Clear Explanation Difficult
If you were to confine yourself to reading the articles on
the Trinity in popular religious literature for laymen, you
would conclude that the Trinity is everywhere and clearly taught
in the Bible. However, if you were to begin to read what the
more technical Bible encyclopedias, dictionaries and books say
on the subject, you would come to an entirely different
conclusion. And the more you studied, the more you would find
that the Trinity is built on a very shaky foundation indeed.
The problems inherent in clearly explaining the Trinity are
expressed in nearly every technical article or book on the
subject.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia begins:
"It is difficult, in the second half of the 20th century, to
offer a clear, objective, and straightforward account of the
revelation, doctrinal evolution, and the theological
elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity. Trinitarian
discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, presents a
somewhat unsteady silhouette" (Vol. XIV, p. 295).
(Emphasis ours throughout article)
But why should the central doctrine of the Christian faith be
so difficult to understand? Why should such an important
doctrine present an unsteady silhouette? Isn't there a clear
biblical revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity? Didn't
Christ and the apostles plainly teach it?
Surely the Bible would be filled with teachings about such an
important subject as the Trinity. But, unfortunately the word
"Trinity" never appears in the Bible.
'The term 'Trinity' is not a Biblical term, and we are not
using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by
it as the doctrine"
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
article "Trinity," p. 3012).
Not only is the word "Trinity" never found in the Bible,
there is no substantive proof such a doctrine is even indicated.
In a recent book on the Trinity, Catholic theologian Karl
Rahner recognizes that theologians in the past have been:
". . . embarrassed by the simple fact that in reality the
Scriptures do not explicitly present a doctrine of the
'imminent' Trinity (even John's prologue is no such
doctrine)" (The Trinity, p. 22). (Author's emphasis.)
Other theologians also recognize the fact that the first
chapter of John's Gospel - the prologue - clearly shows the
pre-existence and divinity of Christ and does not teach the
doctrine of the Trinity. After discussing John's prologue, Dr.
William Newton Clarke writes:
'There is no Trinity in this; but there is a distinction in
the Godhead, a duality in God. This distinction or duality
is used as basis for the idea of an only-begotten Son, and
as key to the possibility of an incarnation" (Outline of
Christian Theology, p. 167).
The first chapter of John's Gospel clearly shows the
pre-existence of Christ. It also illustrates the duality of God.
And as Dr. Clarke points out, the key to the possibility of the
incarnation — the fact that God could become man.
The Apostle John makes plain the unmistakable fact that Jesus
Christ is God (John 1:1-4). Yet we find no Trinity discussed in
this chapter.
More Biblical "Proof" for the Trinity?
Probably the most notorious scripture used in times past as
"proof" of a Trinity is 1 John 5:7. However, many theologians
recognize that this scripture was added to the New Testament
manuscripts probably as late as the eighth century A.D.
Notice what
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary wrote:
"The only Greek MSS. [manuscripts], in any form which
support the words, 'in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three
that bear witness in earth . . .' are the
Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the
modern Latin Vulgate; the Rauianus copied from
the Complutensian Polyglot; a MS. [manuscript] at
Naples, with the words added in the margin by a recent hand;
Ottobonianus, 298, of the fifteenth century, the Greek
of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin.
All old versions omit the words."
The conclusions arrived at in their commentary, written over
100 years ago, are still valid today. More conservatively
oriented
The New Bible Commentary (Revised) agrees, though
"quietly" with Jamieson, Fausset and Brown.
". . . The words are clearly a gloss and are rightly
excluded by RSV [Revised Standard Version] even from its
margin" (p. 1269).
The editors of Peake's Commentary on the Bible wax
more eloquent in their belief that the words are not part of the
original text.
"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not
printed even in RSV, and rightly. It cites the heavenly
testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but
is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No
respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late
4th century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally
the NT [New Testament] of Erasmus" (p. 1038).
Scholars clearly recognize that 1 John 5:7 is not part of the
New Testament text. Yet it is still included by some
fundamentalists as biblical proof for the Trinity doctrine.
Even the majority of the more recent New Testament
translations do not contain the above words. They are not found
in Moffatt, Phillips, the Revised Standard Version, Williams, or
The Living Bible (a paraphrase).
It is clear, then, that these words are not part of the
inspired canon, but rather were added by a "recent hand." The
two verses in 1 John should read:
"For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and
the water and the blood: and these three agree in one."
Three things bear record. But what do they bear record to? A
Trinity? We shall see.
Bear Record to What?
The Spirit, the water and the blood bear record of the fact
that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is living His life over again
in us. John clarifies it in verses 11-12:
"And this is the record, that God hath given to us
eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the
Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not
life."
But how do these three elements — the Spirit, the water, and
the blood — specifically bear witness to this basic biblical
truth?
"The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit, that we are
the children of God" (Romans 8:16).
Water is representative of baptism, which bears witness of
the burial of the old self and the beginning of a new life
(Romans 6:1-6).
The blood represents Christ's death by crucifixion, which
pays the penalty for our sins, reconciling us to God (Romans
5:9, 10).
Now understand why Christ commanded the apostles to baptize
in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew
28:19). First of all, Jesus did not command the apostles to
baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Spirit as an
indication that God is a Trinity. No such relationship is
indicated in the Bible.
Why, then, were they to baptize using these three names? The
answer is clear.
They were to baptize in the name of the Father because it is
the goodness of God that brings us to repentance (Romans 2 4),
and because the Father is the One "of whom the whole family
in heaven and earth is named" (Ephesians 3:15). In the name
of the Son because He is the one who died for our sins, and in
the name of the Spirit because God sends His Spirit, making us
His begotten Sons (Romans 8:16).
Many theologians have misunderstood the part that the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit play in each person's salvation. The
doctrine of the Trinity is the result of that misunderstanding.
The Trinity is not a biblical doctrine. It has no basis in
biblical fact. Then how did this doctrine come to be believed by
the Church?
History of the Trinity
The ancient idea of monotheism was shattered by the sudden
appearance of Jesus Christ on the earth. Here was someone who
claimed He was the Son of God. But how could He be? The Jewish
people believed for centuries that there was only one God. If
the claims of "this Jesus" were accepted, then in their minds
their belief would be no different from that of the polytheistic
pagans around them. If He were the Son of God, their whole
system of monotheism would disintegrate.
When Jesus plainly told certain Jews of His day that He was
the Son of God, some were ready to stone Him for blasphemy (John
10:33).
To get around the problem of a plurality in the God-head, the
Jewish community simply rejected Jesus. And to this day,
Orthodox Jews will not accept Jesus' Messiahship. However, the
more liberal Jews will at least admit that He was a great man --
maybe even a prophet.
But the "new" Christian religion was still faced with the
problem. How would proponents explain that there was only one
God, not two?
"The determining impulse to the formulation of the doctrine
of the Trinity in the church was the church's profound
conviction of the absolute Deity of Christ, on which as on a
pivot the whole Christian concept of God from the first
origin of Christianity turned"
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,
article "Trinity," p. 3021).
But the Deity of Christ does not mean that a doctrine of the
Trinity is necessary, as we shall soon see.
Roots in Greek Philosophy
Many of the early church fathers were thoroughly educated in
Greek philosophy, from which they borrowed such non-biblical
concepts as dualism and the immortality of the soul. However,
most theologians, for obvious reasons, are generally careful to
point out that they did not borrow the idea of the Trinity from
the Triads of Greek philosophy or those of the ancient Egyptians
and Babylonians.
But some are not so careful to make such a distinction.
"Although the notion of a Triad or Trinity is characteristic
of the Christian religion, it is by no means peculiar to it.
In Indian religion, e.g., we meet with the Trinitarian group
of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and the Egyptian religion with
the Trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus,
constituting a divine family, like the Father, Mother and
Son in medieval Christian pictures. Nor is it only in
historical religions that we find God viewed as a Trinity.
One recalls in particular the Neo-Platonic view of the
Supreme or Ultimate Reality, which was suggested by
Plato..."
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible Vol. 12, p. 458).
Of course, the fact that someone else had a Trinity does not
in itself mean that the Christians borrowed it. McClintock and
Strong make the connection a little clearer.
"Toward the end of the 16th century, and during the 2nd,
many learned men came over both from Judaism and paganism to
Christianity. These brought with them into the Christian
schools of theology their Platonic ideas and phraseology"
(article "Trinity," Vol. 10, p. 553).
In his book, A History of Christian Thought, Arthur
Cushman McGiffert points out that the main argument against
those who believed that there was only one God and that Christ
was either an adopted or a created being was that their idea did
not agree with Platonic philosophy. Such teachings were
"offensive to theologians particularly to those who felt the
influence of the Platonic philosophy" (ibid., p.240).
In the latter half of the third century, Paul of Samosata
tried to revive the adoptionist idea that Jesus was a mere man
until the Spirit of God came upon Him at baptism making him the
Anointed One, or Christ. In his beliefs about the person of
Jesus Christ, he:
"rejected the Platonic realism which underlay most of the
Christological speculation of the day" (ibid., p. 243).
At the end of his chapter on the Trinity, McGiffert
concludes:
". . . It has been the boast of orthodox theologians that in
the doctrine of the Trinity both religion and philosophy
come to highest expression" (Vol. I, p. 247).
The influence of Platonic philosophy on the
Trinity doctrine can hardly be denied.
However, Trinitarian ideas go much further back than Plato.
"Though it is usual to speak of the Semitic tribes as
monotheistic; yet it is an undoubted fact that more or less
all over the world the deities are in triads. This rule
applies to eastern and western hemispheres, to north and
south. Further, it is observed that, in some mystical way,
the triad of three persons is one.... The definition of
Athanasius [a fourth-century Christian] who lived in Egypt,
applied to the trinities of all heathen religions" (Egyptian
Belief and Modern Thought, by James Bonwick, F.R.G.S.,
p. 396).
It was Athanasius' formulation for the Trinity which was
adopted by the Catholic Church at the Council of Nicaea in A.D.
325. Athanasius was an Egyptian from Alexandria and his
philosophy was also deeply rooted in Platonism.
"The Alexandrian catechetical school, which revered Clement
of Alexandria and Origen, the greatest theologians of the
Greek Church, as its heads, applied the allegorical method
to the explanation of Scripture. Its thought was influenced
by Plato: its strong point was theological speculation.
Athanasius and the three Cappadocians had been included
among its members . . ." (The
Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church by Hubert
Jedin, p. 29).
In order to explain the relationship of Christ to God the
Father, the church fathers felt that it was necessary to use the
philosophy of the day. They obviously thought that their
religion would be more palatable if they made it sound like the
pagan philosophy that was extant at the time. These men were
versed in philosophy, and that philosophy colored their
understanding of the Bible.
It was the doctrine of the Trinity -- colored by the
philosophy of the time — that was accepted by the Church in the
early part of the fourth century — over three hundred years
after Christ's death.
Even theologians recognize that the Trinity is a creation of
the fourth century, not the first!
"'There is recognition on the part of exegetist and
Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number
of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of
Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious
qualification. There is also the closely parallel
recognition — that when one does speak of unqualified
Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian
origins to say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was
only then that what might be called the definitive
Trinitarian dogma 'one God in three persons' became
thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought"
(New Catholic Encyclopedia, article "Trinity," Vol. 14,
p. 295).
The Council of Nicaea
It was at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 that two members
of the Alexandrian congregation, Arius, a priest, who believed
that Christ was not a God, but a created being; and Athanasius,
a deacon who believed that the Father, Son and Spirit are the
same being living in a threefold form (or in three
relationships, as a man may be at the same time a father, a son
and a brother), presented their cases.
The Council of Nicaea was not called by the church leaders,
as one might suppose. It was called by the Emperor Constantine.
And he had a far from spiritual reason for wanting to solve the
dispute that had arisen.
"In 325 the Emperor Constantine called an ecclesiastical
council to meet at Nicaea in Bithynia. In the hope of
securing for his throne the support of the growing body of
Christians he had shown them considerable favor and it was
to his interest to have the church vigorous and united. The
Arian controversy was threatening its unity and menacing its
strength. He therefore undertook to put an end to the
trouble. It was suggested to him, perhaps by the Spanish
bishop Hosius who was influential at court, that if a synod
were to meet representing the whole church both east and
west, it might be possible to restore harmony. Constantine
himself of course neither knew or cared anything about the
matter in dispute but he was eager to bring the controversy
to a close, and Hosius' advice appealed to him as sound" (A
History of Christian Thought, Vol. I, p. 258).
The decision as to which of the two men the church was to
follow was a more or less arbitrary one. Constantine really
didn't care which choice was made — all he wanted was a united
church. (Arius was banished, but later recalled by Constantine,
examined and found to be without heresy.)
The majority of those present at the council were not ready
to take either side in the controversy.
"A clearly defined standpoint with regard to this problem —
the relationship of Christ to God — was held only by the
attenuated group of Arians and a far from numerous section
of delegates, who adhered with unshaken conviction to the
Alexandrian [Athanasius'] view. The bulk of the members
occupied a position between these two extremes. They
rejected the formulae of Arius, and declined to accept those
of his opponents . . . the voting was no criterion of the
inward conviction of the council" (Encyclopedia
Britannica, 11th ed., article "Nicaea, Council of," p.
641).
The council rejected Arius' views, and rightly so, but they
had nothing with which to replace it. Thus the ideas of
Athanasius — also a minority view — prevailed. The rejection of
Arianism was not blanket acceptance of Athanasius. Yet, the
church in all the ensuing centuries has been "stuck," so to
speak, with the job of upholding — right or wrong — the decision
made at Nicaea.
After the council the Trinity became official dogma in the
church, but the controversy did not end. In the next few years
more Christians were killed by other Christians over that
doctrine than were killed by all the pagan emperors of Rome.
Yet, for all the fighting and killing, neither of the two
parties had a biblical leg to stand on.
Who Was Jesus?
The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. But we
are still faced with the question: Who was Jesus Christ?
Was He a man that lived such a perfect life that God decided to
call Him His Son at baptism? Or was He God who became a man and
died for all men?
In the past in most theological circles, a rejection of the
doctrine of the Trinity included a rejection of the divinity of
Christ. But before this booklet becomes classed as an Arian
heresy, let me quote from Catholic theologian Karl Rahner:
". . . we must be willing to admit that should the doctrine
of the Trinity have to be dropped as false, the major part
of religious literature could well remain virtually
unchanged.... the Christian idea of the incarnation would
not have to change at all if there were no Trinity."
"It is not surprising then, that Christian piety
practically remembers from the doctrine of the incarnation
only that 'God' has become man, without deriving from this
truth any clear message about the Trinity" (The Trinity,
pp. 10-12).
A rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity does not
constitute a rejection of the incarnation — the divinity of
Christ. In fact, what he says indicates that, for all practical
purposes, the doctrine is meaningless.
Jesus Was the Problem
To this day Christianity is still confused about who and what
Jesus Christ really was. There is a majority who believe in a
mysterious Trinity and a vociferous minority who believe that
Christ was a created being. Neither has the truth.
But why all the confusion?
Who Jesus was is clearly indicated in the pages of the Bible.
It has been there for centuries. While Christians were busily
excommunicating and killing each other over the question of who
Jesus was, the answer has been in the pages of the Bible, and
that explanation is not in harmony with what is taught by most
churches today Christ is not the second person in a Trinity, and
He was not created by God — HE IS THE CREATOR GOD!
In the Beginning...
To find out who Jesus was, let's go back to the beginning.
Beginnings are mentioned in the Bible in at least two separate
places — in the first chapter of Genesis and in the first
chapter of John's Gospel.
The Apostle John began his Gospel by describing who and what
Jesus was before He came to this earth as the savior of mankind.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning
with God. All things were made by him; and without him was
not anything made that was made.... And the Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the
glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace
and truth" (verses 1-3, 14).
If we read no further in the New Testament than this, we
would be able to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus
Christ was God and that He is the One who created man in Genesis
2:7. Because John clearly states that the Word — the One who
became Christ — created all things. Had Christians clearly
understood these verses there would have never been an Arian
controversy or a doctrine of the Trinity.
But the Apostle John is not the only New Testament writer who
wrote about the pre-existence of Christ. Notice what Paul wrote
to the Corinthians.
"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be
ignorant. how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and
all passed through the sea; and did all eat the same
spiritual mean; and did all drink of the same spiritual
drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed
them: and that Rock was Christ" (1Corinthians
10:1-4).
Paul clearly tells us that Jesus Christ was the God of the
Old Testament — the One who spoke to Moses and led the
Israelites out of Egypt. This clearly shows us that the One who
became the Son was the God of the Old Testament, not God the
Father.
Yet the doctrine of the Trinity hinges on the assumption that
God manifested Himself as the Father in the Old Testament and
Christ in the New Testament.
Duality of God Throughout the Bible
The plurality of God is not merely a "plural of majesty" as
some would have us believe.
Six hundred years before Christ, the Prophet Daniel recorded
for us a vision.
"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the
Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the
Ancient of days . . ." (Daniel 7:13).
The "Son of man" he described can be none other than the One
who later became Jesus Christ. Daniel then saw Him given
rulership and a Kingdom that will never be destroyed (verse 14).
The "Son of man" mentioned here could hardly be a mere physical
human being!
The Ancient of Days, in this instance, is the divine Being
who is called the Father in the New Testament.
Jesus Christ referred to the same occurrence as mentioned in
this vision in His parable of the nobleman (Himself) who went to
a far country (heaven) to receive a kingdom, and to return (Luke
19:12).
The duality of the God family was also referred to in Psalm
110 by David.
"The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand,
until I make thine enemies thy footstool" (verse 1).
Two different Lords are mentioned here. One is God the Father
and the other is the One who became Jesus Christ. Paul quoted
this passage to the Jewish Christians — applying it directly to
Jesus Christ:
"But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on
my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?"
(Hebrews 1:13.)
Was the Son also God? Verse 8 answers,
"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is
for ever...."
Where can he no doubt that God the Father and Jesus the Son
are mentioned as two separate beings in the Old Testament.
Who Was Melchizedek?
Now notice Hebrews 5:6-7:
"So also Christ glorified not himself to be made high
priest; but he [glorified him] that said unto him, Thou art
my Son, today have I begotten thee. As he saith also in
another place, Thou art a priest forever after the order of
Melchizedek."
So Christ holds the office of Melchizedek. WHO WAS
MELCHIZEDEK? He was one of the Persons composing God.
In Genesis 14:18 he is called the king of Salem and the
priest of the Most High God. Notice why he could not have been
merely a human being.
The Apostle Paul described Him further in Hebrews 7:2-3:
"To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first
being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after
that also King of Salem, which is King of peace; without
father, without mother, without descent, having neither
beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the
Son of God; abideth a priest continually."
Paul could not have been describing a human being, or even an
angel in these verses, for he is describing a Being that
eternally existed, as only God has eternally existed.
Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God. Who is the
Most High God? Why of course, the Father! Jesus Christ said: "My
Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). And also Melchizedek
still lives (and if you will read Hebrews 7:8 carefully, you
will see that Paul repeats this supremely important fact) and is
still that High Priest. But Christ also is High Priest (see
Hebrews 7:26; 8:1). There cannot be two High Priests both
holding the same office, so Melchizedek and Jesus Christ must be
one and the same.
So we see that even in the first book of the Bible the
plurality of God is shown, although clear understanding of this
truth could not be known until Jesus came to reveal it in the
New Testament. Jesus said,
". . . No man knows who the Son is, but the Father; and
who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will
reveal him" (Luke 10:22).
Jesus Came to Reveal the Father
A clear distinction is made in the New Testament between
Christ and the Father. The God that Moses saw and heard was not
God the Father, again proving that Christ was the God of the Old
Testament.
"No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him"
(John 1:18).
Christ came to earth to, among other things, reveal the
Father and to show a family relationship that exists in the
Godhead. But more about that later.
Unless Jesus had revealed the Father to us, there is no way
for us to know Him.
"All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no
man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man
the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will
reveal him" (Matthew 11:27).
The Meaning of the Word YHVH
In the Hebrew of the original inspired text, there are two
different names that are commonly used to refer to God. The word
first used for "God" in Genesis is Elohim.
The second word — which we will explain here — is YHVH
(commonly though erroneously, pronounced "Jehovah"). This word
YHVH is generally translated "LORD" (in capital letters) in the
King James Version of the Bible. The first place it is used is
in Genesis 2:7. It was the LORD God — YHVH — who formed man out
of the dust of the ground. It was the LORD God that dealt
directly with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. And as we saw
in John, chapter 1, it was the Word — Jesus Christ — who created
all things.
Therefore, it was the LORD God of the Old Testament who
became the Jesus Christ of the New. This fact is illustrated
interestingly enough by the grammatical derivation of the word
YHVH.
The word YHVH is explained by Rabbinic sources as
encompassing three Hebrew words: HYH meaning was, HVH
meaning is (literally "the present tense" — the word "is"
is not used in Hebrew) and YHYH meaning will continue to be.
Putting them all together, YHVH actually means the
"Was-Is-Will Continue to Be" Being. Even Hebrew linguistic
scholars agree that YHVH must be derived from some form of the
verb "to be" (was, is, will be).
By His very name, then, God quite literally encompasses all
aspects of time — past, present and future. This is in complete
accord with Malachi 3:6:
"For I am YHVH, I change not";
Hebrews 13:8:
"Jesus Christ the same yesterday [was], and today [is],
and forever [will continue to be]";
and Revelation 1:8 :
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending,
saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and
which is to come, the Almighty."
Here we can see that even etymologically, Jesus Christ and
YHVH can be equated. Yet this is only a small part of the
picture because the clear statements of both the Old and New
Testaments give overwhelming proof that the God of the Old
Testament is the One who became Jesus Christ.
People Stumbled at Christ
In Isaiah chapter eight, verses 13 and 14, we find a very
interesting prophecy concerning the Lord of Hosts.
"Sanctify the Lord of Hosts himself; and let him be your
fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a
sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of
offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a
snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."
Most editions of the King James Version of the Bible note
that these verses refer to the one who later became Jesus
Christ. But even more accurate proof is found in the New
Testament.
In his first epistle, the Apostle Peter writes:
"Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold,
I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he
that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you
therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which
be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the
same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of
stumbling and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble
at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were
appointed" (1Peter 2:6-8).
The very same prophecy is alluded to in Luke 2:34. There can
be no denying the fact that Jesus Christ was the God of the Old
Testament, the Stone over which many people stumbled.
The religious leaders of the time simply could not understand
how Jesus could have been God. Yet the Old Testament which they
had copied for centuries is filled with prophecies about Him.
Truly they were blinded, and most remain so to this day, as the
Apostle Paul explained in the ninth through the eleventh
chapters of his epistle to the Romans.
While Jesus Christ, the God of the Old Testament, was on
earth as a human being, there was only one God-Being — the
Father — left in heaven. And we find that Jesus prayed to His
Father in heaven:
"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self
with the glory which I had with thee before the world was"
(John 17:5).
The Jews and the Arians found it hard to believe that God
could become man. Yet, the New Testament explains that it did
indeed happen. One of the members of the Godhead became a man
that we might have the opportunity to become God.
The Apostle Paul explained this concept in his epistle to the
Philippians. The
Amplified Bible makes the passage a little clearer. In
chapter 2:5-8, he encourages the Philippians:
"Let this same attitude and purpose and [humble] mind be
in you which was in Christ Jesus. Let him be your example in
humility. . . Who, although being essentially one with God
and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the
attributes which make God God, did not think this equality
with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained; but
stripped Himself [of all privileges and rightful dignity] so
as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He
became like men and was born a human being. And after He had
appeared in human form He abased and humbled Himself [still
further] and carried His obedience to the extreme of death,
and even the death of [the] cross!"
Jesus Christ was God. But He voluntarily gave up His position
as God, became a physical human being and came to this earth to
die for us that we might be saved.
The true impact and importance of the oft-repeated scripture:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16)
becomes abundantly clear.
Is the Holy Spirit a Person?
We have seen that Jesus Christ is, was and always will be
God. However, you can search the Bible from Genesis to
Revelation and you will find no such Bible teaching with regard
to the Holy Spirit. The Bible does not teach that the Holy
Spirit is a third member of the God family or of a Trinity.
This is not a prejudiced anti-trinitarian opinion. It is a
fact that is recognized even by Trinitarian theologians!
Discussing the evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity in
the Bible, Dr. W. N. Clarke, writes:
"The New Testament begins the work, but does not finish it;
for it contains no similar teaching [like John 1:1-18
concerning the divinity of Christ] with regard to the Holy
Spirit. The unique nature and mission of Christ are traced
to a ground in the being of God; but similar ground for the
divineness of the Spirit is nowhere shown. Thought in
the New Testament is never directed to that end. Thus the
Scriptures take the first step toward a doctrine of
essential Trinity, or three-ness in the being of one God,
but they do not take that second step by which alone the
doctrine could be completed" (An Outline of Christian
Theology, p. 168). (Author's emphasis.)
Theologians have to recognize that there is no biblical proof
for the divinity or personality of the Spirit. And that in order
to arrive at a doctrine of the Trinity, they have to go outside
of the Bible.
Karl Barth, one of the most noted theologians of the 20th
century, admits that the church has gone beyond the Bible to
arrive at its doctrine of the Trinity.
"The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father,
Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence and therefore
in an equal sense God Himself. And the other express
declaration is also lacking that God is God thus and only
thus, i.e., as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
These two express declarations which go beyond the witness
of the Bible are the twofold content of the church doctrine
of the Trinity" (Doctrine of the Word of God, p.
437).
Since, as theologians recognize, the Bible is not the source
of the Trinity doctrine, how can they square it with the Bible
teaching that inspired Scripture should be the source of
doctrine? (2 Timothy 3:16).
The answer is, they can't. They must freely admit the painful
facts.
The Spirit of God in the Bible
The personality of Jesus Christ is thoroughly provable from
the Bible, but there is no such proof for a personality of the
Holy Spirit.
"The Old Testament clearly does not envisage God's spirit as
a person, neither in the strictly philosophical sense, nor
in the Semitic sense. God's spirit is simply God's Power. If
it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it
is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly (Isaiah
48:16; 63:11; 32:15)." so say the authors of the New
Catholic Encyclopedia.
But let them continue:
"Very rarely do the Old Testament writers attribute to God's
spirit emotions or intellectual activity (Isaiah 63:10; Wis.
1:3-7). When such expressions are used, they are mere
figures of speech that are explained by the fact that the
ruah was regarded also as the seat of intellectual acts
and feeling (Genesis 41:8). Neither is there found in the
Old Testament or in rabbinical literature the notion that
God's spirit is an intermediary being between God and the
world. This activity is proper to the angels, although to
them is ascribed some of the activity that elsewhere is
ascribed to the spirit of God" (New Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, pg. 574).
In the Old Testament, God's Spirit is pictured as His power.
The power by which the One who became Jesus Christ, as Executive
for the Father, created the entirety of the universe. these
theologians also recognize that when the Spirit is spoken of as
a person or in a personal way, the Bible writer is merely
personifying the Spirit, as he would wisdom or any other
attribute.
Now what about the New 'Testament? They Say: "Although the
New Testament concepts of the Spirit of God are largely a
continuation of those of the Old Testament , in the New
Testament there is a gradual revelation that the Spirit of God
is a person."
But this would seem true only if you are armed with a
preconceived notion that God is a Trinity. We will see there are
only a few scriptures that can even remotely be construed as
presenting the Spirit as a person, and in each case only as the
result of a grammatical misunderstanding.
But again let's let the New Catholic Encyclopedia
continue.
"The majority of New Testament texts reveal God's spirit as
something, not someone; this is especially seen in the
parallelism between the spirit and the power of God."
Though theologians would like for the Bible to say that the
Spirit is a person, they must admit that the majority of the
scriptures connected with it show that it is not someone, but
something. Even the personification of the Spirit is no proof of
its personality.
"When a quasi-personal activity is ascribed to God's spirit,
e.g., speaking, hindering, desiring, dwelling (Acts 8 29;
16:7; Romans 8:9), one is not justified in concluding
immediately that in these passages God's spirit is regarded
as a Person; the same expressions are used in regard to
rhetorically personified things or abstract ideas (see
Romans 6:6; 7:17). Thus the context of the phrase 'blasphemy
against the spirit' (Mt. 12:31; cf. Mt. 12:28; Lk. 11:20)
shows that reference is being made to the power of God"
(New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIH, p. 575).
After such admissions, it is almost inconceivable that any
theologian could still teach that the Spirit is a person — yet
some do.
A Lesson in Greek Grammar
The one place that most theologians feel describes the Spirit
as a person is resolved by a lesson in the Greek language. In
the Greek language, like the Romance languages (Italian,
Spanish, French, and others), every noun has what is called
gender; that is, it is either masculine, feminine or neuter.
The gender of a word has nothing to do with whether it is really
masculine or feminine — it is more of a grammatical tool.
The verses most Trinitarian theologians will fall back on for
their proof that the Spirit is a person are in the 14th, 15th
and 16th chapters of John's Gospel. Here Jesus is recorded as
referring to the Spirit as "the Comforter." The pronoun "he" is
used in connection with the word "comforter" — parakletos
— however, the reason for the use of the personal pronoun "he"
is for grammatical, not theological, or spiritual reasons.
All pronouns in Greek must agree in gender with the word they
refer to, therefore the pronoun "he" is used when referring to
the Greek word parakletos. Only John refers to the Spirit
as the parakletos — "Comforter." The other New Testament
writers use the word pneuma which means "breath" or
"spirit." This is the Greek equivalent of ruah, the
Hebrew word for "spirit" used in the Old Testament. Pneuma
is a grammatically neuter word and is always represented by the
pronoun "it."
However, the translators of the King James Version, being
swayed by the doctrine of the Trinity, have generally
mistranslated the pronouns referring to pneuma as
masculine. One instance where they did not mistranslate is found
in Romans 8:16.
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our
spirit, that we are the children of God."
John's use of the parakletos is no proof the Spirit is
a person. For if the simple gender of a noun were the basis for
the personality of the Spirit, then the Spirit changed gender
from the Old to the New Testament, the Hebrew word for "spirit"
in the Old Testament being in the feminine gender in a majority
of cases and in a masculine sense less often.
The fact that the word "spirit" is feminine in the Hebrew did
lead some to believe that the Spirit was a feminine being of the
Godhead. They believed in a Trinity of the Father, the Mother
and the Son. Interestingly enough, their belief was condemned by
the Trinitarians who used the same kind of ploy to prove that
the Spirit was a masculine being!
The Holy Spirit — God's Begettal Power
What is the Spirit? As we saw earlier, theologians admit that
the Spirit of God is the power of God. They would have no reason
to believe otherwise unless they had a preconceived idea of a
Trinity.
The Spirit, or Holy Spirit, as it is called in the New
Testament, was the power by which Jesus Christ was begotten.
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as
his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came
together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost
[Spirit]" (Matthew 1:18).
When Joseph was about to put Mary away because she was
pregnant,
"the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream,
saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto
thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of
the Holy Ghost [Spirit]" (Matthew 1:20).
Jesus was begotten in the womb of Mary by the power of the
Holy Spirit. He was literally born with God's Spirit in His
mind. He became the Son of God and died for us that we might
have the same opportunity to become God.
The Apostle Paul plainly taught this vital scriptural truth
that we just read in Romans 8:16.
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that
we are the children of God."
Paul did not mean this in some sentimental sort of way, as he
goes on to show in the next verse.
"And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and
joint-heirs with Christ...."
Paul goes on to point out that Jesus Christ is the heir of
all things in Hebrews 1:2. We then have the opportunity, if we
have God's Spirit in our minds, to inherit all things with Jesus
Christ.
The Spirit of God unites with our minds, and we are as
begotten (or conceived} again — this time spiritually — not as
we originally were, physically. We become a new person.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again
unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from
the dead" (1Peter 1:3).
And verse 23 says,
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth
forever."
The Holy Spirit impregnates us with God's nature. That
spiritual begettal imbues us with the nature and mind of God.
Throughout our Christian lives we continue to grow and develop
in the understanding and mind of God until we are finally born
into the God family and made immortal at the return of Jesus
Christ to this earth (1Corinthians 15:49-52).
How can we obtain this Spirit? The answer was given by the
Apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost mentioned in Acts chapter
two. When Peter was asked at the end of his sermon what to do,
he answered-
"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive
the gift of the Holy Ghost [Spirit]" (Acts 2:38).
Here again we can see why the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit are mentioned in the "baptismal formula" in Matthew
28:19. God the Father is the One who brings us to repentance;
Jesus Christ — God the Son — is the one who died that we can
have our past sins forgiven; and the Holy Spirit is the power by
which God the Father begets us.
How plain the truth of the Bible is. The Holy Spirit is the
power of God. It is not a person. It is the power by which we
are begotten that we might become sons of God.
God is a Family?
Early theologians were driven by the need to explain the
appearance of Jesus Christ. Some found their explanation by
fabricating the Trinity doctrine. But since God is not a
Trinity and since Jesus Christ is God, what is the relationship
in the Godhead? Is God one, or are there two separate Gods and
is Christianity, therefore, polytheistic?
In Chapter Two we found that the Bible teaches that Jesus
Christ is the God of the Old Testament, and that He became flesh
and came to this earth to die for mankind. He is called the Son
of God and He calls God His Father. By now the relationship
should be coming clear — God is a family.
We found in Chapter Three that we also can become begotten
sons of God by the impregnation of God's Spirit — again a family
relationship.
When we understand that God is a family — that God is
reproducing after His kind — we are no longer confronted with
the problems inherent in the Trinity doctrine, nor are we faced
with the problem of worshipping many gods.
There is only one God family, yet there are presently two
members, and in the future there will be many more. Jesus
was called "the firstborn of many brethren"
(Romans 8:29)
Look at yourself. Whether married or single, you are part of
a family. You have parents and maybe even children or
grandchildren of your own. Yet, you are still one family.
It was God who created man and put him on the earth. He
created marriage and the family relationship as a type of His
divine family.
God's Name is Plural?
The Hebrew word for "God" used in Genesis 1:1 and 26 is
Elohim. Elohim is plural in form. Though this word taken by
itself does not prove that there are two beings in the Godhead,
it does allow for the plurality that is clearly indicated in
other parts of the Bible.
By what we can understand from the rest of the Bible, this
word Elohim can act like our English words "family,"
"group," "church," or "crowd." These words are often regarded as
singular and take a singular verb form, but they all contain
more than one member.
The Apostle Paul exemplifies this for us in 1 Corinthians
12:20. Speaking about the Church he says:
"But now are they many members, yet but one body."
God is a family. There presently are two members in that God
family, God the Father — the Head of the family, the Lawgiver —
and Jesus Christ the Son — the Spokesman, the Creator. But the
word Elohim is not just dual. There is a dual number in
Hebrew, but this would have to be Elohaim. The God
family, however, is destined to be truly plural — to have many
members. And this is what the word Elohim describes and
allows for.
Belief in a Trinity clouds the real purpose that God has in
store for mankind. If we are taught that God is a closed Trinity
of three persons, we lose sight of the fact that God's real
purpose is to create many more members of the God family.
Look at the creation account in Genesis 1: God created fish
after the fish kind, birds after the bird kind, and animals
after the animal kind. But in verse 26 God made man — not after
any of the animal kinds, but after the God kind — in God's image
and God's likeness.
"And God [Hebrew, Elohim] said, Let us make man in
our image, after our likeness: and let them
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and
over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
God created man in His own image. Man is greater than the
rest of the creation, because God gave him mind power. He has
dominion over all the creatures. Man is not an animal. He was
created in the image of God — after the God kind.
Taught in the New Testament
The Apostle John understood God's plans for man-kind. Notice
what he wrote in 1 John 3:1:
"Behold, what manner of love the Father [here is the
family relationship — not a closed trinity] hath bestowed
upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore
the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved,
now are we [already] the [begotten] sons of God, and it doth
not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when he
shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as
he is."
Jesus Christ, the One who was the God of the Old Testament,
the Creator God, became flesh, died and was resurrected as a
part of God's plan to make man God. Jesus Christ is not to be
the only son of God. He is the only born Son now, but as John
wrote, "when he shall appear, we shall be like him." We
are begotten sons now, and will be born sons of
God at the resurrection.
It is clearly God's plan to bring many sons into His family.
"For it became him, [God the Father] for whom are
all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many
sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation
[Jesus Christ] perfect through sufferings" (Hebrews
2:10).
The pages of the Bible are filled with this — God's great
purpose for man. And yet the majority of this world's Christians
are blinded to this central biblical truth. Why? Because Satan
has deceived the whole world (Revelation 12-9). God is not a
closed Trinity, He is a family — a family in which you can
become a member.
Why the Deception?
Why has Satan palmed off the doctrine of the Trinity on the
world? Because he doesn't want you to rule in his place! Satan
was originally created to carry out God's rule on earth. But, he
refused to serve the Creator and even fomented a rebellion to
dislodge God from His position as Ruler over the whole universe
(Ezekiel 28: l9; Isaiah 14:12-14). A third of the angels united
with Lucifer in that rebellion and were cast back down to this
earth with him (Revelation 12:3-4) — having forever disqualified
themselves and Satan from ruling in the government of God.
However, Satan and his demonic cohorts remain in office until
Christ actually returns.
Yet being disqualified, they do not want anyone else ever to
take their place. For that reason, during nearly 6000 years of
man, they have tried to hide from all the world the breathtaking
truth of God. If they can make you believe in the Trinity, you
will be deceived into thinking that the Godhead consists of
only three persons. You would then never in your wildest
dreams ever imagine that you were created to be born into the
God family — to actually have a part in ruling this earth!
Satan wants you to think that God is a limited Trinity — not
a growing family or Kingdom into which we may, through
the grace of God, enter.
There you have it. That is the truth about the Trinity. God's
family isn't closed to mankind as Satan would have you believe.
It's wide open to you, your family and all mankind. You can
be made in the exact likeness of God at Christ's return!
|