Before we examine a doctrine like the Trinity, we must be ready to follow Scripture no matter where it leads. We must be willing to seriously reconsider our previous assumptions and doctrines. There is only one standardโthe textโnot the teachings of the Church or the theological traditions of Christianity or Judaism. We can move forward in this investigation, but not without potential theological pain. Itโs one thing to discover that baptism in Scripture isnโt quite what we thought it was. Itโs quite another to investigate the claim that Yeshua is God in the flesh.
Are we willing to look no matter what we find?
I don’t mind telling you that I am extremely cautious about pursuing this course. ย I have deliberately avoided it for a long time because the Trinity is one of the doctrines that becomes the linch pin of a person’s faith. ย What I mean is that most Christians I know hold the idea of the Trinity as if it were Scripture itself and any questions raised about its formation or the history of its development is immediately met with extreme resistance. ย It is not my intention to cause theological dyspepsia, but I do want to know the truth and that means examining what the text actually says and how the doctrine was actually developed. ย So, if you’re ready, we can proceed.
If you’re not, just ignore that next few Today’s Word editions labelled: Trinity.
Topical Index: Trinity, Son of God, Matthew 16:16
[1] Immortality or Resurrection?: A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny, pp. 28, 30 as cited in Divine Truth or Human Tradition by Patrick Navas, p. 112, fn. 52.
Go for it, Skip, and I will keep reading. I promise to stay open through it all. May the truth of the Scripture prevail!
Thanks! I appreciate your critical thinking and courage.
We’re with you. But please……..Just keep it fairly easy to read/follow.
Today’s was just right….. *nervously excited!
As you I have also had problems with the trinity as claimed by christians.
Can’t wait for what follows ๐
This is going to be interesting ๐
I have been reading up on the “Two Powers” controversy for a while now. [Alan Segal, Daniel Boyarin, Michael Heiser]. I didn’t know how Jewish the Binitarian view [as a form of monotheism] really is.
I am looking forward to what you come up with.
Excitement would simply be an understatement!
I am so ready! I personally don’t believe in the trinity as the church does. But I do want the Truth of Elohim in my life. I want to walk His ways. Mine have lead me where I don’t want to be. Thank you Skip for stepping out and being willing to help us do the same.
Blessings
Rett
Yes Skip , this should prove very interesting indeed.
I have never been taught that THE LORD GOD was in three eternal persons so I am very fortunate that I did NOT have to delve through all that was a miss on such so called “revelation”.
BUT it will be good to see your heart and the hearts of others plodding through this idolatry that many have set up in their own hearts.
I am in a Baptist church and have been pretty much of my converted to Christ life but I have not been recognized due to this very important element that rests in their thinking.
MAY THE GOOD LORD ABOVE REVEAL HIS HEART to us who believe …
Oh Good News, can’t wait to hear this.
I tried to get to the bottom of the idea of trinity by working through one of your favourite tomes,
Mr Grudem’s Systematic Theology. Was trying to clear up some of the fog of a Catholic upbringing.
I got there in the end in that I understood finally how the notion can be constructed from the text,
but remember being disappointed that it was not definitively scriptural.
Carry on please, I am more than ready and there’s nothing wrong with a dose of Theological Dyspepsia.
Skip, I am willing to be Sola Scriptura. I trust in your scholarship and heart for the truth. I too want the truth! Those who follow Yeshua as recorded in his conversation with Pilot are those who seek TRUTH. I have taken this sola route route with my home group teachings based on your work. I have run into severe resistance from a gentleman, wonderful husband, father and person, however he is studying for his doctorate in theology from Fuller Theological Seminary in California. He told me in front of the group: “Dennis, there are core principles that NEVER change in the church and a believer should NEVER challenge those for they are well based and scrutinized by many solid believing scholars over the years.. Skip is ‘out there’ and beware for he is one man interpreting Scripture.”. Yuck! So I have backed down teaching on these “sacred doctrine” issues. HOWEVER teach me Skip! I Open my eyes to the Truth in the Scriptures. When ever possible, let me know of other scholars now and in the past who also challenged the “sacred doctrine” and who are in agreement with you.. So lets go for it! Dennis
Go for it Skip. We have our seat belts on and are ready for the ride! The very first scripture I ever memorized was “And ye will know the truth and it will set you free” KJV. WELL, I’ve been on this journey since leaving the church of Rome in 1985 and Abba has led me by the hand . It has been my prayer and the prayer of my beloved that He show us truth, give us discernment, and help us teach others. And here we are today on this fantastic journey with you and others who seek truth, love Yah, and obey His Torah! My husband Jim was a Pastor in the Sunday church for 25 years before a friend of his introduced him to Hebrew roots/Messianics. Now he and I are helping others learn to “think Hebrew” about Abba’s word and life in general. Keep up the good work, we love it!
Sara Trout
Bethlehem Messianic Congregation
Apache Junction, Arizona
I wonder which concept/tradition that you have addressed is more volatile, the trinity? Or women.
I love this!
Languages have always been interesting to me and Skip often uses language that challenges me and develops my understanding. dyspepsia… That’s quite funny!
Anyway, I believe a hunger for truth is a gift and to pursue it with all my heart is to find Him.
Looking forward to Sandpoint.
See you there ๐
I’ve been really wondering about this lately and am so glad someone is delving into it!
Thanks Skip
Ready!! Can’t wait to read more about what you learn as you explore this topic…
Great topic Skip!
This is another “sacred cow” that needs to be sacrificed on the altar of intelligence and truth. I never cease to be amazed how “christian” theologians have gotten away with pawning this non scriptural notion off on the sheeple over the centuries.
May the Spirit and Wisdom of Yahshua inspire you on this one
Shabbat Shalom
Hear hear Lesli, my thoughts exactly…*nervous part too… Yet all necessary in seeking to grasp what is Truth really is.
Thanks Skip… will hang on tight!
I enjoy your daily doses of truth. Thank you for addressing this touchy subject. I am eager to read your thoughts, Skip. I abandoned the trinitarian doctrine years ago but have not re-examined it since. “When He, the spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth.”( John 16:13 )
I have learned a long time ago, that much of what the “modern church” teaches comes from the position that the scripture was written for those of us here today vs to whom it was originally written. I look forward to the research coming in the next few days, as I have about the role of women and why the cross is about victory over death. I am and continue to be challenged and bless through the work you do, thank you for all your time and efforts.
In reference to the article today on the Trinity. I realize, fully, that I am much too simple minded to ever connect or lay claim to great knowledge. My faith lies in His faithfulness to me, to make His Holy Reality a present reality to the deepest part of my being-body, soul and spirit. He has done that throughout the – over 60 decades I have been on earth. As I have lived those decades and watched…giving Him opportunity to reveal Himself to my questions and confusions…I’ve noticed many things that calm my confusion and answered my questions. One of those questions would be the Trinity. There are many “trinities” in the earth – and seeing and understanding them-and they are all specific to their own species-leaves my questions to rest. An apple, for one, is a trinity – apple skin, apple “meat”, and apple seed – all separate yet totally apple. A family (as God initiated it) is a trinity – a father, a mother and children. A father who forms a foundation, a mother who guards and guides and children who go forth creating new life. After all, we were made in His Image…right?
Blessings over you-His Love cover you.
Truth, unlike doctrine, stands up to questioning and we must never hold back from the investigation of it. The alternative — that we might continue to believe a false doctrine because we were afraid to question it — ought to be unthinkable. I have found that Skip researches with integrity and doesn’t base his findings on “one man’s interpretation”. I trust him in this. At the same, I recognize that my trust does not relieve me of the responsibility to also be a Berean.
So, if like me you are interested in purchasing the book Skip quotes from above, I just found a Kindle version for $3.03! Gotta stretch that book budget where I can. ๐
http://www.amazon.com/Divine-Truth-Human-Tradition-Reconsideration/dp/1463415214/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=1YAPAZ78G2Y5S8NB7M49
As with everyone else….BRING IT ON!!! Can’t wait to get a good handle on how to approach this with others. And I think this subject will be right up there with Guardian Angel……never had so many attacks in my life after studying this book out … and then presenting it in various teaching settings….:-)
Shabbat Shalom Mr. Skip Moen.
Always eagerly awaiting your findings via your research. Press on! You have my vote. ๐
For your consideration.
The problem with Christianity is they insist “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” are three separate “persons”…yet, somehow, He is “one God.” A more appropriate analogy would be: One tree, three branches. Not three separate trees.
YHWH has presented Himself in various ways, and the the ONLY time we see a “person” is in the form of Y’shua – and He is the “arm” of YHWH (Isaiah 53:1) and also the branch.
In the below, we see one of the verses Christians attempt to use to prove the Trinity:
I 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. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (KJV)
KJV worded it to make it seem as though John was defining the Father, Son and Spirit as three separate beings in one. But a more careful look reveals something strange. All the other versions completely omit everything after the word “heaven” in verse 7. For instance check out the NIV: 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. This is TOTALLY different from the KJV.
hmmm… okay …now that arrests my attention . 8 o
So I ask myself …. , what happened?
The undiluted truth is: King James added the line! Here is a footnote from the NIV referencing 1 John 5:7-8:
“Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven, the Father, the Word and Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify in earth–not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century.”
This shows that both verses are late additions. Obviously, 5:7 is an addition post-397 CE, after the Council of Carthage and 5:8 is so late as to be meaningless. This is true because trinity was never, and is not, an original Biblical doctrine. It was a formulation of Constantine, Eusebius and others. Dr. George M. Lamsa deals with it from the Aramaic side, as does Mr. Andrew Gabriel Roth and Paul Younan. The 1998 re-issue of his NT (not the 1940 one that Harper still sells) restored his original notes and he says in these places “Carried over from the King James Version.”
* I will note that there is also criticism’s regarding Mr. Lasma’s and Mr. Roth’s work as well.
I John 5: 6. This is he who came by the water and the blood. Y’shua the Mashiyach; not by the water only, but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit testifies; because the Spirit is truth. 7. (Verse 7 is nonexistent in the Eastern Peshitta!) 8. And there are three witnesses, the Spirit and the water, and the blood: and these three are in union.
There are several NT verses that Christians think are original but are actually later developments. They drop older readings in favor of newer ones or change the meaning of existing ones. There are too many of these instances to list here, but I will say that the Christian authorities admit they did it! Any scholarly Bible even from the Greek (Thompson Chain, Nestle-Aland, NASB, NIV Study Ed, etc.) will show these variances honestly. Some try to sugar-coat the differences and say they are just synonymous thoughts, but this is a lie. You can’t reconcile Acts 20:28, Hebrews 2:9, Revelation 1:10 and 22:14’s old readings with their replacements. There is also no way getting around the Pericopa Adultera (John 7:53-8:11), that is lacking not only in all the Eastern Peshitta manuscripts but also the four most ancient Greek ones! Other problematic verses though on the Greek side – like different endings in Mark and particular 16:9-20, are affirmed as correct in the Aramaic. Whole verses then drop out of Luke and 1 Corinthians and end up elsewhere, and on it goes. And the most unreliable and corrupted version of them all is the KJV and its descendants RSV and NKJV. These editions are 400 years behind the times; they ignore Dead Sea Scrolls and other critical texts that have been found since the 17th century, etc.
As a result, Roth’s idea of a Critical Text (Textus Receptus or Base Text) is way different from the Christian West. In Mr. Roth’s translation (Aramaic English New Testament) He claims he has laid bare all these fake readings, listing manuscripts and time periods that they appeared in. He also claims to have even restored the Aramaic to the original Eastern readings that were tampered with by Western scholars doing their 1905 Edition, giving greater weight to the more ancient versions. He insists that we finally have an NT that solves as much of these issues as is possible and is faithful to the originals as well.
The Ruach haKodesh – ืจืื ืืงืืืฉ is a title for the Father YHWH – Isa 63:11 Then He remembered the days of old, Mosheh, His people, โWhere is He who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of His flock? Where is He who put His Set-apart Spirit within him, [ Masoretic text 1998 ISR translation ]
also see:
Psa 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O Elohim, And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
Psa 51:11 Do not cast me away from Your presence, And do not take Your Set-apart Spirit from me.
Psa 51:12 Restore to me the joy of Your deliverance, And uphold me, Noble Spirit! [ Masoretic text 1998 ISR translation ]
The Son has His Father’s Name within him and the father keeps His People in His Name :
Joh 17:11 โAnd I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Set-apart Father, guard them in Your Name which You have given Me, so that they might be one, as We are. [ Masoretic text 1998 ISR translation ]
Imagine three branches but One Tree rather than three separate branches. Each branch is united by the Name / Title / of the One Divine Personality that is YHWH Elohim.
Joh 14:9 ืืืืฉืข said to him, โHave I been with you so long, and you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father, and how do you say, โShow us the Fatherโ?
Joh 14:10 โDo you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak from Myself. But the Father who stays in Me does His works. [ Masoretic text 1998 ISR translation ]
We can clearly see that Yeshua has a human nature or nephesh ื ึถืคึถืฉื as well as a Divine Nature [ the Word / Ruach / Father ] dwelling within him. This can be evident when his human nephesh is revealed subjecting himself to the will of the Father. The Spirit of YHWH , also known as the Ruach haKodesh , is both within Mashiyach and is YHWH ; however , the nephesh [ soulk ] of Yeshua is the ” person ” or vessel of Yeshua where the Spirit/ Word of YHWH dwells. The physical body of Yeshua and his soul are not YHWH , but Yeshua made himself subject to YHWH in all aspects. Rabbis have long believed the Mashiyach existed before the material universe and that everything in time and space is subject to Mashiyach which takes on many forms and is the working hand/arm of YHWH who does the will of the mind of YHWH. Mashiyach has an intimate relationship with YHWH before the foundations.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with Elohim.
Joh 1:3 All came to be through Him, and without Him not even one came to be that came to be. [ Masoretic text 1998 ISR translation ]
If we consider that Mashiyach existed before Creation and also appears in many forms through time , including his coming to earth as Mashiyach ben Yoseph and his much awaited return as ben David. Mashiyach we can see where Mashiyach appears in hundreds of places in the Tanakh as ” the Word of YHWH.” even in a vision to Awraham [ gen 15:1 ] as well as Gen 19:24: Gen 19:24 And ืืืื rained sulphur and fire on Sedฬฑom and Amorah, ((( from ))) ืืืื out of the heavens. ; here it is clear YHWH is communicating with YHWH. One is within time and space …Mashiyach …and the father outside of time and space. Multi – dimensional penetration.
Consider…………….. ” and that every tongue should confess that Master YHWH is Yeshua the Mashiyach , to the Glory of his Father. ” Philippians 2:11
ืืจืืฉืืืช ืืจื ืืืืื ืืช ืืฉืืืื ืืืช ืืืจืฅื
In the beginning , Elohim created the heavens and the earth
ืืืืจืฅ ืืืชื ืชืื ืืืื ืืืฉืื ืขืึพืคื ื ืชืืื ืืจืื ืืืืื ืืจืืคืช ืขืึพืคื ื ืืืืื
And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the waters.
ืืืืืจ ืืืืื ืืื ืืืจ ืืืืึพืืืจ
And Elohim said, ” Let there be light ” and there was light.
Genesis / B’resheet 1: 1-3 Hebrew Tanakh
Within these first three lines Torah reveals wonderfuloly deep elements of Mashiyach , that are far beyond coincidence. The very first word ืืจืืฉืืืชH7225 contains a hidden Messianic prophecy teaching us that the son will be the head of all things. Bar is the Aramaic word for ” son ” and RESH means ” head , chief ” as well as ” starting point.” The use of the direct object pointer , as showing what part of the Hebrew sentence receives the action , is also a hint for the deeper truth of the son as the Aleph AND Tav ( the first and the last ) , the beginning and the completion.
Notice the chronological pattern within Creation itself. First YHWH speaks ( ” the Word ” ) and He ( Arm ) creates ( became flesh ). His first creation was light which is AUR in Hebrew , the Aramaic word for TORAH is related to that root and used by the rabbis of the Talmud; AURAYTA. So ” let there be light ” also suggests, ” let there be Torah ” ; just as within the word B’resheet ( in the beginning ) is the word BREET [ Covenant ] ahhh the Covenant of Light Revealed. these are clues about the Son / Mashiyach was from the very beginning [ the Word ] , but also that he would be the Living Torah. Mashiyach himself would keep [ observe ] Torah and as the ” first fruits ” of all creation he would write Torah upon the hearts of everyone who puts their trust in him.
Your analysis of the 1 John passage is well documented and well known. Scribal addition incorporated into the text must be removed. But I fear that the discussion of Genesis overreaches as it proceeds to exegesis with the paradigm of hidden Messianic revelation already in place. I doubt that any listened to Moses’ original Paleo-Hebrew would have been able to draw these conclusions.
Bring it on! I have been looking forward to this for a long time. Tom
In this most famous of books we have one character who stands out above all others
Most of know him as God, he is also known as the creator of heaven and earth, and often referred to as our Father
He is the eternal Spirit, who cannot be represented by physical objects, and his presence spans from the beginning to the end of the Bible
Toward the end of the Bible we are introduced to a character who refers to himself as the Son of God or the Son of Man and to God as his Father
To argue that Jesus is God is the intellectual equivalent of arguing that Captain Ahab is Moby Dick
This is timely. A few years ago a friend gave me a 500-page book to read that “proved” the Trinity. She said that after I read it, we could discuss the issue. I finished the book, but she never wanted to have that discussion! The conclusion of the book? That God could not possibly have done all the things He has done without being three Persons!
I’m a gardener, Skip, and I’m ready to start digging with you.
There is sufficient scriptural evidence (faith is not wishful thinking) for us to proceed in this quest for a greater understanding of the Tri-une God, our Elohim (which, of course, in Hebrew, is a plural word- or more than one). Yes, Israel, God is One, but so much more than one!
Me, myself and I? I am a father, I am a brother, I am a son and I am “me!” But, I am, and still remain “one!”
Yes, this “doctrine” (or is it a glorious reality?) has been approached before- and probably this won’t be the last time this has been “explained” either! But, anytime we are “exposed” to the word of God, – it is (always) a good thing, for ~ faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. ~
(Meanwhile, – back on the planet)- We all do “err” not knowing the scriptures, nor the power (the authority) of God!
So, “yes!”- let’s explore together the doctrine (or is it reality?) of the tri-unity of our God. Which shall we deny first? God the Father? or God the Son? or shall we say no to God the Holy Spirit? (not a good thing to do, btw..) Or, shall we embrace (and enjoy!) the majestic and marvelous mystery of the Three-who are-ONE?
While I appreciate the analogies offered (“I am father, brother, husband, etc.”) these are insufficient and in fact inappropriate when applied to the Trinity because Trinitarian doctrine does NOT claim that the Messiah is a different RELATIONSHIP between parties but rather that the Son is a different PERSON and yet the same being. So, while you may be a father and the brother, you are not Carl and George and Harry at the same time. The analogy is useless here, unless, of course, the Messiah is NOT a different person but rather a different ROLE, as the analogy suggests.
Just to stir the pot a little…
http://www.alephtavscriptures.com/category/aleph-tav-alerts/
Am I to assume that the presence of the linguistic marker for a direct object (et) is to be considered as a symbol of the Messiah? And if that is the case (and I am inclined to think this might be what Yeshua meant), does that obligate me to also conclude that the Messiah IS YHVH (as Trinitarian doctrine asserts) or am I allowed to say that this points to the Messiah, the messenger of YHVH and His prefect representative in the execution of YHVH’s will?
Doesn’t the phrase, Lord Jesus Christ, stand for “God-man-smeared with the Holy Spirit”? Is that what the messengers proclaimed to the shepherds in the field?
Typo. Should read, “Isn’t that…”