The Trinity: Who decides?
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, Colossians 2:9 NASB
Deity – The text above is the New American Standard Bible. The ESV is similar. But the NLV translates this as “the fullness of God,” the NKJV translates it as “the fullness of the Godhead,” and the New Century Bible makes quite a few additions with “All of God lives fully in Christ (even when Christ was on earth).” The Greek word in question is theotetos, a word that occurs only in this verse. It is derived from theos, of course, but since it is not used in any other passage in the Bible, how are we to tell what Paul really meant by this term? Other derivatives from theos include theios, an adjective meaning “divine” that is attributed to priests, singers, rulers and prophets as well as to God, and theiotes, a word that is found only in Romans 1:20 and is applied to both God and royal majesty. So when translators decide that our word, theotes, means “Godhead” or “God” they are interpreting the word through a theological lens, not a strictly linguistic one. There is no etymological justification for translating this word as a noun about the Trinity. In fact, the only way we can even guess what Paul meant is to suggest a translation based on Paul’s use of other derivatives from the root theos, and those derivatives clearly show that “divine” is not exclusively a characteristic of God. Even capitalizing the word in translation (as the NASB does) is hardly justified without some theological bias.
When we examine a doctrine like the Trinity, a doctrine that has no explicit Scriptural support, we must be sure we are dealing with the original text, not a translation. Surely you can see why from just this example. By the way, when I say that the doctrine of the Trinity has no explicit Scriptural support, I do not mean that various verses and terms cannot be marshaled to infer support for the doctrine. I mean that there isn’t a single verse that says, “And God is three in one,” or something like that. There is no verse that uses the term “Trinity.” The doctrine is a conclusion made by men about problems presented by the implications of several different passages. It is not like the claim that God is love for which we have direct textual evidence. This means that if we are going to attempt to support a doctrine like the Trinity, we will have to show that the combined hints from the various verses demand the construction of the doctrine as the only logical explanation. If it is possible to read the same verses and come to a different logical and linguistically supported conclusion, then the doctrine must be considered hypothetical and conjecture, not verified and definite.
This does not mean that you cannot embrace it. Please, if the doctrine of the Trinity helps you draw closer to God, worship Him with greater passion and enjoy His presence, go ahead and believe it. You will be in good company. You will be able to say that you are truly “Christian” because you believe a doctrine that is “essential” to Christianity. But don’t claim that this is Scriptural. Just say that it is the way you choose to read the hints in the text. You can claim it as dogma if you wish, but remember that dogma is something believed without question or proof. Most importantly, if you wish to be called “Christian,” then recognize that you will have to embrace this theological theory as a necessary element of our faith. Just don’t claim that it is the only way to read the Word.
Who gets to decide what all of these “Trinitarian” verse really mean? Ultimately, you do. You must decide if you are comfortable with the doctrine. You must decide if it expresses your view of the biblical texts. But it will be a matter of choice, not proof. And if someone else decides that these verses do not support the hypothesis of the Trinitarian God, please don’t think badly of them. They have as much (or more) evidence than you do. The Trinity may be necessary to be a Christian but it certainly isn’t necessary to be a worshipper of YHVH or a follower of the Messiah.
Topical Index: Trinity, theotes, divinity, Colossians 2:9
And now a summary:
What does Skip believe? Everyone wants to know.
Skip believes that the so-called Trinitarian texts are ambiguous. Skip believes that the concept of the Trinity is derived from Hellenism and ideas found in Greek philosophy. Skip believes that no Jew in the first century, including those who wrote the New Testament, would have ever embraced a Trinitarian conclusion. But Skip believes that these authors (and Skip) think of the Messiah as “divine” within the semantic range of the word used in Scripture. Skip believes that Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah, that He is the Son of God and the Son of Man, that He is the chosen emissary of the Father, that He is the active agent and active agency of YHVH in creation, restoration and redemption. Skip knows that the dogma of the Trinity is an essential element of being a Christian and that those who desire to be called “Christian” will ipso facto be Trinitarians. And Skip finds that most of these people desire to worship the one true God and His Son, seek righteousness and wish to know the truth. Skip thinks of this entire effort as a journey which has not yet concluded. Skip thinks that what is most important is to know what the author meant when the text was written and that means there is a lot more work to do.
CORRECTION: Two days ago I posted a citation about the pointing of the Hebrew word for “lord.” I incorrectly attributed the citation to Roy Blizzard. It should have been Sir Anthony Buzzard from his book, The Doctrine of the Trinity, Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound, as cited by Patrick Navas. I have corrected the post but if you are saving these, please update for yourself.
Skip, that’s the Scripture that I have been waiting for you to get to and that’s a great explanation. Is there any way to take the Greek word “theos” back to an equivalent word in Hebrew? Actually that is a question I have had for a while. What is the best way to trace a New Testament back to the Hebrew equivalent in, for example, the LXX?
Also, that is great summary you gave. I think many of your readers will probably breathe a sigh of relief when they read it and agree with what you have written. I know I did. Thanks for all your efforts in digging into this doctrine and promoting great conversations.
Hi Mel,
the Greeh to Hebrew and Hebrew to Greek, Dictionary of Septuagint Words (Leblanc, Pierre) gives the following Hebrew words translated by “theos” in the Septuagint:
G2316 * θεός (theos)
theos H47 * אַבִּיר (‘abbîr) avir
theos H136 * אֲדֹנָי (‘ăḏōnāy) adonai
theos H410 * אֵל (‘ēl) el
theos H430 * אֱלֹהִים (‘ĕlōhîm) #elohim
theos H433 * אֱלֹהַּ אֱלוֹהַּ (‘ĕlōhah ‘ĕlôhah) eloah
theos H457 * אֱלִיל (‘ĕlîl) elil
theos H3068 * יְהֹוָה (yəhōwāh) yehovah
theos H5943 * עִלָּי (ʿillāy) illai
theos H6091 * עָצָב (ʿāṣāḇ) atsav
theos H6697 * צֻר צוּר (ṣur ṣûr) tsur
theos H6944 * קֹדֶשׁ (qōḏeš) qodesh
theos H7706 * שַׁדַּי (šadday) shaddai
Hope it helps. Blessed day.
And Jeff Benner narrows it down to:
Grk#:2316 / theh-os (noun): God Freq:&1343
Heb#:410 אל / el (noun): Mighty one—One who holds
authority over others, such as a judge, chief or god. In the
sense of being yoked to one another.
Heb#:430 אלוהים / e-lo-him (noun): Elohiym—A plural
word literally meaning “mighty ones,” but often used in a
singular sense to mean “the mighty one.”
…in his “New Testament Greek to Hebrew Dictionary”
Skip’s ‘confession’ did not quite clarify the Messiah’s beginning. If he was a created being, then something was created without his involvement. And so the text of John 1:3 “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made” remains unexplained. If, on the other hand, the Messiah is uncreated being, that puts him in good standing along with the Father as eternal and uncreated being.
And . . . of course . . . it leaves with the dangling solution to explain universals and particulars, the One/Many question that plagues non-theistic thought. For they cannot find an answer to the dilemma of knowledge and why universal categories are so important to identify particular things. Yet that is how YHVH created the universe. I wonder where He got the idea from?
Ian: In John 1 do you understand “The Word” to be exactly identical to Jesus? If so why did John not simply say “In the beginning was Jesus…all things were made by him etc? The reason I ask is that the Geneva Bible which was the Protestant standard I understand prior to the King James edition says “It” in place of him/he…all things were made by it (The Word). In my studies (not too deep) of use of Word in the Tanach I have found nothing that would suggest an independent person. Word is something that communicates a message typically. Why is it not possible that the expression/communication of God (ie His Word) became “enfleshed” in Jesus, a man, without that meaning that Jesus was actually pre-existent ot eternal, yet clearly the Word of God was spoken at creation, etc. I am trying to figure out what these concepts meant to first century Jews who were very familiar with Tanach. Note for example that Jesus is also called the “Light of the World”; yet that refers to the illumination that He provides, not that every reference in the Bible to light is about Him.
HSB: see also Rom. 1:20 “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
So the creation is also revelational of YHVH’s ‘eternal power and divine nature’. Since nature reveals a universals/particulars issue, the One/Many question, I find the Trinity an adequate explanation of what creation reveals. Unitarianism in any form fails to find any answer to the One and Many problem. By their fruits you can know them. Paul thinks YHVH’s revelation of himself in creation is so clear, that people are ‘without excuse’.
“when I say that the doctrine of the Trinity has no explicit Scriptural support, I do not mean that various verses and terms cannot be marshaled to infer support for the doctrine. I mean that there isn’t a single verse that says, “And God is three in one,” or something like that. There is no verse that uses the term “Trinity.” The doctrine is a conclusion made by men about problems presented by the implications of several different passages.”
Agreed.
I am not sure though whether a Yehovah’s Witness would agree with your assessment that the Trinity is essential to being defined as a Christian.
I didn’t say it was essential but almost all Christian theologians do, cf. Erickson. The point that I am making is that it is a “Christian” doctrine, not necessarily a biblical one.
Implicit does not make it unbiblical. For example:
In Mark 8:31 we find these words of Jesus/Yeshua: 31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
Where in the Tenach at an explicit/pashat level do we find that the Messiah will be killed and rise in three days.
This is an implicit Biblical statement yet extremely profound, wouldn’t you say?
Skip: In Acts 11:26 the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. That is still pretty early in the first century. Why can’t we reclaim the meaning of the word as it was understood by those folks before Nicea etc?
Please see my discussion of this verse. I don’t think you will want to be called by the same name since it is merely the designation of the leader of some group, i.e. Messiah (in Greek “Christos”) followers, as noted by Gentiles who had no idea what it was about. Paul uses another designation that seems to be quite familiar to the first century Jews.
“Who gets to decide what all of these “Trinitarian” verse really mean? Ultimately, you do. You must decide if you are comfortable with the doctrine. You must decide if it expresses your view of the biblical texts. But it will be a matter of choice, not proof. And if someone else decides that these verses do not support the hypothesis of the Trinitarian God, please don’t think badly of them. They have as much (or more) evidence than you do. The Trinity may be necessary to be a Christian but it certainly isn’t necessary to be a worshipper of YHVH or a follower of the Messiah.”
Thanks Skip. This holds true I believe for many doctrinal beliefs and I thank you for putting it into clear and loving words.
I can’t help but think that if we are to have difficulty with where the councils of @400 AD ended up, we, in fairness, might ought to consider looking at what the church fathers could have been faced with to urge them onto such a definitive conclusion: and if those issues are still extant: and if they are, might there be a better way to answer those problems; if, in fact, they are really problems?
Interestingly, the ante-Nicene fathers did NOT come up with a doctrine of the Trinity. It did not arise until after Constantine.
When Christ was born, (way back when..)- there sure was a lot of “hoopla” (not in the text) surrounding the birth of a baby, born somewhere in a barn in Bethlehem. Why the guiding star? Why the announcement to the shepherds? Why not announce this news to the “worthies” of the day, the kings, the queens- the “learned men?” Why was the King of all kings and the LORD of all lords born in a barn?- And the answer is?.. He humbled Himself..
Did He ever..- but wait, – there’s more..- so. much. more.
Is this the Chosen One? If He is? NO. Not at all. “Since” He is.. (much more gooder).
I (Carl) am of the school (the tribe?) that believes God is fully capable of communicating Himself and His words (His message) to us- clearly. That is (of course) unless we struggle with what “is” is! (Oy!)
Has God the Father been revealed? And the scriptures say what? ~ And when you pray, say (what?)- say “Father..” Is this, or is it not an entirely “New Covenant” concept? What O.T. Jew would ever approach YHWH in these “familiar” (family) terms? God the Creator (maybe), but God the Father? No, not at all! And..?
Before Christ (B.C.- on the human time line) the veil of the temple was fully intact! Bulls, cows, birds, and goats and lambs- beware! Your blood was still needed for “atonement”. First the tabernacle (o how temporary), then the temple- (now here’s a structure that will stand forever!) – No. not at all.
But then Christ makes the (audacious) statement- “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again..” I’ll take “things that cause me to say “huh?” for $200, Alex.”
Was Christ divine? No. That is not (at all) the correct question! The question, dear ones, is this: IS Christ divine? For you see, (comprende?) Christ is (now) alive. Alive and well and seated upon the throne- EVER LIVING to make intercession for us! – Oh?
SomeOne- somewhere- is praying for you! Blessed Redeemer? Who does that refer to? Anyone we know? A very present Help in time of need? Who would that be? Savior of the nations? – all nations? All men everywhere?
Gentiles too?
Listen to this noise.. ~ He came unto His own and His own received Him not, – BUT (I love Bible buts!) as many as received Him – to them gave He the authority – the power- the ability- to become the sons of God! – even to them who believe on His Name! And? – Who was it who said this? ~ If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you ~
Say, – whose Book is this anyway? – and the word of (who?)- and the word of the LORD came unto (who?)- and again to (who?) and again to (who?)- to all who believe! Uhh.. who (exactly) does “whosoever will” include?
Praise God!- for when our LORD said “whosoever,” He included me!! (and you, and you- and you!)
Fatherhood of God
Throughout the Bible we find God portrayed as a Father. This portrayal, however, is surprisingly rare in the Old Testament. There God is specifically called the Father of the nation of Israel ( Deut 32:6 ; Isa 63:16 ; [twice] 64:8 ; Jeremiah 3:4 Jeremiah 3:19 ; 31:9 ; Mal 1:6 ; 2:10 ) or the Father of certain individuals ( 2 Sam 7:14 ; 1 Chron 17:13 ; 22:10 ; 28:6 ; Psalm 68:5 ; 89:26 ) only fifteen times. (At times the father imagery is present although the term “Father” is not used [ Exod 4:22-23 ; Deut 1:31 ; 8:5 ; 14:1 ; Psalm 103:13 ; Jer 3:22 ; 31:20 ; Hosea 11:1-4 ; Mal 3:17 ]). This metaphor for God may have been avoided in the Old Testament due to its frequent use in the ancient Near East where it was used in various fertility religions and carried heavy sexual overtones. ( http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/fatherhood-of-god.html )
There is no doubt that the greatest errors always will be found to lie the closest to the greatest truths. In such surely must lie the power of error. This, to me, is why, if somebody is going to open any can of worms, all sides must be dealt with, if it is worthy of being done at all.
Thank you, Skip, for deciding to open this one.
Please, Skip, take as long a break as you want to, but please also remember that I, at least, am going to continue to feel like a wet hen until you can get around to the rest of the sides.
The spirit of error is still breathing down the back of my neck.
I want to make sure to get all the facets correct, or at least addressed.
I like to listen with the luxury of the assurance of my faith, which is just fine, thank you, as it is equally clear to me that most everybody else’s faith is also fine.
But, on this one, I feel like I must speak for the other ears I am listening with, and those are the ears of the lost- or at least the not-found-yet- of the precious people I find all around me. The implications of this subject happen to be HUGE to the people who are outside the assurance of the Word. If I am being troublesome, I am sorry, but I am always looking for ways out of the pit to offer others, which is quite a bit different than just peering over into it for my own reasons. And I am finding that the subject of the divinity and authority of Yeshua looms LARGE in the mindsets of those who are still drifting outside the salvation that is to be found only at Calvary.
I am asking for them.
Thank all of you so much.
You know Laurita, almost a decade ago I had this conversation with my cousin-in-law who is Jewish. She was interested in a Messianic perspective but she couldn’t get past the Trinity and I didn’t know how to answer her. I think the Trinity doctrine is a barricade to as many people as you seem to think it might be a door for others. Consider the possibility that examining the source of our beliefs just makes our message clearer.
Thank you Suzanne, and yes, I am getting this from others from all angles, too. The winds of doctrine they are a’blowing, that’s for sure!
Skip,
I do appreciate your heart and scholarship. Your insights
about many things have helped my insights. For that I am
grateful. Your thoughts today clear the air, at least for me.
My curiosity is about your continuing quest for more work
to be done. On the pure human nature level, I understand it.
If the mountain’s there, we want to conquer it. If the disease
still persists, we want to find the cure. If there’s something we
don’t understand, we seek to understand it.
Human nature has a drive to know more.
On the spirit level, however, are we not to be at rest and
in peace? Do we not clearly see that this world and His Kingdom
are two different realms operating on vastly divergent principles?
The Word tells us, “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must
worship in spirit and truth.”
If we are His disciples (and I believe we are), Jesus tells us we are
not of the world just as he is not of the world. His prayer to the Father
states: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.” JN 17:17
If we receive that by faith, should not our heart, mind and spirit
be satisfied?
. . . and completely at rest?
Then, life begins. As His life intervenes.
And the journey gets up to full speed as we get to
see Him at work through our believing and available lives!!!
I don’t mean to imply that living the new life He has given us
means stopping our pursuit of knowing, but that we’ve taken on
His yoke and, as He says, we’re now learning from Him.
This is an amazing series of writings and dialog that follows each! It is cause to think and study into why you believe what you believe.
History also adds much flesh to this discussion. This issue has been a major contention between Christians and Jews for a long time. Many have been slaughtered because of it. If one does not know history, one is doomed to repeat it. This is something I keep in mind as I read things here.
I agree with Skip’s summation here. You must choose what you believe and you really should understand why you have made that choice. The really neat thing is that choices can change. They grow and evolve as we understand more if we continue seeking after Y-H and His things.
The link to the Doctrine of the Trinity was simply a blessing to me to illuminate the mental contortions one must go thru to follow this out. Unreal to me and very confusing. Bottom line for me is that Y-H never claims to be three but always One. Why on earth cannot He be taken at His word? Why is it so hard to understand that most all of the translations have altered the original word given in Hebrew? Some have been altered on purpose to wipe out anything remotely Jewish! This is recorded in history even. The Jews have always been hated to the n’th degree. Stands to reason that every attempt has and most likely will be made to erase their existence.
This filters down into things like the Trinity Doctrine and the radical division we tend to see over it.
I guess if the Trinity Doctrine is part of what defines being a Christian then I am no Christian. I guess when the end times come and the persecution is great, I will be killed by someone thinking that they do it for God. I am not a Jew but can’t identify with Christian anymore either.
Skip helps us come to this conclusion: “The Trinity may be necessary to be a Christian but it certainly isn’t necessary to be a worshipper of YHVH or a follower of the Messiah.”
Wow. I’m very interested in Skip teaching how Constantine got his dirty fingers into the mix and out came the trinity! I have so much repenting to do. How do I take back so MANY words I’ve spewed out to children and adults in teaching “Jesus” and “the trinity” over the years? Oh God, help me! Please please have let those words fall on deaf ears!
Dawn wrote: “I am not a Jew but can’t identify with Christian anymore either.” I am in Dawn’s camp. The more I learn (in prayer and study under some pretty amazing people with Hebrew and Greek text in hand) the more I realize that I’ve been duped with this title, “Christian.” Recently, I was reading a book about how to minister to a certain group of people with “different” needs and I crashed into the statement that, “Paul, a Christian…. bla bla bla.” I set the book down… and really had to THINK. How many Christians believe that Paul was a “christian?” My heart sunk.
I’ll try to glean the good parts of that book until I can’t stomach the bad stuff any longer.
I stand, loving and learning to serve YHVH and Yeshua HaMashiach and God’s Holy Spirit (and any OTHER manifestation YHVH chooses to come to me/us through because it is HIM.) I’m guessing that the wanderers in the wilderness were pretty fond of “the cloud.” Without it, they perish.
What’s that saying? “Anything else is just rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.”
I want YHVH, His ways, His Way, and His plan for me… and nothing more. Anything else is just rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.
I also like a saying from Tolkien and the Hobbit–“Not all who wander are lost.”
Jaco, thanks for all your help. That gives me some idea of how to do it in the future. Blessings to you too.
Just a note to Mark Randall. I tried to put my comment to Jaco under his comments but it didn’t seem to work. I ended up at the bottom. Just so you know.
I don’t believe that Messiah would have ever embraced a trinitarian concept. In my quest to follow him, neither do i. it is really that simple.
For me any way.
HSB: How does an “It” become flesh, or become human? (John 1:14).
Also, another untouched aspect to this discussion is Paul’s comment Rom 1:20 “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
Ian: I am simply reporting that the Geneva Bible of 1599 has the following for the first few verses of John 1:
“1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God.
2 This same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.
4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 And that light shineth in the darkness,
and the darkness comprehended it not.”
Sounds strange to our ears because most modern translations use “He/Him” for verse 3 and 4. Yet these same modern translations continue with the “it” in verse 5. concerning the “light”. I believe that Jesus/Yeshua communicates/speaks perfectly and completely the message of God our Father. He also illuminates what would otherwise remain in darkness.
Regarding Romans 1:20 I agree completely with Paul’s comments as written.
It is interesting that in the Peshitta Aramaic New Testament verse 1 of John 1 concludes by saying “God was the word”. I am not a Greek linguist so I am uncertain of the subtle differences between that and “The Word was God” in the Greek. Some might not think it matters what the order is. I would mention that John also says in 1 John 1:5 “God is light”. We would all agree that this is quite different from “Light is God”. Maybe Skip could shed some light on this.
In my question to you yesterday I asked “In John 1 do you understand “The Word” to be exactly identical to Jesus? If so why did John not simply say “In the beginning was Jesus…all things were made by him etc?” I am interested to know if you believe Jesus and The Word are identical.
HSB: I have no ability to second-guess John. He wrote what he wrote. Could he have written it a different way? Maybe. But he didn’t. And yes, I believe the context of John 1 indicates Yeshua is the Word. See again my reference to John 1:14.
But the issue does not end there. The most well-known verse in the Bible: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son . . .” the Son, begotten. Does that mean, with the JWs, the Son had a beginning, or does it mean, with the Trinitarians, that he is eternally begotten? The answer depends on your doctrine of God and how his attributes are ultimately defined.
HSB: I am not a Greek scholar, but checking on the Greek, I see the Geneva Bible’s “it” (e.g. in v. 3) is a masculine pronoun. So “he” is a more accurate rendition of the Greek autou. You can see this yourself here. English-Greek Interlinear, John 1. This gives you the part of speech for each word so is quite helpful.
Ian: Is the gender not determined by the gender of “word” in the Greek? In this case male. We could use Skip’s help here. If he decides to comment perhaps he could shed light on “The Word was God” versus the Peshitta “God was the Word”. I notice in the Greek interlinear the same order “God was the Word”…why is it changed in our English Bibles?
Ian: I think John 1:14 is describing a process by which the God’s plan (Word) became accomplished. I understand the Orthodox Jews believe there were seven things that preceded creation. One of these is Messiah and another is Israel. Now clearly all Jews were not pre-existent, but the idea/plan/intention of God was to bring Israel into existence. I believe something similar for Yeshua, born in the fullness of time…the plan goes into effect. “We were also chosen (see Eph 1:11) having been predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will. There it is again… The plan getting worked out
God was the Word follows the word order of the Greek original. The Word was God is better English style so the translators have taken a liberty with the word order. But does that change the meaning? Don’t think so.
We need Skip’s help here. I think word order is important! “God is Light” is different from “Light is God”. “God was the Word” is different from “the Word was God”. Likewise when I do a word search for “God the Father” there are 18 times this occurs in the New Testament (NIV). Yet the expression “God the Son” never occurs. Why is that? What does occur many times (40 in NIV) is “Son of God”. These are not the same meaning. Even Adam is called “son of God” in Luke 3:38 and we know he was not God the son.
Ian I appreciate your comments and insights.
Skip, thanks for your clarification. I agree with you. Intellectually, I can’t comprehend who or what exactly These Creator divine beings are and how they all fit together. But, I have a wordless knowing in my heart what YHVH, Yeshua and Ruach ha Kodesh are to me. I whole heartedly agree with your message!
HSB: I am not a Greek scholar, but checking on the Greek, I see the Geneva Bible’s “it” (e.g. in v. 3) is a masculine pronoun. So “he” is a more accurate rendition of the Greek autou. You can see this yourself here. English-Greek Interlinear, John 1. This gives you the part of speech for each word so is quite helpful.
Hi Skip,
I am a day late in my comments but it is in my heart to leave a comment as I am sure that there are some late readers or some newbies who may be looking for answers on this Trinity boondoggle!
Your closing blog today was excellent – gracious and considerate, yet letting those who are on the weak side of this argument that they have no silver bullet Scriptures upon which to make their case and warning them: “don’t claim that this is Scriptural”. I am delighted with the large response you generated on this topic over the last several days.
For a point of theology that so many in Christendom hold dear and are adamant about, this lack of concrete evidence in Scripture is very telling to say the least. If God is three distinct persons in ONE, it seems likely to me that the Father and indeed Yashua while He walked the earth as the ‘son of man” would surely have revealed more to us. But instead, we find the pages of Scripture screaming at the reader about humans becoming full spiritual “sons of God” existing in a wondrous glorious state in following the pattern of Yahshua. Preachers are out there preaching passionately about a nebulous triune godhead, when they should be teaching about what the Father is really doing which is “bring many sons and daughters to glory”. For the most part, they are completely missing the real story of what the Father is doing, and that is creating a family of spirit composed sons and daughters. Trinity is totally incompatible with such a concept.
God is NOT a trinity, never was and never will be. What the Scriptures reveal very clearly is that He is a Father and He has a Son whom He sent to earth to make right the error made by Adam, destroy the “sting of death” and bring eternal life to everyone. I hardly need say that the Father is most “pleased” with the performance of His beloved Son!
Here are some of my favorite Scriptures that support this notion of an expanding God family.
In Luke chapter 20 we find Yahshua teaching on the resurrection:
“And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage; 35 but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, 36 for they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.” (Luke 20:34-36)RSV
Paul spent a lot of time teaching about this mind boggling concept of humans becoming true spirit body “sons of God”. This is exciting stuff – very relevant to every “first fruit” at this time! Let’s look at Paul writing to the Galatians:
“But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” (Gal.3:25-29)RSV
Paul understood the theme of Biblical bond slavery very well and used it to teach about how the Father is calling us out of this slavery to sin to being a bond slave of Messiah and later raising us up to be His Sons with all the inheritance rights of a son. In our case, our initial inheritance is rulership under King Yahshua as priest / kings during His 1000 reign with even more exciting stuff to follow after the Millennium. Again, here is Paul teaching the Galatians on this amazing future for all of humanity:
” I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave, though he is the owner of all the estate; 2 but he is under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. 3 So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe. 4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir. (Gal. 4:1-7)
Now, all of God’s Creation is eagerly awaiting the revealing of God’s royal family! That’s what Paul told the believers at Rome:
Future Glory
” I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; 20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience”. (Rom.8:18-25)
I do not want this to be too long as I am told many of us resist reading long articles! But if it is of interest to anyone, you can do a simple computer word search on “son” son of God”, “glory” etc and you will get the big picture of what God is really doing with his creation.
I will end with a quote from Hebrews. This is a home run:
Exaltation through Abasement
” For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. 6 It has been testified somewhere,
What is man that thou art mindful of him,
or the son of man, that thou carest for him?
7 Thou didst make him for a little while lower than the angels,
thou hast crowned him with glory and honor,[a]
8 putting everything in subjection under his feet.”
Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. 9 But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.
10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 saying,
“I will proclaim thy name to my brethren,
in the midst of the congregation I will praise thee.”
13 And again,“I will put my trust in him.”
And again,
“Here am I, and the children God has given me.”
14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage. 16 For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.”
(Heb 2:5-18)
I confess that when I started to understand what the Father is going to do with His “sons and daughters” in the flesh, I began to see that the doctrine of the Trinity is really a doctrine of demons. It is a myth, a lie created to distract from what the Father of all is truly doing and that is “bring many sons and daughters to glory. HE is gong to share His Glory with His children in a beautiful relationship as he did with Yahshua – the pioneer of our salvation. Putting our God into a three “person” Godhead box does not fit the pattern and plan revealed in the Scriptures at all. I think that God is most appropriately described as a FATHER with a Son and a future expanded FAMILY of sons and daughters. His “create a family” Plan started with Adam in Eden and it still is on track to be accomplished as HE had planned from “before the foundation of the world” because HE is sovereign over His Creation.
Shalom
“But it will be a matter of choice, not proof” … of Trinity. Very thankful we are not created as robots, but given the free will to choose/decide, to exercise our discernment and wisdom as a proof of our growth in understanding and maturity, though some may choose to come under suppression by man-made doctrines and authority when they are not seeking truth for themselves,
The broad way of the majority is easier to follow, through ignorance and lack of relationship with YHWH, rather than seeking the approval of YHWH.
“Skip thinks of this entire effort as a journey which has not yet concluded. Skip thinks that what is most important is to know what the author meant when the text was written and that means there is a lot more work to do.”
Skip has been challenging us to seek from the original texts in context for ourselves, and not from translations. It is an exciting journey, with so much to unlearn/learn from Skip and Rabbi Bob.
I just love Skip’s ‘conclusion of this matter’. 🙂
Skip I’m very glad and a bit relieved to see that you are in a similar place as myself concerning what you believe. However I am still left with the record of the virgin birth to figure out. It seems impossible that this could be an addition to the text since it is found even in the Hebrew Mathew transcripts.
I was visiting the Logos web site, and they have an ad for their Mobile Education program. I was perusing the list of courses offered and found the following course: Logos Mobile Education: OT291 The Jewish Trinity: How the Old Testament Reveals the Christian Godhead. Here is the link to the page: http://tinyurl.com/ne6kb9v
There is an intro video (2.5 min). If you’re interested.
The power of the paradigm
Rein de Wit has provided a pdf on an article written by Dr. Heiser on a couple of occasions. Here is the link once again: http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DivineCouncilLBD.pdf. This is the same scholar Rick Blankenship is sharing with us in the link and intro video.
Here are the credentials of Dr. Heiser:
“Dr. Heiser earned his PhD in Hebrew Bible and Semitic languages and holds and MA in ancient history and Hebrew studies. He is the coeditor of Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha with Morphology and Semitic Inscriptions: Analyzed Texts and English Translations, and can do translation work in roughly a dozen ancient languages, including Biblical Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and Ugaritic cuneiform. He also specializes in Israelite religion (especially Israel’s divine council), contextualizing biblical theology with Israelite and ancient Near Eastern religion, Jewish binitarianism, biblical languages, ancient Semitic languages, textual criticism, comparative philology, and Second Temple period Jewish literature. In addition, he was named the 2007 Pacific Northwest Regional Scholar by the Society of Biblical Literature.”
These credentials can also be found further down on the link shared by Rick Blankenship.
Skip, are you aware of evidence that it was a female satanist who first posited the trinity theory at the turn of the century past… over 100 years ago? Supposedly she was channeling spirits and that concept came through her pen. I have seen writings giving that evidence against the trinity, but don’t have the documents in my personal library. I can’t remember her name. Can you?
–Melissa Rawlins
I know nothing of this, but I can assure you that the doctrine was first developed in Church councils in the 5th Century, not 100 years ago.
Ian,
I can tell you that the Geneva bible is completely Catholic, it reads in some of the foot notes that: “The Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church, given to them by Christ Himself”…
I like that bible and use it as a cross reference but I also use the KJV and the Jewish Orthodox bible, as well as the NKJ sometimes when comparing.
I had trouble with Skips first part but by the end I was in agreement with with him as far as accepting the “trinity”.
Some Jewish people believe that YHVH is also created, there are Jewish texts that “say”/”claim” that the correct Genesis verses read “IT” was created.
One must be very careful and know what they are reading, who wrote it and why, IE what is/was their agenda for the translation. (IMHO)
I by no means have Who God is figured out, but I can’t help but ponder some things that I haven’t seen mentioned. (I haven’t read every comment, though, of every article. I may not have read every article yet either)
Being one is often emphasized in the Bible — John 17 (Father and Son, and followers, Father, Son), Genesis 2 (man and woman), Ephesians (one church/bride), Philippians (same mind, etc.), Israel (one people, one nation), 1 Corinthians 12 (one body, many parts)
Another pondering . . .Hebrews 9 talks about the covenant being in effect when the one who made it dies. Haven’t researched deeply this passage but on reading it seems that a will does not get executed until the person who made the will dies. If God made the will/covenant, then wouldn’t it have to be God Who dies for it to be executed?
People were created in the image and likeness of God. Does this offer us some insight then into Who God is? Woman was fashioned from man. Children come from the man and woman–a child is one being that comes from two–their make-up comes from the parents so they obviously only have what the parents have given them. Children have DNA of parents but it is expressed uniquely. One family, many members, all human.
Yeshua is the only begotten of the Father. The Bible doesn’t say Yeshua was created out of some substance such as dirt like the man. Wouldn’t His make-up be that of the Father’s then? Woman came from man by the hand of God. She may be different but still possesses same essence as man, just arranged and expressed differently.
What is absolutely incredible is that the Almighty God, Creator of the Universe, wants us to know Him as well as for us to be known by Him and desires to fill with His life so that we can fill the earth with His glory, together being His image and likeness, His standard bearer as one in Christ. Yeshua came to earth and showed us how that can be done. How it all works may be a mystery, but the fact cannot be denied that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit work as one.
Jut a few notes on your note. First, DNA is not a really good analogy with the divine being since it doesn’t appear that there is any correlation between physical DNA and the essence of a spiritual being (God is spirit). Secondly, the passage you cite in Hebrew 9 requires a GREAL DEAL of study, especially since your reference to the KJV version of “testament” and “death of the testator” isn’t at all what the Greek says. That idea comes from a mistranslation of the Latin. In a covenant, NO ONE DIES. If they did, the covenant would not be valid. What dies is the symbolic sacrifice that guarantees the covenant, not the covenant-maker. Lots more to be said about this. Thirdly, you’re absolutely right that He wants us to know Him, but He communicated in an ancient language and it is incumbent upon us to know what it says in that language if we are to understand what He said.
I’m not saying that God has DNA like we do, but the Bible also tells us that we can know things about Him from His creation. My point was that like a child has been conceived from a contribution of the parents’ very being/make-up, why would God’s Son not also be of His Being? Secondly, my understanding is that the bride price of the covenant that Yeshua gave was His very life given in death, but He rose which makes all the difference. The symbolic sacrifices did not come back to life. So the covenant which Yeshua participates in was not exactly the same as those with symbolic sacrifices. Thirdly, I think that in order to truly know God and understand Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we really need to know what the scriptures mean about being one. You did not really address the significance of the emphasis on oneness with knowing Who God is.
I have to say that these discussions can seem more Greek than Hebrew to me, in the sense that they seem to focus on gaining knowledge and not really on relationship and wholeness with God and each other. I believe that you have also said that the Hebrew people understood that they may not fully know. I have a peace about not really knowing because my relationship with God is very personal, deep, and intimate. He speaks to me and shows me great and wonderful things many times daily both in scripture and in my life. He gives me wisdom and guides me with love and great detail. He gives me the power to act upon what He reveals. My love for Him is being perfected as He leads me in loving others. I love God with trust, surrender, and passion because He is true to what is recorded in His Word and He is my all in all. How the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be seen or explained does not change the marvel, mystery, and privilege of being able to walk with Him in oneness.
I think the most important thing about your articles for me is that they draw me into more conversation with God, asking Him to reveal more of His Heart and trying to put into practice what He reveals. I also have delighted in them when they have shown another amazing detail about God that makes my heart swell with His goodness, His love, and His persistence in calling me into being as He is–into His restoration of His design from the beginning.
I view Jesus as God jr.
Do you think this is ok?
JT
Hello again Skip, do you believe that one plus one equals three? Do you know that Gods written word is alive? It’s as much God as God is God. As Jesus told Paul why? Why fight Gods will? Be on Gods side instead of promoting dogma? Did Jesus promote dogma or stand agonist it? Don’t be on the wrong side of history. Your a wonderful teacher of a Gods word. Also be a doer of a Gods word and stop limiting yourself. Did you ever pray to God about the trinity? Surely the answer is no. Because I got no inspiration to assist you stand against dogma. God bless you and know that the bible is not book like was and peace. It’s alive.
Feel free to contact me if you want a more then abundant life. As a posed to a life full of dogma. I can introduce you to the man that can provide it to you.
With this blog post I have a better understanding of where you are coming from. I definitely agree that some translations of this verse impose a Trinitarian theological bias. “Godhead” is just wrong-headed! However, having said that, the NASB rendition is about as “literal” as one can get. I’d render it For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Deity bodily, which amounts to almost the same, as I definitely think “the” should precede the English translation of “Deity”, not just because of the presence of the Greek article (tēs), but because that noun is singular, not plural. It could even be rendered – without linguistic gymnastics – dwells all the Deity’s fullness bodily.
The real question to answer here pertains to Christ’s Deity – Deity on par with the Father – as this text says nothing about the Holy Spirit. In other words, for the Trinitarian doctrine to be true, one must establish the Deity of Christ (then the Holy Spirit’s), for the Deity of God [the Father] is explicit throughout Scripture. So, the $64,000 question is this: Does this verse establish the Deity of Christ on par with YHVH? In exegeting this verse, I’d say yes – even, if not especially, taking into account the cognates of the word in question.
First, yes it’s true that theotētos is found only here in Scripture. However, the term is found in contemporaneous literature, as evidenced by the entry in BDAG (https://www.amazon.com/Greek-English-Lexicon-Testament-Christian-Literature/dp/0226039331/); and, the definition is the same as the NASB rendering “Deity”. Among other works, this Greek term is found in the Jewish apocalyptic text Apocalypse of Sedrach (2:4) – I have this work, so I can verify its usage. In addition, BDAG notes it was used by Lucian of Samasota (2nd century), a Christian satirist, though I have no text to verify his usage. Admittedly, that’s not a lot of evidence; however, the presence and usage of it in Apoc Sed seems pretty significant, does it not?
Yet, as I noted on another thread this verse, just in its immediate context, is very strong evidence for the unqualified, undiminished Deity of Christ on par with YHVH. The words translated “all” and “fullness” (full, complete) are not in any way ambiguous; and these words function to qualify theotētos. If we were to assume that theotētos means “deity” in some diminished sense, then wouldn’t it be oxymoron-ish for Paul to claim that Jesus had this in all the fullness? This would be akin to describing Christ as possessing ‘all the fullness of almost-deity’.
As for theiotes, “Divinity” or “divine nature” seems the best way to translate it. That is, it’s a quality or characteristic of Deity, and in this context in Romans 1:20, clearly God the Father is the referent. The term is also found in the LXX (Greek translation of the OT ca. 2nd century BC), specifically in Wisdom of Solomon 18:9, and in this context it means the same thing (“the divine law” or “the law of the Divine”), as a reference to the Almighty.
Regarding theios, in the NT it is found only in Acts 17:29 and 2 Pet 1:3, 1:4. In all three verses the referent is clearly God the Father. Much more interesting is its occurrence in the LXX – eye-opening for me. Of the 33 occurrences only 6 are found in what Protestants or Torah observers would view as the OT. The remainder are in: 3 Maccabees (ca. 217BC – 70AD – one time), 4 Maccabees (ca. 63BC – 70AD – a whopping 25 times!), and Sirach, aka Book of Ecclesiasticus, aka Ben Sira (ca. 2nd century BC – once). Every single time the reference is YHVH, though one may quibble over 4 Mac 17:11, which refers to martyrdom for the sake of YHVH: “Truly divine was the contest in which they were engaged.” In addition, theios is found in Apoc Sed (14:6), Sibylline Oracles (5, 249), Testament of Solomon, Josephus’ Antiquities (bk. 1, 185; bk. 2, 275; bk. 6, 222; bk. 8, 107, 408, etc.), 1 Clement 40:1 – all in reference to YHVH. These were listed under BDAG’s 1st definition: pert[aining] to that which belongs to the nature or status of deity, divine.
However, there’s a 2nd definition in BDAG: of persons who stand in close relation to, or reflect characteristics of, a deity, including esp[ecially] helpfulness to one’s constituencies, divine. This one includes a much smaller list: Test of Sol (ref. to Solomon), Josephus (two ref. to Moses; one to Isaiah), and Philo (ref.to Moses). On these, the contexts make it clear who the referent is. Yet, note that all these individuals were not just closely involved with a (lower case “d”) “divine” entity, but The Divine.
But, we must come full circle and note that theios was never used in the NT to reference anyone other than God the Father. Yes, in non-Biblical literature this term and its cognates were sometimes used of humans. However, the key is the usage in the NT, and subordinate to that is the use in the LXX and Jewish literature of the time. Bottom line: In view of the evidence as laid out here, the way I see it, if there’s any ambiguity at all, it’s mighty slim. And this is just one NT text claimed to indicate the Deity of Christ/Messiah by monotheistic Trinitarians.
Craig: re your post about “Godhead” Sept 18, 2016 at 3:28pm…
Is your understanding that the fullness of God (Strong 2320) used in Colossians 2:9 any different from the fullness of God (Strong 2316) used in Ephesians 3:19? The reason I ask is because Paul in Ephesians 3:19 is speaking about believers. I think it is the same “fullness” in both cases…namely the empowerment of the Spirit of God in us to follow Him obediently, as Messiah did (completely). I noticed that Thayer comments on Ephesians 3:17 “dwell in your hearts” that this is metaphorical AND he says the same thing about “dwell” in regards to Messiah in Colossians 2:9, again that this is metaphorical in nature. I conclude that we are to follow the lead of Messiah who experienced the “fullness of God” but not actually BE God in the process. Also, in your comments about Colossians 2:9 I don’t think you made any reference to “bodily”. Perhaps that is the difference you see between believers and Messiah. Yet God is said to have “dwelt” in the Tabernacle as well as in the “people of Israel”. I appreciated your inclusion of the second definition in BDAG “of persons who stand in close relation to, or reflect characteristics of, a deity, including helpfulness to one’s constituencies” (e.g. Moses, Isaiah) Why could Messiah not be included at the top of that list as THE ultimate prophet and agent of Deity?
HSB,
To directly answer your first question: Yes. But, your following thoughts do not really follow. Let me explain.
I have two different “Study Bibles”, and each one lists Colossians 2:10—not 2:9—as a cross-reference to Ephesians 3:19. This is because both refer expressly to believers, i.e., they are analogous in that regard. Comparatively, Col 2:9 precedes 2:10, with the latter contrasting the former, not providing an analogy. Paul (or his amanuensis) makes a masterful word-play here. In 2:9 “in Him [Christ]” is locative; that is, the fullness dwells (metaphorically) in the Person of Christ. In 2:10 “in Him [Christ]” refers to believers in Him [Christ], who are, as a consequence of their belief, indwelt (metaphorically) with the Spirit, a phenomenon which only became possible as a consequence of Christ’s suffering and subsequent exaltation/glorification (see Upper Room discourse: John 14-16).
Further, Col 2:9 is a restatement of Col 1:19 and must be understood in that vein. Col 1:19 flows from 1:15 (and earlier). That, of course, necessitates that we seek to ascertain the overall meaning in this first chapter in Colossians, which, subsequently, leads us to the parallel in John 1. Having begun a series in John (languishing unfinished, but complete from 1:1 to 1:5), I’m convinced that alternate understandings as proffered on this site—to include comments—are not tenable. In short, “the Word”, the agent of creation in John 1, is the pre-incarnate Jesus, and this is the underlying theology in both Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 (cf. Heb 1:1-3).
I don’t disagree with you—if I fully understand you—that Christ/Messiah signified the new Tabernacle (John 1:14), and that believers are an extension of this new Tabernacle. But, there are differences between believers and the Messiah, the latter being called Emmanuel, meaning “God with us”, among other things.
Skip, isn’t this what the Unitarians and Jehovah witnesses believe?
Unitarians maybe, but I am not sure about JW. They have some added features not found in the biblical texts. The Unitarian idea has been around a lot longer than the theological name. After all, orthodox Jews are “unitarian”