The Trinity: Goodness Gracious
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. Mark 10:18 NASB
Before we look at this verse today, let me ask you this: Does your relationship with God depend on the doctrine we are investigating, or does it continue with or without the doctrinal conclusions? Do you believe in the Father because of what you have learned about theological ideas or do you have a relationship with Him that allows you to question and examine without fear that you will somehow lose your faith?
We may not actually come to conclusions as we investigate, but we will no longer be naive about these things. Is that OK? Can we look, think, ask — and then continue even if we don’t get it all figured out? Or must be come to a “correct” understanding in order for God to still be real to us? Did Abraham believe in the Trinity?
No one – As we have learned, exegesis of a text must not violate the obvious meaning of the text (the Pashat). What the text says is what the text says. It is not some hidden, mystical code that really reveals something entirely different (this is the problem with exegesis of Song of Songs as allegory). In this case, if the text says that no one is good except God, that’s what it means. And, by the way, this is how anyone in the audience would have understood what Yeshua said since it is perfectly compatible with the Jewish view of God’s goodness. To attempt to press this text into another mold violates what it plainly states. Attempts like that should give us great pause (and suspicion).
Unfortunately, the plain meaning of this text is a problem for those who claim that Yeshua is also (simultaneously) equal to God. The idea of the Godhead (the three “persons” in one being) implies that whatever is true of the Godhead is equally simultaneously true of each “person” in the Godhead. If Yeshua is God in this sense, then He cannot at the same time be somehow less than God. This problem is usually handled by the claim that Yeshua is both fully God and fully Man. How exactly that is possible is not and cannot be explained since there is no metaphysics available in human experience to show how one thing can also be completely and fully another thing in its essentials at the same time and in the same space. And we are not talking about relational conditions (like I can be a father and a husband at the same time). We are talking about “persons” and in human thought, a person is a unique entity occupying space and time independently from any other person. So how one “person” can be equally two other “persons” simultaneously is a big problem. Perhaps that’s why Millard Erickson (who defends the Trinity as an essential doctrine) says that this doctrine “is so absurd from a human standpoint that no one would have invented it” and therefore it must have been revealed by God.[1]
Back to the plain meaning of the text. The Greek oudeis (no one) is pretty strong (literally “not even one”). When Yeshua says that no one is good but God, does he or does he not include himself? The answer is obvious. He includes himself. He falls within the category of human beings and is therefore not essentially good like God. In this sentence, Yeshua excludes himself from the attribute given to God. Now either he is lying about this or this is what he really meant. And if this is what he really meant, then how can he be, at the same time, the very God he says he isn’t? There is nothing in this text that suggests he is speaking only from his human perspective (in his “fully Man” identity). That has to be added to the text in order to circumvent the obvious meaning that Yeshua is not good like God is good. To make this text fit a Trinitarian doctrine it is necessary to reconstruct the text so that it doesn’t say what it says.
Before you fall into theological apoplexy, just try reading what it says. Then we can begin to answer the question, “In what way is Yeshua divine if he asserts that he is not good like God?” So much more ground to uncover.
Topical Index: Trinity, oudeis, no one, good, Mark 10:18
[1]Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, first edition, p. 342.
The NET bible has a good note on the this verse. And one I think is worthy to consider.
“Jesus’ response, Why do you call me good?, was designed to cause the young man to stop and think for a moment about who Jesus really was. The following statement “No one is good except God alone” seems to point the man in the direction of Jesus’ essential nature and the demands which logically follow on the man for having said it.”
What I don’t think Yeshua was saying, was that He Himself, was not good.
How must we understand John 8:58? What did Y’shua actually mean here in this context, answering the question ‘what do You make yourself out to be?’?
58 Yeshua said to them, “Yes, indeed! Before Avraham came into being, I AM!” (CJB)
58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” NASB
58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
52 Then the Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon! Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word he shall never taste death.’ Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets are dead. Who do You make Yourself out to be?”
54 Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God. Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” Then they took up stones to throw at Him …
Mark is right. He didn’t say “I am not good” , or “Do not call me good”. He asks the man because He wants him to think it through and come to his own conclusion. A) He was tempted and yet was without sin. B) No one is good but God. C) Therefore He is……….. We all have to fill in that blank. All of creation testifies who God Is, yet he wants to know “Am I your God?”. If all the things that Jesus did were written down, all the books in the world could not contain them, yet He asks “who do you say that I Am?”. I don’t know how God could divide his own nature but he did this with Adam. A couple of interesting things in a hebrew video I watched. The Rabbi is explaining that the Aleph represents God and his unity. Aleph is one. But then he says that the Aleph is made up of two Yuds and a Vav. Then to emphasize unity he goes on to explain that the numerical total of the letters that make up the word “Aleph” is 111. Funny how he sees one where I see three in one.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76onHqQSAtI
“How exactly that is possible is not and cannot be explained since there is no metaphysics available in human experience to show how one thing can also be completely and fully another thing in its essentials at the same time and in the same space.”
This does not prove your argument at all. If this proves that Yeshua can’t be HaShem, then we can use the argument for the existence of God as well.
I could make the argument: “How exactly that is possible cannot be explained since there is no metaphysics available in human experience to scientifically show that God exists.”
Since His eyes run to and fro throughout the whole earth, you can’t say that He has the same constraints as a human being. It is therefore an invalid argument to say that God cannot be human at the same time. The Logos, pre-existing with the Father, became flesh. John 1:14.
Unless you want to say that John did not see the risen Lord on Patmos [and therefore deny the inspiration of the Apostolic Scriptures], I would have to say the Yeshua applied Is 41:4, 44:6 and 48:12 to Himself in Rev 22:
(Isa 41:4 YLT) Who hath wrought and done, Calling the generations from the first? I, YHVH, the first, and with the last I am He.
(Isa 44:6 YLT) Thus said YHVH, king of Israel, And his Redeemer, YHVH of Hosts: ‘I am the first, and I the last, And besides Me there is no God.
(Isa 48:12 YLT) Hearken to me, O Jacob, and Israel, My called one, I am He, I am first, and I am last;
(Rev 22:13 YLT) I am the Alpha and the Omega — the Beginning and End — the First and the Last.
Or what do we do with (Joh 19:37 YLT) and again another Writing saith, ‘They shall look to him whom they did pierce.’? Or (Rev 1:7 YLT) Lo, he doth come with the clouds, and see him shall every eye, even those who did pierce him, and wail because of him shall all the tribes of the land. Yes! Amen!
John in both cases applies the text of Zech 12:10 to Yeshua. Equating Him with YVH
(Zec 12:10 YLT) And I have poured on the house of David, And on the inhabitant of Jerusalem, A spirit of grace and supplications, And they have looked unto ** Me ** whom they pierced, And they have mourned over it, Like a mourning over the only one, And they have been in bitterness for it, Like a bitterness over the first-born.
The person spoken about is the Messenger of Yaweh in vs 8. [the one coming with the clouds – the Son of Man – see Michael Heiser’s work I referred to before]
By the way it clearly says ME, not him. They pierced Me, YHVH! The Hebrew text is very clear. The Jewish translations try to hide this.
You are taking texts that are theological difficult and ignore texts that are as clear as the day!
Your argument that Yeshua excludes Himself is only believable if you already believe He is not HaShem. I don’t see it that way at all. Yeshua was in a very specific role and wasn’t here to prove His Deity when He walked here on earth. It is the same as what you thought several years ago [in an audio course I listened to] about Him not revealing Himself as Messiah until He actually did the work of the Messiah and so proved He was the Messiah.
It is truly refreshing to read something sane on these issues!
Thank you for pressing on!
11 Corinthians 10:5 “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought unto the obedience of Christ.” This oneness of God is what’s good! “Hear oh Israel the LORD our God is One.” Not three Gods – but One. There is so much that we do not comprehend about Him and yet we know that He is good! There is a Tri – unity, a oneness – a mystery, yet He is good! In fact, too good – way beyond our imaginations! His creation is good. Scripture speaks of man and woman when married as one – how can that be? There is a oneness that is good. God made man and woman and looked on all He created and said “it is good.” And there was Jesus in all this good creation. Messiah was the first born of all creation. He was in it all, God over all; He created all things. AND He calls unto us to join in with works of goodness – Ephesians 2:10 “For we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus, unto good works, which God hath prepared before hand, that we should walk in them.” How amazing is our God! In His Love, Linda K. Morales
“So how one “person” can be equally two other “persons” simultaneously is a big problem.”
It is a big problem to whom? It is a problem only to those who start with the notion that the ontological Trinity is not a valid conclusion from the texts of Scripture.
No, it’s a big problem because, as Millard Erickson points out, it is complete nonsense. Are you suggesting that God communicated this “essential and vital” doctrine in ways that no human being could comprehend and that none of the authors of the text made absolutely clear?
“I don’t know how God could divide his own nature but he did this with Adam.”
This statement perfectly argues against the Trinitarian doctrine. So if He did divide His nature with Adam then does this make Adam, YHWY? I think we would say no. Then why, if we are applying the same statement to Yeshua, does it “prove” that Yeshua is YHWH?
Also David, refers to HIMSELF many times as being God’s Son, possibly even divine. Then we in retrospect, with the apostles, take David’s statements that are clearly referring to himself and see that they are prophecies about the coming Messiah. No one aver argues that David was actually God or the Divine Messsiah.
Psalm 2 “……..The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together, Against the LORD and His Anointed (Messiah) and say, “Let us break Their bonds into pieces and cast away Their cords from us.” HE who sits in the heavens shall laugh. The Lord will hold them in derision. Then He shall speak to them in HIs wrath, and distress them in His deep displeasure: “Yet I have anointed My KING on My holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree, The Lord said to ME, ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You……….Kiss the Son lest HE be angry…..”
Its very clear that David is referring to himself. So then should I go ahead (so as to explain how David could do this) and assume that David and Yeshua (and lets just go ahead and put the Father in the mix= A Trinity) are in essence the very same person. Of course not. I love what Brett said earlier because we can say the same thing about ourselves. Did YHWY “Divide” His nature with us? Are we partakers of the divine nature? Are we the Body of Christ? Are we supposed to be Yehsua in the earth? Did He now give His Glory (That the Father gave to Him by the way) to us? Does that then make us Yeshua. Well, yes and no. Its funny how we can accept it about ourselves and David (among others) but not about Yeshua Himself. This doesn’t take any of the Divinity or Glory from Yehsua as Messiah, Son of God and Son of Man.
Despite all the comments supporting this side or that, or anything in between, we are still left with the fact that nowhere in scripture do we find the word “Trinity.” Nowhere is the doctrine of three Persons in one Person plainly stated as such. The Christian understanding of the Trinity as a primary doctrine does not happen until long after Yeshua was resurrected. For many denominations, the Trinity doctrine is THE primary doctrine, often listed first in statements of belief. But I don’t see it stated as THE primary doctrine in scripture. Those to whom the oracles have been committed, the Jewish people, have no history of trinitarian development. All of which begs the question: Why do we?
Also in reference to today’s verse. David says something very similar about himself in Psalm 16:2 “You are YHWH, I have no good beside you.” (Scripture Translation)
Could Yeshua have been quoting David or at least referring to this?
“Do you believe in the Father because of what you have learned about theological ideas or do you have a relationship with Him that allows you to question and examine without fear that you will somehow lose your faith”? This is an important question!
Searching out truth in scripture is a great adventure and I enjoy it immensely. I believe that the vast majority of created, image-bearing humanity has been illiterate peasants and that Abba has chosen billions to be of His house.
My observation over the years is that the seminary, or academic types, by and large, get their heads full of ‘correct doctrine’ and thereby get a big head. These types tend to fill the protestant pastoral and teaching roles in the role of paid clergy and consequently propogate and teach the franchise doctrine. They have to – their livelihoods depend on it.
I have similarly observed that people who have been through the ‘pruning (purging) of God’ (Jhn 15:2), tend to have a bit of a tremble in them; they have come to see the Father as the good Father. They relish His goodness, they love that He loves them and they love him back in the light of their understanding. When you are full of this awareness, nothing else matters in that moment. These have big hearts.
I would that we were all of both; that we knew the letter, intent, context, current and future application of scripture while tending the fire of love in our hearts for Him and the brethren.
I appreciate this discussion and thank you for having the stones to take this on. My prayer for our teacher is that the eyes of your heart would be enlightened to teach this well and that your heart would burn with passion for Him. Or is it them? lol
The sayings of the wise are like goads, and like nails firmly fixed are the collected sayings which are given by one Shepherd. My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. Ecc 12:11-13
The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.
@ David F. I didn’t state this very clearly. I did not mean that God divided himself to make Adam. Just that Adam was originally a unity that God divided into Adam and Eve, two separate distinct persons, two “sides” of the previous unity. One of the common themes I see in God’s plan is that He never asks us to do something He is not willing to do Himself. He does it “with us” to share a common experience. To go through the trial with us, so as to identify with us. He models voluntary reconciliation through covenant relationship (love). Through this the whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts. In three straight parables, the lost son, the lost sheep, and the lost coin, there is a joy that did not exist before the subject became lost. There is also a jewish concept of “run and return” that has something to do with division and reconciliation.
But this is still confused. Adam wasn’t “divided.” The woman was constructed from the “side” of Adam, an indication of equality, not a piece of him. And to say that God never asks us to do something He is not willing to do is more confused. God asks us to repent. Is that because He is willing to repent? God asks us to obey. Does it make sense to say that He obeys?
If we are going to discuss the Trinity, we must be VERY CAREFUL about the use of our words. Most of the time the usage of words is just sloppy enough so that crucial ideas can skate of implied meanings and extended domains. But that is what we have to avoid here.
When Yeshua says “no one is good but God,” we are not allowed to EXTEND the meaning of the text so that the definition of “God” includes the Trinitarian concept of the Son in this sentence. Certainly no one who heard him say that WITHOUT a prior assumption of the Trinity would have ever reached the conclusion that he was including himself in the definition of God.
Just an example of how careful we must be.
“We may not actually come to conclusions as we investigate, but we will no longer be naive about these things. Is that OK?”
I think this question speaks directly to why the “trinity” is such a sensitive subject for many believers, because, if not the “Trinity” then what? If one can show that the doctrine of the Trinity has little or no Biblical evidence, it leaves many believers with more questions than answers. It shifts our understanding of G-d, Yeshua and the Ruach to a place where it isn’t so neatly packaged and all wrapped up in proof texts. Things that we took for granted as “biblical”, all of a sudden needs to be questioned, and those questions just lead to more questions and ultimately, theological uncertainty. And we as humans really struggle with theological uncertainty, we would much rather claim a certain doctrine or theology to be gospel truth no matter the amount of evidence that shows the doctrine or theology to be lacking or just plain wrong.
I mean, to think that any human doctrine or theology could accurately describe and and pin down who and what exactly G-d is, is by itself ridiculous. So therefore, even if this investigation leaves us without conclusions with more questions than answers, it should be ok and we should praise G-d! For it should force us to depend even more on Him, and less on our own theological understanding.
Anyway, this discussion has been fantastic so far! (From both sides, by the way). I find it interesting that Prof Larry Hurtardo had a discussion along similar lines last week on his blog. For those interested on his opinions:
http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/05/13/questioning-a-common-assumption/
http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/05/14/jesus-and-christology-the-gospel-of-john-as-case-study/
http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/jesus-pre-existence-etc-responding-to-questions/
http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/early-jesus-devotion-underscoring-key-points/
Shalom all.
@Ian Hodge. Ian, here is why the Trinity doctrine, as it stands now, is a big problem for me personally. Scripture tells me that Yeshua was tested in every way, just like I am tested. When I thought of Yeshua as God, I had a very difficult time believing He could be tested like I am tested!
Additionally, Yeshua said that His followers would do greater works than He did. Really? Greater works than God does? This is where my reasoning takes me if I consider Yeshua as fully God as well as fully man.
Lastly, in a religious discussion with some others who do not believe in the Trinity, I said, some years ago, that unless Jesus was God, He could not have paid for the sins of the world. I put my foot in my mouth, because that discussion led me to studying my premise. I ended up with 1 Corinthians 15:27-27. If God has put everything under His Son, wouldn’t that be enough for payment? And “everything” excludes God Himself.
After reading the many comments, both for and somewhat against…it is simply refreshing to see people able to come together to reason it out…this ‘topic’ has been taboo for so many and so hush hush that it is a wonder that anyone ‘comes out of her’!! To be able to ask deep and penetrating questions without fear of being stoned alive is refreshing and reinvigorating and while we may never arrive at a simple 1-2-3 ‘answer’ .. we will all walk away with a renewed love for the words of the Holy One! Thank you brother for as David above says – having the stones to bring this out!
Blessings and favor as we continue ~ Pam
Well, nothing is taboo here. We are all just traveling the road of trying to understand in dialogue.
Skip you said: “No, it’s a big problem because, as Millard Erickson points out, it is complete nonsense. Are you suggesting that God communicated this “essential and vital” doctrine in ways that no human being could comprehend and that none of the authors of the text made absolutely clear?”
But, there are SO many things G-d does that are impossible for humans to comprehend. His ways are not our ways. No one can fathom how He has existed for ALL of time. HOW did He come into being?? HOW can 3 be One. Perhaps (obviously) He wants the mystery to be part of our journey.
This is an intriguing, fascinating AND scary path you are taking us on. Guess it’s part of the deal as we try to understand what G-d is communicating to us through His Word. But it seems like just as I start to feel like I’m “getting it”, you throw out a curve ball. This has been going on for the 7 years I’ve been reading TW. So…how many more surprises do you have in store for us? 🙂 🙂
I know…I know…MY comfort is not the objective here. 🙂
Yes, He does lot of things we don’t understand, BUT when it comes to what He wants us to know about Him, He is pretty clear. He says we need to follow Torah hundreds of time. He says we need to refuse idolatry hundreds of times. He says He forgives and offers grace hinders of times. He says He loves us hundreds of times. So, when it comes to this doctrine, why is it so obscure and so convoluted that it took the Church 400 years to figure it out and it isn’t absolutely, clearly revealed in Scripture without the paradigm?
Hi Mark,
I think Jesus was distinguishing himself as not God who is all good
Jesus is human and as such has human desires
Jesus, unlike God, is not pure spirit
I’m a little confused and not sure that I understand completely, but I’m trying to hang in there and see what you are trying to show us.
Why do I call You good? LORD, it is because You are good! You are the (always) Good Shepherd of the sheep. And it is because you are not only great, but (always) good that I commit my entire being, the whole of who I am to You. This very day You are praying for Me and praying (interceding) on my behalf. I thank you for this, My Soverein Savior and ask that you would please draw near unto me. Empower and enlighten my mind. Encourage my heart and strengthen my resolve to know You more and to always do those things that are pleasing in Your sight. I thank you also my Redeemer for Your grace extended to me and to my family and friends. I see the gentle touch of your healing hands -everywhere.
Thank you for coming to earth. Thank you for showing us the Way. Thank You for Your sacrificial love, and the still-bleeding wounds in Your hands and feet. Thank you for Calvary, LORD. Thank you for the cross and the (now) torn veil of the temple. Thank you for the atonement and the access we have now have to the very throne-room of our Father. Be pleased, my LORD and my God with my thoughts and the words that issue forth from renewed heart and soul.
Dear LORD, you are worthy! Worthy to receive riches and honor and glory and blessing. This is (another) day, but this is the day which You have made. And because of this, – I will rejoice and be glad in it. I worship You, and gladly, freely and fully “bow the knee.” and will serve you with joy and gladness.
This prayer I offer in Your saving, life-giving Name, – and only because Calvary made it possible. Amen.
I’ve always wondered about this.
I love the first two paragraphs (actually, all of it but especially the intro) because isn’t that the essence of the problem in the Church today? People are afraid to examine their long held beliefs BECAUSE they might find those beliefs will be shaken.
The angry reaction of people to having their belief system turned upside down is nothing new: just read the 17th Chapter of Acts. Stubbornly refusing to examine your beliefs is not faith — it’s a head in the sand. The Bereans were commended because they were diligent to check everything out in the Tanakh as the basis of their faith (remember, there was no NEW Testament at the time). Do we somehow think it will please God if we do less?
Skip, for some time I’ve wondered if the pre-incarnate Yeshua was the #1 Son elohim creator of all of the Elohim Father YHVH’s creation of elohim divine beings, marking Him head and ruler of all creation. That makes Him an elohim and a crown prince son. It seems from Hebrews that after He passed His human 2nd Adam test and saved us He was rewarded with an even higher rank. What do you think?
By the way, I’m now living in Bentonville, Ar. Home of Walmart corp. offices. Very beautiful and most interesting place.
Skip: “Can we look, think, ask — and then continue even if we don’t get it all figured out? Or must be come to a “correct” understanding in order for God to still be real to us?”
I definitely understand where you are coming from. But I have a question pertaining to this statement from another angle.
I currently don’t have any close relationships with any Orthodox Jews at the moment (I hope this can change one day) and subsequently haven’t had discussions about our faith, but I’ve listened to some Rabbis like Tovia Singer to better understand why Yeshua and Christianity (it seems like the baby is thrown out with the bath water often times unfortunately) are rejected.
My question is this: Although we may not be able to fully describe Yeshua’s divinity and we battle with millennia of doctrine, how much weight does a Christian/Messianic/follower of the Way/etc. adopting a pro-Trinitarian view have in a Jew seeing Yeshua as the Messiah? Not saying we have to have all the answers or be coerced into rejecting something to appease another, but I just wonder if the claims about Yeshua being God (definitely what people believe goes against Deuteronomy 6:4) actually may hinder someone to even look at His actual life and words. Of course God is sovereign and bigger than our theological and doctrinal shortcomings, but it seems this topic is bigger than just having right answers.
It just makes me more careful in my exegesis, more flexible in my theology and appreciate discussions that we are having now.
-Brett
Good point. My experience is that the Trinity claim is a MAJOR and SERIOUS reason for Jews, believing in YHVH or not, to reject anything Christians says about Yeshua as Messiah. Jews basically see Christians as idolaters, worshipping 3 gods. The Trinity is the reason for this and trying to find theological gymnastics to explain it doesn’t make much difference. Deuteronomy 6:4 is the bedrock. Anything that threatens it is unacceptable. So, if we think embracing the Trinity of the Church from the 5th century is going to help us communicate with Jews, we are dead wrong.
I can’t help it if Millard has a problem with it. And it’s not a problem just because Millard says it is. That’s his issue. I can quote many scholars who will not agree with Millard’s “complete nonsense”. As for ‘no human being could comprehend’, what are you trying to infer? How God communicates is, of course, his prerogative. To say “no human being could comprehend” is a very broad claim, and depends ultimately on what is implied in the word ‘comprehend’.
What do you mean by comprehend? I may not fully comprehend it, but I apparently have far less trouble with it than you do because of the application and meaning I find in that doctrine not only as an explanation of some of the texts of Scripture, but also in relation to the universals/particulars questions, and how that plays out, say, in the development of political theory. The fact that the One and the Many problem exists causes thought on its origin. To say this issue is a reflection of the Ultimate One and the Many is an explanation for for why the universe exists as it does.
I also find it of interest that where there is a subordination of Yeshua as less than fully divine, there seems to be an exaltation of man that almost gives man a God-like status. And from that, it’s not too far to deny a literal creation (Gen 1) and find man is merely fashioned to function out of the great chain of being. Which kind of leaves us echoing ancient near-east religions.
Skip, I like what you are trying to do questioning doctrines, even though on some issues such as this one, we will have different conclusions. Doctrines of the Faith have become very abstract with relatively little understanding of the implications that are at stake in taking either path. Hopefully your questioning would include the implications. What’s at stake in the Trinity is the whole question of knowledge (universals/particulars). How do we know? Maybe that’s where you might find a more satisfactory start to see if the epistemological and theological assumptions you make can actually stand up. To deal with this or any other doctrinal concept without addressing the implications seems to me like just another example of adopting Greek abstractionism. 🙂
Thanks, Ian.
But I just can’t leave it there.
We do have some very different views. The ONE/MANY problem seems to me to be a Greek philosophical issue, and not of biblical epistemological origin. In my view, the biblical world is ancient near-Eastern and is much more concerned with living now than it is with philosophical abstractions. And, just so we are clear, I do believe that Genesis is a reflection of the ancient near-Eastern thought, although a unique reflection on that ethos.
So yes, and it seems to me that you confuse “divine” with “God,” just like many others here (which I commented on in the post to go out tomorrow). What does “divine” mean in the text? Only God?
Anyway, as always, good points to grapple with.
Ian, thank you. So far,you have come closest to stating my heart on this matter. I want to thank Skip from the very bottom of my heart for having enough faith to tackle this subject. I think the time must be fully come to test ALL doctrine. Jesus, Yeshua, is the cornerstone, and if we do not stand fully on bedrock not only can we be shaken for the reasons that Ian has echoed, we do not have a way to combat successfully the deceptions that are sweeping the world and threatening to engulf us all.
Thank you to this entire community for all the excellent scholarship and passionate love with which you are engaging. And thank you for engaging, instead of running. I am praying with my full heart for us all.
@ Thomas Elsinger. The key issue in the Trintarian debate is the Christological question. Did Yeshua both divine and human, and yet no ‘co-mingling’ of the two natures? And it is precisely the passages you mention that caused the “fully human” part of statement that was produced by the Council of Chalcedon. Other passages are used to justify the “fully God” component of the statement. It’s like the sovereignty/free will debate. There are passages that imply the absolute decrees of God, and there are passages that imply the liberty and contingency of God’s creatures. Which is why some people take a both/and position. The question always being, how then, do we deal with all the texts of Scripture on a particular issue?
As for ‘greater works’ is it greater in magnitude or greater in number? Yeshua’s ministry lasted a mere three years. It seems reasonable to conclude that someone who had a longer ministry could produce a greater number of ‘works’ than did Yeshua.
Thomas, you don’t find words such as ‘omnipresent’ in the Bible either. Does that mean this is an invalid description of YHVH?
The ‘late appearance’ of the idea of the Trinity is only understood in the context of its origin, and the CENTURIES of debate over the person of Yeshua which, in turn, was driven by many passages of Scripture, but especially the opening section of John’s Gospel.
See History of Chalcedon.
and you don’t find the word “omniscience” but does that mean the standard doctrine is true because the Church taught it. Not on your life. Read my book.
Re the allegorical interpretation of Song of Songs, along with many total mistranslations in the KJV , the translation of the Song of Songs by Chana Bloch and Ariel Bloch describes many of these incidents as originally being done out of “pious bias”, in order to avoid the sexual meaning in the text. Although it may have begun in earlier centuries as far back as the LXX, “as often happens in the history of translation, a misreading, once established, tends to be perpetuated in version after version.” Ariel Block uses the term “pious bias” again in his article “Questioning God’s Omnipotence in the Bible: A Linguistic Case Study.” I loved the term.
Neither of us can just “leave it there”. LOL
But . . . I don’t think the universals/particulars issue is simply a Greek issue. They may have been the first to raise some of the questions, but that does not make it solely a Greek issue. And we have Paul’s fascinating response to the Greeks and their questions when he declared that it was in “him, we live, move and have our being.” Which kinda takes the wind out of the Greeks who never could find an answer to those philosophical questions.
How is distinguish one furry animal from another without universals? How are we to distinguish plants from animals without universals? Inescapable concepts, I suggest. 😉
I read your book – more than once, too. We disagree. 😉