Why the Trinity Makes Sense
Groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses sometimes point out that the Trinity is never mentioned in the Bible and yet traditional Christianity uses the Trinity as one of its major tests of orthodoxy. Could the Trinity be so important if it is never mentioned in the Bible? Does it even make sense? When you study early church history, you see that there were some very complex arguments that were used to develop the doctrine of the Trinity. Most pastors and probably many theologians would have difficulty sorting through all the discussions of how the human and divine natures were present in Jesus. What are we to make of all this?
First of all, it must be noted that there were other competing views of Jesus in the early church. The Ebionites were a group of Jewish Christians who believed that Jesus was the Messiah but that he was not divine. The Arians believed that Jesus was some sort of divine being but that he was not equal to God, being merely a creation of God. We saw in the post Divinity By Decree: Part Two that there is a very strong and consistent theme in the New Testament of Jesus being a divine being. Does this get us to the Trinity?
The place we need to start is the Shema, the ancient Hebrew creed that there is only one God. We find in Mark 12:29 that Jesus himself affirmed Jewish monotheism. Jesus confirms for us that there is only one God. So what do we do with the divine descriptions of Jesus? Ancient groups such as the Arians and modern groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses attempt to put Jesus as a separate being. Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus is the archangel Michael. This is problematic. The first chapters of Hebrews go to great lengths to show that Jesus is not an angel. If you translate ‘archangel’ as ‘head of the angels’ rather than the ‘head angel,’ you are left with a Jesus who is not an angel but is a god (which is how the New World Translation puts John 1:1). However, this goes against the monotheism that Jesus affirmed. Jesus cannot be an angel and he cannot be a separate god. At the same time we have these divine descriptions of Jesus. What is the answer?
The Bible does present us with some proto-trinitarian passages such as 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 and Matthew 28:19 where Father, Son and Spirit are put together in a very interesting way. We also have the intriguing statement in John 10:30 where Jesus says “The Father and I are one.” These are not full fledged trinitarian statements but they are beginning a trajectory that made it inevitable for the early church, as it attempted to be faithful to the witness of biblical revelation, to arrive at the Trinity. It is the only explanation that retains monotheism and still accepts the divine descriptions of Jesus.
Many people still struggle with the Trinity and I can understand that as it is confusing. How can one plus one plus one equal one and not three? It is not logical. Personally I think that ‘one’ is an inadequate number to represent God. If we replace ‘one’ with ‘infinity’ (a much more fitting value for an eternal God), we have infinity plus infinity plus infinity equals infinity (not 3infinity). There are other explanations of the Trinity, but this is one that I have found helpful. My main point is that the doctrine of the Trinity is the only explanation that makes sense of all the biblical data.
Hi,
Here is the link I mentioned https://deimos.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/itunes.stanford.edu.1291405182
This is classic ‘Jesus Seminar’, Ludemann type method. He is a good speaker but has questionable methodology.
My view about Trinity and let me explain – hope I make myself understandable.
Let me introduce myself as a born and practicing Christian- (Roman) Catholic from India- south most tip of India – Tamil nadu- Capcomerin.
I believe in Christ, Bible – and in Church.
Time memorial man wants to know and understand THE GOD.
THE GOD, the super being, cannot be measured, counted or contained- so the questions of why three and why not four persons are not relevant.
But the concept of TRINITY, as church teaches, is for our understanding of THE GOD better and how we, the individual, can perceive THE GOD. The concept of Holy Trinity is the best, possibly only way, to achieve that.
Holy Trinity is a concept belonging to not only Christians and I think it is a concept with almost all the religions- which do not stop with social concerns but also concerns of realization of “THE GOD”.
Having said that let me put my thought on THE GOD and Holy Trinity in perspective.
THE GOD, The Supreme Being is Omni potent, Omni present, most merciful, most ….. (All are superlative words which a human being cannot comprehend.), manifests to us as the following:
• In the beginning God….. (Gen 1:001) – The Father first person of The Holy Trinity
• … and the Word was with God, (John 1:001) (Word- Power- energy- sprit,-the Holy Sprit,) The third person … …
• And the Word was made flesh (John 1:014) (matter- the perishable- God in the form of human body- The Christ) The Second person … …
The Father maker of heaven and earth, seen and unseen … is common to all mankind… to all… the good, the bad, the able, the disable, of all races, colour or caste….is The God for all mankind.
The Son, The Saviour, the way and the truth and the life… (John 14:6) as a High Priest ( as St. Paul calls him) leads us, the faithful, towards THE GOD, is the God for all those who believe him and follow him.
The Holy Sprit, the comforter… the giver of life… Resides in us and prompts, helps the individual to communicate and to know THE GOD, is a God to me, the individual.
To Know THE GOD, We should
• Accept with thanks this world as created and given to us by The God The Father
• Follow the life and teachings of The God the Son meticulously
• Meditate and communicate with the help of The God the Holy Spirit in us
THE GOD alone can make it known to us by revealing HIMSELF.
Many who take issue with Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “New World Translation” of ‘theos’ in John 1:1c (as, “a god”) often miss the point that this is ‘a singular anarthrous predicate noun *preceding the verb*’ – that is, not just that use of the noun ‘theos’ in the third clause lacks the Greek definite article.
This would explain why some of the examples many feel inclined to provide (John 1, verses 2, 6, 12, 13, 18 and 51), that is, as NWT violations of another guideline (that these also do not have the Greek definite article, and yet they translate these as “God”), do not apply; and this is simply because, those other instances do not fit the same Grammatical, syntatical criteria as that found within John 1:1c.
For some specific examples which do, that is, those which represent the same, basic Greek, grammatical construction of John 1:1c, please examine the following verses within your own prefered translation of the Bible and see whether the translators had inserted either an “a” or “an” there:
Mark 6:49
Mark 11:32
John 4:19
John 6:70
John 8:44a
John 8:44b
John 9:17
John 10:1
John 10:13
John 10:33
John 12:6
At each of those verses, identity of the one discussed was not at issue; no, but rather, the class of the individual is. Therefore, as can be seen, at those verses, most all versions of the Bible can be found to have added either an “a” or “an” to the translated text. Following this same syntactatical pattern, at John 1:1c, Jesus (“the Word”) can also be properly identified as “a god,” and not as “God,” the one he was just said to be “with” (1:1b).
Taking this one step further, regarding the suggestion that such a rendering would be in direct violation of the cultural, religious, strictly monotheistic view of the Jews of this period, apparently, because of theological bias, many, in fact, fail to consider just such facts. One need examine most any Bible commentary about Jesus’ use of Psalm 82:6 within John 10:34 to see the cultural context of such legitimate uses ‘theos’ for others, that is, beside its application to Jesus.
With reference to such considerations, please see this insightful statement, made by a Trinitarian scholar:
“The Hebrew for ‘gods’ (‘el?hîm) could refer to various exalted beings besides Yahweh [or, Jehovah], without implying any challenge to monotheism,…”
Taken from: Blomberg, Craig L. (b.?-d.?). “The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary.” (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, c2002), “The feast of Dedication” ([John] 10:22-42), p. 163. BS2615.6.H55 B56 2002 / 2001051563.
Curiously, another Trinitarian had made the same observation; but this time, when discussing John 1:1, making direct allusion to John 10:34 –
“…the Logos was God…. It [the Greek word Logos, more commonly translated “Word”], signifies, among the Jews and other ancient people, when applied to God, every thing by which God reveals Himself to men, and makes known to them His will. In this passage [John 1:1] the principal proof [for “the Word” being identified as God] does not lie in the word [Greek, ‘logos’], nor even in the word [Greek, ‘theos’], which in a larger sense is often applied to kings and earthly rulers,…”
Taken from: Knapp, Georg[e] Christian (b.1753-d.1853), D.D., Professor of Theology in the University of Halle. “Lectures on Christian Theology.” Translated by Woods, Leonard (b.?-d.?), Jun.D.D., President of Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine. Second American Edition, Reprinted from the last London Edition. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Thomas Wardle, 1845), pp. 136, 137. BT75 .K64 1845 / 35-22780.
Furthermore, there is this:
“If Moses could be [called in Hebrew ‘elohim,’ often translated as ‘a god,’ at Exodus 4:16 and 7:1], then, for the gospel writers, so could Jesus [in Greek as ‘theos’ = elohim], who was regarded by the New Testament [writers] as the very least a new Moses.”
Taken from: Fletcher-Louis, Crispin (b.?-d.?). “4Q374: A Discourse on the Sinai Tradition: The Deification of Moses and Early Christology.” Article appearing within: Dead Sea Discoveries, A Journal of Current Research on the Scrolls and Related Literature. (Leiden, Netherlands; New York, New York: E. J. Brill, vol. 1, no. 1; April 1994–), vol. 3, no. 3 (1996), p. 252. BM487.A6 E6 / 96647062.
Quite interestingly, when discussing John 10:34 & 35, although most Bible commentaries accurately discuss/explain the Bible’s legitimate uses of the Hebrew and Greek terms for “god” for others throughout a number of places within the Bible (that is, as utilized in a lesser role than in its typical uses for the Almighty, Jehovah), many fail to follow through, that is, in making the logical, Scriptural connection between this and its lesser use for Jesus at John 1:1c.
Perhaps it would interest some to know that, when translating John 1:1c, during the first few centuries after Christianity had begun, two of the earliest known Christian translations of the Greek ‘New Testament’ into a foreign language had utilized their own languages’ indefinite article there as well (for, in the Greek language of Jesus’ day, there were no indefinite articles); and again, all in order to complete the proper sense of the phrase from the Koine Greek (of which, people were still using during this period), both of these translations rendered John 1:1c (when translated to English), “and the Word was a god.”
For this, please examine the contents of the following link:
http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2006/09/john-11c-word-was-god.html
Obviously, there need be more evidence to substantiate such a position; but, otherwise, that is just one of the many points I hope to bring out within my forthcoming work entitled, “What About John 1:1?”
Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://wwww.goodcompanionbooks.com
Thanks Alan, for your thoughtful comment. I respect the fact that you have put so research into that. I would like to touch on some of what you said and if I neglect anything, please bring me back to it.
First of all, please not that I did not mention any Greek problems with John 1:1, as I understand the possible meanings.
Secondly, I am aware that there are other beings that are called elohim. Most often these are angels. The problem with this for Jehovah’s Witnesses is that Hebrews specifically says that Jesus is not an angel, and so Jesus can not be that type of elohim.
Thirdly, you are right that elohim is used in reference to Moses in Exodus 4:16. But the Hebrew is more specifically lelohim, that is as a god. It is not saying that Moses is a god but that Mose would play a similar role to Aaron as YHWH plays to Moses.
My main point is that Jesus cannot be a god in the sense that angels are gods because Hebrews says that Jesus is not an angel, Jesus is not a god in the way Moses was as it refers to Jesus’ nature and not just an analogy of roles, and finally Jesus cannot be a separate god aside from angels as that would contradict monotheism. Does that make sense?
Further, you can gain insight into what was meant, by seeing how those in that day took the claims of Jesus. Yes, many will look at John 8:58 or 10:30 and say “it didn’t really mean that”, but what about 8:59 or 10:31? Based on what the Pharisees heard Jesus say, they were ready to stone Him for what they perceived as blasphemy. Why? B/c He said He was “a” god, or b/c He said He was “God”? It becomes more obvious once you look at it in context, rather than just the verse(s) in question.
I appreciate the work you have evidently done in this arena, but countless others have also done such work, and the general consensus (outside of JW, of course), is that the lack of the article “a” is appropriate.
Genesis 1
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
John 8:12 King James Version (KJV)
12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
The Son of God was created above all creation …
ALL things were created through him and for him …
I can’t see that another name for the Son of God was or is Michael …eek
Can you see him now? ???