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.
OOps . . . should be “How are we to distinguish one furry animal from another without universals?”
This is an interesting discussion. In about 1200 AD Thomas Aquinas wrote “The truths about God thus far proposed have been subtly discussed by a number of pagan philosophers, although some of them erred concerning these matters. And those who propounded true doctrine in this respect were scarcely able to arrive at such truths even after long and painstaking investigation. But there are other truths about God revealed to us in the teaching of the Christian religion, which were beyond the reach of the philosophers. These are truths about which we are instructed, in accord with the norm of Christian faith, in a way that transcends human perception. The teaching is that although God is one and simple, as has been explained above, God is Father, God is Son, and God is Holy Spirit. And these three are not three gods, but are one God. We now turn to a consideration of this truth, so far as is possible to us.”
It is interesting to me that in this section about the Trinity, Aquinas does not appeal to scripture, but rather to “truths about God revealed to us in the teaching of the Christian religion.” I am sure that most of you are aware of the influence of Aquinas on all of Christian theology. At the end of his life Aquinas apparently had some sort of encounter with the risen Messiah and said later that all he had written “seems like straw to me.” I think that is about what we will think of the “doctrine of the Trinity” when we have our own encounter with Him.
A very good point, and from Aquinas, no less. There is another thread in Aquinas’ thought that is crucial to this whole conceptual field. I will write about it soon. It is also the basis of Aquinas’ view of time. It begins with Parmenides, not Moses.
Studies and interviews with people who have had transcendent experiences always say virtually the same thing; I can’t properly describe it, there are no words I can use to tell you about it accurately. So as often as not they don’t talk to people about it at all. They can’t.
This may be true, but we are not dealing with the experiences of people. We are attempting to deal with the revealed word of God. It isn’t subject to someone’s transcendent experience. The words are there. The question is “What do they mean?”
Some very good research has been done on this topic: One Lord One God: Reconsidering the Cornerstone of Christianity. http://www.amazon.com/One-God-Lord-Reconsidering-Cornerstone/dp/0962897140 and On the Errors of the Trinity http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/audio/on-the-errors-of-the-trinity.
Throughout the Bible God commands men to worship one God. The Trinity has its roots in paganism. Another good book on the subject is When Jesus Became God which gives the historical background on when the debate started and how.
This matter has been settled in my mind for quite some time. All the scriptures fall into place once Yeshua is put in his rightful place – an exalted place – but definitely not equal to God.
That’s precisely my point. We only have human language to describe something divine. Can it be done with reasonable integrity?
If we retreat to the idea that understanding WHAT GOES WANTS US TO KNOW is in a language WE CANNOT UNDERSTAND, then we might as well close shop now and stop speaking. Do you really think that God would not communicate a message ESSENTIAL to understanding Him in language that actually can’t describe it? What would be the point? Yes, we know that God is ineffable in His “wholly other” form, but does that means He can’t communicate with us, even if it is only in human language? I think not. The Bible is God’s attempt to tell me about Himself IN MY LANGUAGE, the only one I have, the human one. As soon as I say, “But I can’t figure this out, therefore it must be a divine thought beyond human comprehension,” I have become a mystic and I must SHUT MY MOUNTH FOR GOOD.
I can’t say I ever accepted the trinity doctrine as it could never be explained clearly. Last year I helped at a church VBS and one of the songs was “one plus one plus one is one”. Let’s just say we got a lot more questions than acceptance and it was interesting to see the pastor dance around.
I’ve always thought of it like this: (granted this accepts the intent behind the Trinitarian doctrine)
I am Mike. My voice, only heard could be thought of as separate from me but it is not. My arm, seen exposed from behind a curtain can be seen as separate in that situation but it is me. My actions, whose consequences may not be seen immediately, could be disassociated from me, but it was me.
I have taken this idea to help explain the trinity though it still leaves many questions.
While this topic seems to shake many people’s faith, I have realized that much of what is preached from the pulpit is not accurately Biblical, from ignoring Torah, to infant baptism, to the Catholic view of communion etc. etc. Why would the Trinity be such a shocker? I know that God is One and yet has many powers so why do we have to make Jesus the same as God. Why is that SO CRITICAL to my faith? Why can’t I shuck it off like the remainder of the dogma and see what the scriptures say with no taint. If the facts and data of the scripture bring us back to the conclusion then well and good. If not….why hold on? (all rhetorical)
Good questions, especially about all the other doctrines that the Church invented. But the analogy of the voice and the arm leaves a lot to be desired, as you are well aware, and it ultimately isn’t comparable to the idea of one being in three persons. In the next few days, once I finish the tasks here in El Salvador, I will come back to this and try to show you how we got to such an unexplainable position. It will be fun (I hope) and not make anyone sign up for therapy.
So does that mean God only speaks Hebrew and Greek?
Of course! 🙂 No, what it means is that He chose to communicate through His prophets in Hebrew and Greek, and therefore, if we really want to know what He said TO THEM, we need to pay attention to those languages. He can, of course, speak to you in your language, whatever it may be, but He did not choose to give the Tanakh and the apostolic writings in your language, unless, of course, you speak and read biblical Hebrew and koine Greek.
The issue is not how God communicates with you (or me). The issue is how He communicated to those who wrote the Bible.
Oh, I forgot. Some is in Aramaic.
Bravo Skip, you continue to rise to the challenge.
Do well with the Saviour in El Salvador!
There is one thing that I have not seen commented on. Yeshua was answering a man’s question on what good thing he must do, to have eternal life. I see it as the man was asking Yeshua for his personal doctrine. Yeshua told him that the answer lay with God, if you will enter into life keep the commandments. Matt 9:17. Our beliefs are only good to others as long as it truly reflects what God wants. It is God’s direction, not man’s (apart from God) , that leads to eternal life. Paul states I Cor 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. KJV
I believe that Yeshua telling the man not to look for some doctrine from a man, but from God.
In reading these posts and comments, I would like a clear definition of the Trinity doctrine that is being discussed. That sounds like “duh” but I have found that people have all sorts of definitions and assumptions of beliefs. For example, ask someone what “church” means and there are all sorts of beliefs: It’s Christians, it’s those who believe Jesus (or Yeshua) is the Savior (Messiah), it’s an assembly, it’s a building, it’s a certain form of “church” government….and sometimes the word is defined in different ways by the same person in the same sentence. People have different ideas about what something means. So please put the Trinity doctrine into a concise statement so I understand exactly what is being discussed.
Also, there is discussion here about who Yeshua wasn’t, which I take it to mean that you are saying He isn’t a separate person equal with the Father? But exactly who, then, are you saying He is?
OK, I will try to provide this. But you could consult Millard Erickson or any of the standard theology texts.
Start HERE (http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity). Also note that the claim is that the Trinity is absolutely essential and the distinctive difference of Christianity.
In reading these posts and comments, I would like a clear definition of the Trinity doctrine that is being discussed. That sounds like “duh” but I have found that people have all sorts of definitions and assumptions of beliefs. For example, ask someone what “church” means and there are all sorts of beliefs: It’s Christians, it’s those who believe Jesus (or Yeshua) is the Savior (Messiah), it’s an assembly, it’s a building, it’s a certain form of “church” government….and sometimes the word is defined in different ways by the same person in the same sentence. People have different ideas about what something means. So please put the Trinity doctrine into a concise statement so I understand exactly what is being discussed.
Also, there is discussion here about who Yeshua wasn’t, which I take it to mean that you are saying He isn’t a separate person equal with the Father? But exactly who, then, are you saying He is?
I would suggest that most of our discussion and even Skip’s original analysis appears to be falling prey to the error he encouraged us to avoid. Could it be that we are reading our pre-understanding into the text? Twisting it to fit our Trinitarian or Non-Trinitarian perspective?
As suggested, why not take the statements at face value. In the passage Jesus is approached by a man who ran up to him, knelt down before Him and asked a question of Him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life.” Jesus replies with a multi-phase answer that included a question, an assertion, and an answer. The question, “why do you call me good?” The assertion, “no one is good but God.” The answer is a lesson on the law culminating with a call for the man to abandon all in his pursuit of eternal life (vs. 19-21).
At face value it would seem as though Jesus is asking the man a rhetorical question, “are you calling me God because there is no one good but God?” If Jesus would have stopped the conversation at this point or if His answer would have been a definitive “do not call me good, because there is no one good but God,” all of the excellent dialogue contained here would make sense.
But Jesus did not stop the conversation, and He did not make a declarative statement, implied or otherwise asserting that He is not God so do not call me good. In fact, Jesus goes to great lengths to provide an explanation to the man who asked him the question. Culminating His explanation to “how” he can “inherit eternal life” with vs. 21 where Jesus “looked at him, loved him, and said…” In other words, He notices the man in a manner that is consistent with His ministry as recorded throughout the text of the New Testament.
Could it be that Jesus was not attempting to prove the doctrine of the Trinity in this passage, but instead He was merely operating as the incarnate Christ and in so doing affording us with a glimpse of His Divinity?