|
Those who hold to the trinity
will say that we can start to see this doctrine in the very first
chapter of Genesis. In Genesis 1:26 it states:
And God said, Let us make man
in our image, after our likeness:
The
word for “God” is “Elohim.” Some might read this and notice,
“Let US make
man in OUR
image, after OUR
likeness.”
The
“US” is not identified, but trinitarians will argue that this
reveals the internal plurality of individuals in the one God. This is
the first pit stop to try to prove the trinity. What is applied to
scripture is an interpretation that expresses the interpreter’s own
bias, idea, or the like, rather than the meaning of the texts. This
is called, ‘eisegesis’ (ahy-si-jee-sis). What happens is that the
person injects his own ideas into the text and therefore can make it
mean whatever he wants. On the other hand, we have the term
‘exegesis’ (ek-si-jee-sis).
Biblical exegesis is a systematic process by which a person arrives
at a reasonable and coherent sense of the meaning and message of a
biblical passage. This is accomplished by comparing scripture with
scripture.
Elohim
Does Not Mean A Plurality Of Individuals
Therefore,
though the Hebrew word for Elohim is God, it does not mean a
“plurality of individuals.” In Exodus 7:1, Moses is called
Elohim. Does this make him God? Furthermore, does this make him a
plurality of individuals? The pagan god Dagon is called Elohim (1
Sam. 5:7), so is Chemosh (Jud. 11:24) and Baal (1 Kings 18:24). Are
all these a plurality of individuals?
Elohim
in the plural means “gods” not persons. Thus, the argument that
its plural usage means a trinity would tend to
mean that there are
“three gods,” not three persons in one God. For that matter,
where do they come up with the number three, why not five, seven, or
ten individuals?
Here
are some facts about the word Elohim:
-
Elohim
is singular in its meaning when referring to the One God. This is
evident by the singular verbs that follow and by thousands of
singular pronouns. Example. Over 11,000 times the singular pronouns
tell us God is a single person. When scriptures refer to the one God
in the third person the pronouns used are, “He” or “him” or
“his.” Notice the very next verse after Genesis 1:26. Verse 27
says, “So God
created man in HIS
own image, in the image of God created HE
him; male and female created HE
them.” Even Jesus
reiterated this in Mark 10:6 when he stated, “But from the very
beginning of creation, God made them male and female…” Jesus did
not say, “We
created them.” God created all things alone, by Himself (Isa.
44:24)
-
Elohim
has a plural meaning when it refers to pagan “gods.”
-
Elohim
has a singular meaning when designating a single pagan god, Milchom,
Astarte, etc.
-
Elohim,
El, Eloah, and Yahweh are identical in meaning and singular in
meaning when referring to the one true God. They are replaced by
singular personal pronouns.
So
if you read the scriptures carefully, you will notice that all of the
verses preceding and following Genesis 1:26 are consistent in using
the singular pronoun “He” when referring to God our creator. Note
the following:
And God called the light day, and
the darkness He
(singular pronoun) called night. And there was evening and there was
morning, one day. (Genesis 1:5)
And God called the dry land
earth, and the gathering of the waters He
(singular pronoun)
called seas; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:10)
Then God made two great lights:
the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the
night. He
(singular pronoun) made the stars also. (Genesis 1:16)
This is the book of the
generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He
(singular pronoun)
made him in the likeness of God. He
(singular pronoun) created them male and female, and He
(singular pronoun)
blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.
(Genesis 5:1-2)
Whoever sheds man's blood, by man
his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He
(singular pronoun) made man. (Genesis 9:6)
See
how it works?
So
Who Is God Talking With In Genesis 1:26?
Since
Jesus did not physically exist at the time (more on pre-existence
later), we can draw the conclusion that God is speaking to members of
his heavenly court (Ps. 82:1), not to Himself.
When God speaks of "us"
and "our," we can stand on safe ground that he is
addressing His ministering angels. When we get to the end of the
third chapter of Genesis, God placed cherubim with a flaming sword to
guard the way of the tree of life. Notice what God says when speaking
with the cherubim:
Then the LORD God said, “Behold,
the man has become like one of US
in knowing good and evil. (Gen. 3:22-24)
If
we compare scripture with scripture, we will find that at the time of
creating the earth, God has his heavenly court that is filled with
ministering angels, and we can safely assume He is referring to them
when using the plural pronoun “Us." “And the LORD God said,
Behold, the man is become as one of us,” or “Come, let us go
down” (Gen. 11:7; see also Isaiah 6:8, I Kings 22:19-23, Job 15:8,
and Jeremiah 23:18).
How
many surround God’s throne in His heavenly court? According to the
bible, millions of them.
Twenty-four other thrones were in
a circle around that throne. And on each of these thrones there was
an elder dressed in white clothes and wearing a gold crown. (Rev.
4:4)
I looked, I heard the voices of a
lot of angels around
the throne and the voices
of the living creatures
and of the elders. There were millions
and millions
of them… (Rev. 5:11)
Besides
the twelve elders, there are lots of angels and living creatures
where there are millions and millions of them. Given the information
we have, we can safely assume they have been there with God when He
created the world.
When angels appear in the OT they
are frequently described as men (Gen. 18:2). And in fact, the use of
the singular verb in v. 27 does in fact suggest that God worked alone
in the creation of mankind. ‘Let us create man’ should therefore
be regarded as a divine announcement to the heavenly [angelic] court,
drawing the angelic host’s attention to the master stroke of
creation, man. As Job 38:4, 7 puts it: ‘When I laid the foundation
of the earth all the Sons of God shouted for joy’ (cp. Luke
2:13-14)." 1
Genesis
1:26 Does Not Prove The Trinity.
It
is now universally admitted by scholars, and even trinitarian
scholars, that the use of the plural in Gen. 1:26 did not mean God
was more than one person, but the average person who still clings
to Genesis 1:26 to support the
trinity are not aware of this or simply ignore it. Please read the
following. (Online Sources Used):
Cyril
Richardson, professor of church history at New York's Union
Theological Seminary, though a dedicated Trinitarian himself, said
this in his book The
Doctrine of The Trinity:
My conclusion, then, about the
doctrine of the Trinity is that it is an artificial construct…It
produces confusion rather than clarification; and while the problems
with which it deals are real ones, the solutions it offers are not
illuminating. It has posed for many Christians dark and mysterious
statements, which are ultimately meaningless, because it does not
sufficiently discriminate in its use of terms" (1958, pp. 148
and 149). He also admitted, "Much of the defense of the Trinity
as a 'revealed' doctrine, is really an evasion of the objections that
can be brought against it. (p. 16).
A
Dictionary of Religious Knowledge
states regarding the trinity:
Precisely what that doctrine is,
or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not
agreed among themselves" (Lyman Abbott, editor, 1885,
Trinitarians").
Millard
Erickson, research professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary, writes that the trinity:
is not clearly or explicitly
taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central
doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it
goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom of biblical doctrine,
namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural
clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the
church. "In view of the difficulty of the subject and the great
amount of effort expended to maintain this doctrine, we may well ask
ourselves what might justify all this trouble" (God in Three
Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 1995, p. 12).
Professor
Erickson further states that the trinity teaching:
is not present in biblical
thought, but arose when biblical thought was pressed into this
foreign mold [of Greek concepts].
Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond and even distorts what
the Bible says about God (p. 20).
The
Catholic Encyclopedia:
It is manifest that a dogma so
mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation.- The Catholic
Encyclopedia, (1912, Vol. 15, p 47-49)
Professor
Erickson also points out:
It is claimed that the doctrine
of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine.
If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly,
directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine
that especially constitutes Christianity's uniqueness…how can it be
only implied in the biblical revelation? For here is a seemingly
crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly.
"Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is
unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the
doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion"
(pp. 108 and 109).
The
Catholic Encyclopedia
states:
In Scripture there is as yet no
single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together.
The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is
first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . Shortly
afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in
Tertullian.-The Catholic Encyclopedia,( 1912, Vol. 15, Trinity, p 47)
Graham
Greene - (Catholic scholar):
Our opponents sometime claim that
no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated
in Scripture...but the Protestant churches have themselves accepted
such dogmas as the Trinity , for which there is no such precise
authority in the Gospels.
Trinitarian
scholar Shirley C. Guthrie states:
The Bible does not teach the
doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word "trinity" itself
nor such language as 'one-in-three,' 'three-in-one,' one 'essence'
(or "substance"), and three 'persons' is biblical language.
The language of the doctrine is the language of the ancient church
taken from classical Greek philosophy. (From his book Christian
Doctrine, p. 76-77).
Trinitarians
Roger Olson and Christopher Hall state in their book The
Trinity:
It is understandable that the
importance placed on this doctrine is perplexing to many lay
Christians and students. Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally
stated in Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity developed gradually
after the completion of the N.T. in the heat of controversy. The
full-blown doctrine of the Trinity was spelled out in the fourth
century at two great ecumenical councils: Nicea (325 A.D.) and
Constantinople (381 A.D.)
Harper-Collins
Bible Encyclopedia of Catholicism
- (1995 Edition) states:
Today, however, scholars
generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in
either the Old Testament or the New Testament ...It would go far
beyond the intention and thought-forms of the Old Testament to
suppose that a late-fourth century or thirteenth-century Christian
doctrine can be found there. Likewise, the New Testament does not
contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.
Now,
how ironic can this be? It is totally mind boggling as the teaching
itself. We have trinitarians against the trinity! They admit
in their own writings that the doctrine of the trinity is not
explicitly taught in the scriptures! I will have to say, though, that
these scholars are more honest in their conclusion than the average
churchgoers who have been strongly influenced and deceived by this
false doctrine. To dare question it is to be met with fear and
slanderous labeling from them. They will use all methods of
intimidation tactics to keep us in deception.
Anyone
who tries to introduce the polytheistic concept of the trinity into
the monotheistic Hebrew scriptures proves to me that they are
dishonest and outright deceptive in their effort of defending a
teaching that is not even taught in the bible! It is a doctrine based
on the foundation of lies and nothing more than Greek philosophical
myths.
______________________________________________________________
|