The Trinity: Who Knows?
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” Matthew 24:36 NASB
Nor the Son – This verse has always been problematic. How can Yeshua be God and not know? And if, as He says, He actually doesn’t know, then how can we continue to claim that He is God. God knows. According to Yeshua, no one else does. Including him.
The usual theological answer to this apparently intractable dilemma is as follows:
“ . . .what He predicates of Himself, namely ignorance as to the day and hour of His return in heavenly splendor, is true of Him as human, though it is not true of Him as divine. As the God-Man, He is simultaneously omniscient as God (in company with the other persons of the Godhead) and ignorant of some things as a man (in company with other persons of the human race).”[1]
Ah, I get it. Yeshua is simultaneously aware and ignorant of this fact. Do you suppose that means he knows the truth (since according to the Trinitarian doctrine he is omniscient) but then informs himself that he does not know this fact because he is simultaneously human? So he knows that he doesn’t know what he knows, right?
Does this strike you as complete nonsense? What if we just took the verse at its face value? What if Yeshua actually meant that he doesn’t know? Why is that so difficult to accept? Do you suppose any of the disciples who heard him say this thought, “Oh, that means he doesn’t know as a human, but of course he knows as God”? No wonder it took the Church three hundred years to come up with this answer.
It seems to me the problem is not what the text says. The problem is reading the text according to the paradigm of the Trinity. The text doesn’t present any difficulties at all. There are lots of things human beings don’t know. There are lots of things chosen messengers of YHWH don’t know. There are even some things that the Messiah doesn’t know. In fact, he tells us at least one of these things. The text is clear. What causes all the confusion is not the text. It is the subsequent ancillary textually-unsupported idea that Yeshua is also, at the same time, God. As Patrick Navas astutely points out, “In other words, somehow Jesus knows all things and does not know all things simultaneously!?”[2]
So how would you like your theology cooked? Plain, according to what the text says, or with plenty of added spices, according to what the Church decided the text must say in order to fit its dogma? And what really happens if Yeshua is the Messiah, God’s appointed messenger/Son, tasked with bringing about the Kingdom and defeating the last enemy? Will your belief system collapse if somehow that doesn’t mean he is YHWH, the one true God? Have you been so indoctrinated by Christian dogma that you simply can’t read this text for what it says? Was Yeshua simply deluded or trying to fool us? Did he lie to us when he said he didn’t know? Or are we putting words in his mouth when we try to make his denial into an affirmation of his “omniscience”?
I warned you about the pain, didn’t I?
Topical Index: Trinity, knows, Matthew 24:36
[1]Robert Reymond, Jesus Divine Messiah, p. 79.
[2]Patrick Navas, Divine Truth or Human Tradition, p. 131.
“The term Trinity Does not occur in the Scriptures, and it is often objected to on that ground. But though the term is not Scriptural the Scriptures do contain the rich truths which the term was devised to protect and harmonize. We are confronted with a great body of historical and experimental fact which is indispensable to the Christian faith, and which is recorded chiefly in the Scriptures; and from early times the Church felt that the idea of the Trinity as explained above was the comprehensive truth to which it all pointed.”-
—– and much more on the Trinity and historical Judaism can be found in one of the most marvelous Biblical helps of deep things I ever have had. It is Harper’s Bible Dictionary by Madeline S. Miller & J. Lane Miller in consultation with eminent authorities. Harper & Brothers , Publishers New York copyright 1952—–several other later dates, but I have had this one since 1954. approx. 850 pages and maps.
I grew up in a staunch large denomination that believed God’s Word in those days, and was taught their doctrine on the Trinity, but it never was a great concern after I studied Harpers, and two other Bible Dictionaries that came into my life. I AM NOT ALARMED BY SKIP’S SUBJECT!
I also ESPECIALLY APPRECIATE GABBY above ON THIS: I too, JUST WANT TO BE AN ADEQUATE WITNESS IN EVERY MINUTE OF MY GIVEN TIME . NO ONE, NOT ONE CAN KNOW ALL THERE IS TO KNOW, WE DO HAVE TO MAKE A LIVING, TEND TO OUR FAMILIES, AND NEIGHBORS, AND TRY TO OBEY THE LIGHT WE ARE GIVEN. As I am in my Octogenarian years, I could not have too many left so I will thank the Lord for Bible Dictionaries and use them, and let the scholars argue these things. P.S. also, appreciated the person that mentioned Nave’s Topical Bible, a good help in study also! LaVaye Billings
It seems to me the important question is not so much the doctrine of the Trinity but why did the early church adopt this view? In order to arrive at their final conclusion, there was serious opposition to the Trinitarian view, opposition that has continued throughout the centuries. Among the debaters were Marcion, Arius, Nestorius, Sabellius, and more. Yet, when the independent bishops met in their councils, they rejected all the counter ideas and voted in favor of the Trinity. No one forced Trinitarianism on the bishops. But they rejected the modalism of Sabellius and the denial of the full deity of Yeshua by Arius. In fact, Arianism was the predominant view at the time, and despite the Council’s decision, churches that were Arian remained Arian. Athanasius, in spite of his ‘success’ at the Council, was eventually removed from his bishopric. Yet Trinitarianism and the decision of the Council, ultimately became the ‘orthodox’ position. Why? They had their reasons. And until those reasons are explored, we do not get to the heart of Trinitarianism.
But even then, the issue was not a settled one. And it was not until the Council of Chalcedon 451 AD that the Christological issues of Nestorius finally addressed. Was Yeshua fully divine and fully human? If this is true, then the religions that teach the goal of mankind is to achieve become divine are on the right path. Yet Chalcedon addressed this very issue and decided there can never be a comingling of divinity and humanity, not even in the person of Yeshua. And this view has driven Western culture. Neither kings nor popes achieved divine status, and neither do presidents or parliaments or the democratic process.
Thus, what is at stake in the debate over the Trinity is culture itself. And how these questions are answered will produce a culture based on those beliefs. Culture is, after all, religion externalized. The Greek philosophers wrestled with the question of the one and the many, universals and particulars. In politics, for example, should there be top down bureaucracy and total control (the One) or should each individual be free to do what ever he likes, anarchy (the Many). Western culture has thus battled with the solution to this political dilemma.
The simple fact is, there is no knowledge without an answer to the question of ultimate unity/diversity. You cannot tell one furry animal from another unless there are universal categories that distinguish a dog from a cat, animals from plants and humans. The whole of the created order reflects this dualism of unity/diversity. It is inescapable because YHVH made it that way. And the doctrine of the Trinity is a simple statement that in God, both unity and diversity are ultimate, which, in turn, provides the solution to the One and the Many problem that was never resolved by the Greeks nor the medieval philosophers. Nor, for that matter, Judaism. Of course, the issue might be simply dismissed as irrelevant, but that doesn’t work if you really want to know there is a difference between dogs and bears.
So, then, who was Yeshua? A manifestion of YHVH? A human being who came into existence at some point in time but endowed with some divine qualities? And who is the Holy Spirit? Yet another manifestation of YHVH? There are huge stakes in how these questions are answered.
And if the God of Arius is a God of love, does this mean that narcissism is the divine example of true love?.
This is my first time commenting, though I’ve been following Skip’s teachings for about a year. Thank you Skip!! I look forward daily, to having my mind bent. I’ve been deeply enriched by many of the teachings and comments. Personally, I have loved God since I was a little girl, wanting to please Him, and asked Jesus into my heart hundreds of times “just in case”. In spite of my love for God, many decisions I made were horrific and I could tell you stories, but I won’t. Let’s just say I could have been stoned to death many times. Most of my 61 years were in the church (Conservative Baptist, a detour into the New Age, and subsequently The Vineyard under John Wimber). I am grateful for my journey thus far, though a decade ago I became restless whenever I was in a church. I tried at least a dozen different churches, but would actually become physically sick. I didn’t understand what was going on, but I’ve since realized God was answering my heart’s cry. He was setting me up, to set me free. In the past couple of years, I have been challenging ALL my beliefs and in a sense, I’m starting at the beginning. I now try to follow Torah, studying each day. My prayer is “Show me Your ways YHVH”. That brings me to why I am commenting on TW. I would like to know how you, Skip, and your readers, resolved that Yeshua is the Messiah, and/or the Son of God, and that the NT is the truth. I am so skeptical of the NT now, especially Paul, who did not walk with Yeshua yet he dominates Christian teaching. Is there verifiable documentation of Yeshua’s existence, His birth, His death, His resurrection? Is there documented proof that Paul was a recognized rabbi, learned under Gamaliel, was known in Jerusalem? In my former life (Christian), it was all about Jesus and in the Charismatic movement there was new emphasis on the Holy Spirit. I cried out to Jesus. I prayed in His Name. Now, I talk to the Father. I’m not sure how to relate to Yeshua and that breaks my heart. I know the verses Christians use, but they don’t work for me anymore. I’m struggling as I try to see the NT connect with the Tanakh. Why isn’t it abundantly clear in the Tanakh that God had a Son and would be sending Him to earth? I can regurgitate the party line, and how NT verses are laid upon the Tanakh, but I can no longer accept a verse here and there, in a pick-and-choose-out-of-context application. Would you be so kind as to direct me to materials I can study to assist in my search to find the truth about Yeshua? I’m tracking with your study on the trinity, but it seems you and the readers have already resolved what I’m still questioning regarding Yeshua as Mashiach. I may be uncomfortable not having answers anymore, but I’d rather be in this discomfort than return to my prior ‘safe and secure’ false beliefs. Thank you for letting me interrupt the rhythm of your study. Blessings to all this Shavuot. Marci
Blessings, Marci, and I encourage you to keep seeking. I don’t have all the answers, that for sure, since Today’s Word is just a personal journey that others are willing to follow. But I have met and read quite a few really serious scholars who have grappled with these questions (the books are on my recommended reading list) and I do know that paradigm views are usually a matter of choice, so I press on. Stick with us awhile and see if we can’t resolve at least a few things. And try reading Flusser, Heschel and (soon to be added) Shulam.
I am still as confused as I was before I read this. I am only an engineer and just know a little bit about electricity. Will you write further and at length about this? Please??
Lowell
Give me some time – and a few more TWs
Let’s just go to the Word.
Paul uses this phrase: Lord Jesus Christ. Lord is the English translation of the Greek word kurios which is the word chosen by the translators of the Septuagint for Yahweh, e.g. GOD!
Jesus is Latin for the Hebrew Yeshua. A MAN!
Christ – the anointed one, smeared with the Holy Spirit.
When all three are put together you get God-Man-Smeared With the Holy Spirit.
In Luke, the messengers appeared to the shepherds in the field telling them that a babe had been born in Bethlehem, Christ the Lord. So the very first proclamation, per Scripture, was by God sent heavenly messengers who communicated to mankind God-Man-Smeared With the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is God.
John writes in John 1, “In the beginning was the word (logos).” What was the word? The untranslatable aleph tov. “So the word (aleph tov) was with God and the word (aleph tov) was God.” John declares that Jesus is God.
So first the heavenly messengers declared it.
John declared it.
Paul declared it.
Jesus is God.
The instruction set about the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was given by Jesus in John 14-16.
As Jesus confirmed to Simon Peter, ““You are blessed, Simon son of John, because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being.” (NLT) Put simply, such things are revealed to us. Some things cannot be intellectually grasped.
Said Thomas, John 20:28, “My Lord and my God.”
R.A. Torrey, The Deity of Christ (free)
http://ratorrey.webs.com/The%20Deity%20of%20Jesus%20Christ.htm
R.A. Torrey, The Personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit (free)
http://ratorrey.webs.com/personalityanddeity-torrey.html
It’s not quite as clear cut as you would like. Who else is addressed as kyrios? Why? What does the word mean in the culture? Is being “Lord” incompatible with being appointed authority? Does it REQUIRE that one be “in essence” the same as God? And if the first followers of Yeshua were all Jews and held firmly to the ehad of God, then why isn’t this new view (three in one) CLEARLY and DEFINITELY stated in their writings? And why did it take 400 years to determine it? And why don’t the Jews embrace it?
Did the angels say “this is the God-Man” or did they announce the Messiah? Are you assuming the two terms are the same? If you are, then you have already assumed the Trinitarian view before you read the text?
“Jesus” isn’t LATIN for anything Hebrew. It is a phonetic aberration, not a translation.
Does the idea of “God-Man smeared with Holy Spirit” depend on LATIN and GREEK? If so, how could the earliest followers of Yeshua ever come up with the idea?
The determination that Aleph-Tov is the “God-Man” stretches the meaning of both terms. How would you prove this to be the case without already assuming it? What if the “untranslatable” (which by the way you just translated) is about the Messiah? Does that REQUIRE it must be about a “God-Man”?
And finally, does Simon Peter say that “You are God” or does he say that “You are the Messiah, the Son of God”? Are the terms “God” and “Son of God” synonymous?
Skip, you said, “It seems pretty clear to me from all the comments so far that people generally do not know what the doctrine of the Trinity actually claims”. I’m wondering if readers are responding the way they are because they (myself included) don’t understand your purpose. Are you challenging the technical church definition of the Trinity or are you challenging whether Yeshua is diety (and when I say “diety” I mean YHVH, since there is only one God [Isa 45:5], not just any divine/supernatural messenger/living being/creature)? They are not the same question but it seems you are challenging both simultaneously as if they were, (if the church definition of the Trinity is incorrect then Yeshua cannot be YHVH). I don’t follow that logic because it is also possible that the Trinity definition is incorrect while Yeshua is still in fact YHVH. You gave an example yourself, “a disguised God in human form”. So, are you basing the credibility of the deity of Yeshua on the credibility of 4-5th century church doctrine? As you said, the Trinity is defined as one God, three persons. Is this what you are putting on trial, or are you putting Yeshua’s diety on trial. I’m just seeking clarity. Which is it? Both?
First, I am questioning the logical and theological sense of the Church doctrine. Secondly, this examination brings up the question, “What does the text mean by the word ‘deity’ or ‘divine’? In other words, the meaning of these terms must be defined by the way they are used in the context of Scripture, not by the way they are used by the theologians of the Church (although we would hope that would be the same). For example, the biblical text uses the word “torah” in ways that the Church does not. The Church uses the word “law” in ways that the text does not. The result is that the Church uses ‘law’ as it is used in the Roman/Greek world but the Scriptures use the word ‘law’ as it is found int he Hebraic-Torah world. The same seems to be true of the words ‘divine’ and ‘deity.’ We will examine this shortly.
It is also critically important that we recognize that later theology uses the word ‘person’ in a Greek sense, not in the Hebraic sense, that is to say, ‘person’ is a noun-based divisible static identifier in Greek, but in Hebrew a “person’ is a verbal relation based dynamic indivisible representation. These differences affect that meaning of the terms in the doctrine.
Let me say this. It is very difficult to communicate all of this one verse, one day at a time. What is really required is a long dialogue pulling together the historical development (which did not being with the earliest Church fathers), the textual evidence, the linguistic considerations and the logical arguments and implications. But that means sitting down as a community and talking. Hard to do on the internet. So, I do what I can. Raise issues a little at a time. Try to resolve a few things. Try to understand the objections.
And in all this, try to remember that the theology isn’t God. If even I get it all wrong, I can still worship Him and enjoy His presence. The rest is just trying to noodle it all out.
Amen to your last paragraph, Skip!
If David, by the Ruach Kodesh, called Messiah “my lord” (Adoni) saying, “Yehovah (YHVH) said to adoni, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool” (Psalm 110:1), then later (Psalm 110:5) calls him “YHVH (Adonay) at thy (YHVH’s) right hand”, how is Messiah David’s son? This is the stumper that Yeshua presents to the Prushim (see Matthew 22:41-46) I.e., “How is it that the Messiah, whom you say is David’s son, is described by David as YHVH at YHVH’s right hand, the very one who will “strike through kings in the day of his wrath”.
“No man was able to answer him a word, neither dared any to ask him any more questions from that day forth.”
The Son is not the Father, but the Father gave the Son his title, his power, and the authority to judge the nations and rule over them with a rod of iron until all is subdued under his reign… the Son “whose wrath will be kindled but a little”. “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well-pleased”… “…the lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world!” The divine Son… unique… begotten of God through the direct action of the Ruach Kodesh, yet born of a woman… “and the word (ho logos) became flesh and tabernacled among us… amazing mystery! Halelujah!