A terrific TRINITY Scripture passage

[Potluck]

So you do believe that the Father is greater than His Son?

1Co 12:15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
1Co 12:16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
1Co 12:17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
1Co 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
1Co 12:19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
1Co 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body

Is the will of God greater than the Father? Without the Word of God, without His will, His purpose there can be no God. Can God be God without His glory or without His power or without His righteousness?
You separate God into individual personages then ask is one greater than the other. The problem with that is your assumption that you can indeed divide God. You can no more do that than separate your spirit from who you are.

Scripture cannot lie. Christ said He would raise His body from the dead. The disciples testified God raised His body from the dead. I believe Christ and the testimony of the disciples.
I will not be enticed from that point. I will not follow you down the rabbit hole.
You like to separate things. Ok, who was right? Christ or His disciples?

Simple, isn't it?

 

[patience7]

The Hebrew word for 'one' in the sh'ma is ehhad (eh-hhad, the 'hh' is pronounced hard like the 'ch' in the name Bach). The word ehhad (noun) comes from the verbal root ahhad meaning "to unite." Ehhad is best translated with the word 'unit,' something that is part of the whole, a unit within a community. In the Hebrew mind everything is, or should be, a part of a unity. There is not one tree but a tree composed of units within the unity - roots, trunk, branches and leaves. A tree is also in unity with the other trees – the forest. A son is a unit within the brotherhood. From this we can conclude that the sh'ma is not speaking of Yahweh as a 'one and only' but as a unit of the whole.

A different word, but related to ehhad, is the word yahhiyd (ya-hheed) and is often thought to mean 'one' in the sense of 'one and only." The word yahhiyd comes from the verbal root yahhad meaning "to come together to be united." Yahhad is best translated as 'together,' in the sense of not being separated from the whole (See Genesis 22:6). The word yahhiyd is used for Isaac's son in Genesis 22:2 and is best translated as 'solitary,' something that is not united with the whole such as we can see in the following verse. "God sets the 'solitary' (yahhiyd) in families" (Psalm 68:6). An 'only' son is a 'solitary' son.
If ehhad means a unit and yahhiyd means solitary, then what is the Hebrew word for 'one' in the sense of a single entity or the number one?

originally posted by Jeff Benner

I have no idea what his theology is but this makes the most sense to me and my clearly lacking scholarly skills

Definition of echad from Strong's Concordance:

echad from the root achad which means to go one way of another, to be sharp
echad:
1) one (number)
a) one (number)
b) each, every
c) a certain
d) an (indefinite article)
e) only, once, one for all
f) one. . .another, the one. . .the other one after another, one by one
g) first
h) eleven (in combination); eleventh (ordinal, ordination)

I don't see "unity" in the definition given by Strong's.

For what its worth.

 

[Potluck]

Definition of echad from Strong's Concordance:

echad from the root achad which means to go one way of another, to be sharp
echad:
1) one (number)
a) one (number)
b) each, every
c) a certain
d) an (indefinite article)
e) only, once, one for all
f) one. . .another, the one. . .the other one after another, one by one
g) first
h) eleven (in combination); eleventh (ordinal, ordination)

I don't see "unity" in the definition given by Strong's.

For what its worth.

Wow. I sure do.

 

[patience7]

Wow. I sure do.

Ok :

 

[Free]

Deut 6:4 uses echad which simply means 'one' and can be used of a compound unity. What the Hebrew writers did not use of God anywhere in the OT was yachid, or 'only one', which is speaking of 'absolute unity'.

 

[theLords]

That succinctly states why I asked the question. If God is a person, and has persons within, it’s more than contradictory. It’s insane. At least by the standards of human experience. And what other standard do we really have. If the Bible contradicts human experience, the problem is with the Bible, written 2000+ years ago. And if a doctrine contradicts human experience, the problem is with the doctrine. In this case, a doctrine that was initially formulated 1500+ years ago.

The Bible says that mankind is created in the image and likeness of God, yet mankind isn’t a person with many persons within. Rather, mankind is a species of life, as the scientists would categorize homo sapiens. And the species isn’t a person. But within the species are many persons. Not just three, by the way.

We are created in the image of God: Body, Soul & Spirit. We can't separate our body from our soul (cause that means lights out) and we can't separate our spirit from our soul or body either. My soul (consciousness) is not my spirit (entire essence of being) and neither is my body (tangible). So we have God the Father, His Spirit, and His Word (Jesus). It makes sense to me I don't know where I fit in, in this debate, but the more I press into the issue the more I understand the Trinitarian side. What I've noticed with non-Trinitarians is they seem to actually be driven to polytheistic thinking. You brought up the JW's as being monotheists, but in fact, they believe Christ is a "lesser God" (so now they're up to two) who's not worthy of worship. (So in their attempt to be view God as one, they create a "created lesser God who they call "Jesus") I've come across other teachings which state that Christ was "created" and that He is God (once again we're up to two). Non-Trinitarians who believe Christ to be God will always have this problem of separating God into two (actual polytheism), while Non-Trinitarians who believe Christ is not God will have to deal with the problem of "Okay, so He's your Lord and Savior, but is the sacrifice of a man enough to cover the sins of the world?" And of course the Trinitarian questions are obvious. It seems to be a tough dilemma all around for everyone on all sides.

Let me ask the question in different words. How do the pronouns in Psalms 100 that clearly reveal God as a person relate to Biblical idea of the plurality of God (i.e., “us” and “Elohim” as a plural word for God) and the Trinitarian idea that God has more than one person within? Without a reasonable solution to this question, I’m afraid that I’ll have to think of this apparent conundrum as just another discrepancy in the Bible.

FC

I think you should substitute the word "Role" in where "person" should be and it would make more sense. We can have one man, who is the role of Father, Husband, Son. To his parents he is a son, he cannot be their father nor their husband. To his wife he is her husband, he cannot be her father nor her son. To his children he is their father, he cannot be their husband or their son.

If I've confused you more then sorry about that mate. I'm still searching like you are.

 

[patience7]

Deut 6:4 uses echad which simply means 'one' and can be used of a compound unity. What the Hebrew writers did not use of God anywhere in the OT was yachid, or 'only one', which is speaking of 'absolute unity'.

Oh, okay, so it is "implied" to be used here as a compound unity but its clearer meaning is "one". Correct?

 

[patience7]

The idea of the Trinity is just confusing to me:

God is the Father, God is the Son, God is the Holy Spirit.
The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.
Jesus is God but not the Father or the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is God, but he is not the Son or the Father.
The Father is God, but he is not the Son or the Holy Spirit.
Jesus prayed to God the Father without praying to himself because the Father is not the Son.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are fully God.

I think that is the explanation of the Trinity as I have read and looked into.

To me if they are all God then the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God then how: God is the Father but the Father is not the Son; how can this be if they are both God? (and so on)

Simple, NOT!

 

[stovebolts]

I've always like the way Augustine put it

“It is not easy to find a name that will suitably express so great an excellence, unless it is better to speak in this way: the Trinity, one God, of whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things.

Thus the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and each of these by Himself, is God, and at the same time they are all one God; and each of them by Himself is a complete substance, and yet they are all one substance.

The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit; the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son: but the Father is only Father, the Son is only Son, and the Holy Spirit is only Holy Spirit.

To all three belong the same eternity, the same unchangeableness, the same majesty, the same power. In the Father is unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Spirit the harmony of unity and equality.

And these three attributes are all one because of the Father, all equal because of the Son, and all harmonious because of the Holy Spirit.â€

–Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine, I.V.5.

 

[John Zain]

If in fact there are three persons to a "Trinitarian God" which I in fact do not believe based on my own relationship with God and sound scripture studies, then you have to admit that they need to be co-equal.
If they are co-equal, explain to me how the Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary and she became pregnant with Jesus?
It seems more confusing to believe in three persons then three titles. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all roles that God has. You can also think of these three roles as the Creator, the Savior and the Spirit.
Scripture is constantly referring to the oneness of Jesus and the Father, how they are one in the same: "I and my Father are one." John 10:30

In your relationship with God, did He tell you there is no Trinity?
You say They must be totally co-equal. Did God tell you that?

When to comes to spiritual things, you can forget intelligence, education, reasoning, etc.
Spiritual Truth comes only from spiritual revelation from the Spirit.

Why cannot They have different functions, for example:
Father = CEO ........... Son = Administrator ........... Holy Spirit = Work-horse

Aren't you confusing Jesus (the man) with God the Son who "took over" his body, etc.?

As to your verse, "one" can mean one in essence (God), one in absolute total unity, etc.

 

[Drew]

Here try this one former,

Deut 6:4 "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE.". In Hebrew it is known as the Sh'ma: "Sh'ma Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai ekhad".

For those that know Hebrew, the words Adonai, Eloheinu, and ekhad, are all plural. A direct translation is "Hear Israel, my Lords our Gods my Lords one." This is not a matter of semantics or a play on words, for if our God were not triune the Hebrew would read "Sh'ma Israel, Adoni Elenu, Adoni yakhid".

While I am not in a position to comment on the Hebrew terms, I would add to what you have said by pointing out the connection between this text from Deuteronomy and material in 1 Corinthians 8.

While I do not have time to provide the actual argument right now, the basic point is this: in 1 Corinthians 8, Paul is clearly thinking about Deuteronomy 6 and, in so doing, he discerns "Father" and a "Son" persons within the category of "God". The arguments for this have been presented in other threads and, in my judgement, have not been successfully refuted. I want to fine tune the relevant arguments and would not be able to post them for several weeks.

 

[Drew]

Also, God has many titles and roles, but that doesn't mean He is different persons. For example, I'm a wife, sister and daughter. At different points in my life, I have been given these roles but I am not three people.

All true, but this does not prove the "converse". In other words, the fact that different titles are used to describe God does not mean that, for other reasons, we
should not properly understand that there are indeed different "persons" within "God".

 

[teddy trueblood]

Deut 6:4 uses echad which simply means 'one' and can be used of a compound unity. What the Hebrew writers did not use of God anywhere in the OT was yachid, or 'only one', which is speaking of 'absolute unity'.

echad does simply mean ‘one.’ It does not mean ‘compound unity’ except [rarely] where it is already clear from context that more than one are spoken of in figurative language: “Behold, the people is one [echad], and they all have one language;” - Gen. 11:6, KJV. Also, Exodus 24:3; 2 Chron. 30:12; Jer. 32:39; Ezek. 11:19.

Even the highly trinitarian The Living Bible, which, being a paraphrase Bible, is able to (and frequently does) take great liberties with the literal Greek and Hebrew meanings in order to make better trinitarian interpretations, renders echad at Deut. 6:4 as “Jehovah is our God, Jehovah alone.” Notice that there’s not even a hint of a “plural oneness” Jehovah!

The equally trinitarian (and nearly as “freely” translated as The Living Bible) Good News Bible (GNB) renders it: “The LORD - and the LORD alone - is our God.” - Compare the equally “free-handed” (and trinitarian) The Amplified Bible.

And even among the more literal trinitarian translations of Deut 6:4 we find:
“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” - New Revised Standard Version.
“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone!” - New American Bible.
“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” - The Holy Bible in the Language of Today, Beck (Lutheran).
“Yahweh our God is the one, the only Yahweh.” - New Jerusalem Bible.
“Yahweh is our God, - Yahweh alone.” - The Emphasized Bible, Rotherham.
“The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” - An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed).
“The Eternal, the Eternal alone, is our God.” - A New Transation,Moffatt .

The paraphrased The Living Bible also renders Mark 12:29 (where Jesus quotes Deut. 6:4 and an excellent spot for him to reveal a “trinity” God --- or even just a “plural oneness” God) as: “The Lord our God is the one and only God.” Notice the further explanation of the intended meaning of this scripture at Mark 12:32, 34. “’... you have spoken a true word in saying that there is only one God and no other...’ Realizing this man’s understanding, Jesus said to him, ‘You are not far from the Kingdom of God.’”

Why doesn’t this highly interpretive trinitarian paraphrase Bible (or any other Bible for that matter) bring out a “plural oneness” meaning at these scriptures (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29) if that can be a proper interpretation for echad?

Surely, if the trinitarian scholars who made this Bible had thought there was even the slightest justification for an echad = “plural oneness” interpretation, they would have rendered it that way: “Jehovah is a compound unity;” or “Jehovah is the United One;” or “Jehovah is a plural oneness;” etc.

Yachid

: Did the Bible writers really use yachid whenever they meant “absolute unity”? We have already seen that they really used echad for “absolute mathematical oneness,” and a good concordance will show they did this consistently—many hundreds of times!

Yachid, on the other hand, is only used about 12 times in the entire Bible and then only in a narrow, specific sense.

The Old Testament language authority, Gesenius, tells us that yachid is used in three very specialized ways: (1) “only” but primarily in the sense of “only begotten”! - Gen. 22:2, 12, 16; Jer. 6:26; and Zech. 12:10. (2) “solitary” but with the connotation of “forsaken” or “wretched” ! - Ps. 25:16; 68:6. (3) As yachidah (feminine form) meaning “only one” as something most dear and used “poet[ically] for ‘life’ - Ps. 22:20; 35:17.” - p. 345 b.

We find yachid is never used to describe God anywhere in the entire Bible! But it is used to describe Isaac in his prefigured representation of the Messiah: Gen. 22:2, 12, 16. It is also used at Judges 11:34 for an only-begotten child. The ancient Greek Septuagint translates yachid at Judges 11:34 as monogenes (“only-begotten”): the same NT Greek word repeatedly used to describe Christ (even in his pre-human heavenly existence - 1 John 4:9). Monogenes, however, like the Hebrew yachid, is never used to describe the only true God, Jehovah (who is the Father alone).

So, if Jehovah were to describe himself as “forsaken” or “wretched,” or were speaking poetically about his “dear life,” or were describing himself as the “only-begotten son” (which he never does anywhere in the Bible!), then he might have used yachid.

 

[Asyncritus]

1Co 12:15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
1Co 12:16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
1Co 12:17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
1Co 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
1Co 12:19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
1Co 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body

I'm afraid you've lost me, potluck.

Care to explain?

Is the will of God greater than the Father? Without the Word of God, without His will, His purpose there can be no God. Can God be God without His glory or without His power or without His righteousness?
You separate God into individual personages then ask is one greater than the other. The problem with that is your assumption that you can indeed divide God. You can no more do that than separate your spirit from who you are.

I am not separating anything.

You know as well as I do the words: 1Cor 8.6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

The Holy Spirit is not even mentioned. Why not, do you think?

PAUL HAS DONE THE SEPARATING. I am merely following his lead. Are you?

Scripture cannot lie. Christ said He would raise His body from the dead. The disciples testified God raised His body from the dead. I believe Christ and the testimony of the disciples.

You were the one who quoted all those passages in Acts and 1 Cor showing that God raised Jesus up from the dead.

Jesus said that He was given the authority by His Father.

The two things are in total harmony - but you destroy that harmony by inserting a trinitarian understanding.

Do you really mean to tell me that Jesus, who was dead and buried, in hell for 3 days and nights, raised Himself up from the dead? How would He do that if He was really dead and not faking?

But the moment you adopt the apostles' position, everything is clear and simple. He died and was buried. God raised Him up from the dead.

I will not be enticed from that point. I will not follow you down the rabbit hole.

I'm not seeking to entice you down any rabbit hole. The facts are plain, you agree with them, but you will not draw the obvious conclusion.

What more can one say?

 

[patience7]

While I am not in a position to comment on the Hebrew terms, I would add to what you have said by pointing out the connection between this text from Deuteronomy and material in 1 Corinthians 8.

While I do not have time to provide the actual argument right now, the basic point is this: in 1 Corinthians 8, Paul is clearly thinking about Deuteronomy 6 and, in so doing, he discerns "Father" and a "Son" persons within the category of "God". The arguments for this have been presented in other threads and, in my judgement, have not been successfully refuted. I want to fine tune the relevant arguments and would not be able to post them for several weeks.

1 Corinthians 8 is speaking of touching things offered unto idols. Since you didn't put a verse I am going to assume you mean verse 6 -

v5 talks about there being many gods, and many lords whether in heaven or in earth then in contrast

v6: But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by him.

And you take that verse and assume that you know Paul is "clearly thinking about Deuteronomy"?

To me it means there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ. God, the Father in Christ and Christ is in us. (John 17:20,21,23; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Colossians 1:27)

 

[Asyncritus]

I think you've got the right of it, Patience.

Drew is hung up on Tom Wright's fancied 'expansion of' Deut 6.4 in 1 Cor 8.6 - when in point of fact Paul is merely re-iterating the beliefs of the whole church: which, to be fair, is rock-solidly based on Deut 6.4, innumerable passages in Isaiah, and Jesus' own clear and solid statement in Mark 12.29.

I keep telling him to forget theologians, and concentrate on the sacred text itself: which is a far more sensible way to proceed.

But will he listen?

 

[Asyncritus]

[...]

Thus the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and each of these by Himself, is God, and at the same time they are all one God; and each of them by Himself is a complete substance, and yet they are all one substance.

The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit; the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son: but the Father is only Father, the Son is only Son, and the Holy Spirit is only Holy Spirit.

To all three belong the same eternity, the same unchangeableness, the same majesty, the same power. In the Father is unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Spirit the harmony of unity and equality.

And these three attributes are all one because of the Father, all equal because of the Son, and all harmonious because of the Holy Spirit.”

–Augustine of Hippo, On Christian Doctrine, I.V.5.

Ho boy! Theologians again! What an intricate, convoluted mess of a piece of writing!

Notice anything missing from that masterpiece of convolution? Yeah. Scripture. Wonder why.

 

[teddy trueblood]

To me it means there is one God the Father and one Lord
Jesus Christ. God, the Father in Christ and Christ is in us. (John
17:20,21,23; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Colossians 1:27)

“In [en] someoneâ€

The NT word most often translated “in†(en) can also mean “with,†“by means of,†“through,†“aided by,†“in union with,†“under the control or influence of,†etc. [see note at end]

For example, expressions in the Bible like ‘in Christ’ - “denote membership in Christ and his church ... 1 Thess. 4:16; Ro. 8:1; 16:11†- Kittel, p. 233, and #45 in ‘Hints and Helps’, Young’s Analytical Concordance. And sure enough, when we look up these scriptures, we see that they use en , which is usually translated “in.†But notice how these trinitarian Bibles render these verses:

1 Th. 4:16 -
“the dead in [en] Christ shall rise first.†- NASB.

“the dead in union with [en] Christ will rise†- CBW.

“those who have died believing in [en] Christ will rise†- TEV (Cf 4:14).

“those who belong to [en] Christ will come out of their graves†- NLV.

“the believers who are dead will be the first to rise†- Living Bible.

“first those who died in union with [en] Christ will rise†- AT


In fact, the authoritative, trinitarian reference work, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says of some of the NT uses of the preposition

en (“inâ€) specifically as found in the phrase “in Christ†(en christo)
(a) Incorporative union: .... “those who are in union with Christ Jesus†(Ro. 8:1).... (b) Sphere of reference: “I know a Christian man†(2 Cor. 5:21). “We make our boast in the sphere of Christ Jesus†(Phil. 3:3)... (c) Agency or instrumentality: “They are justified ... through the redemption accomplished by Christ Jesus†(Ro. 3:24). “The veil is not lifted because only through Christ is it removed†(2 Cor. 3:14). (d) Cause:.... “All will be made alive by virtue of their connexion and solidarity with Christ†( 1 Cor. 15:22). (e) Mode:.... (f) Location: .... “Have this attitude among you that also characterized Christ Jesus†(Phil. 2:5). (g) Authoritative basis: “We urge you on the authority of the Lord Jesus†(1 Thess. 4:1).†- p. 1192, Vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.

And so it is that Jesus, in prayer to God, says: “As you, Father, are in
[en] me and I am in[en] you, may they [Jesus’ followers] also be in [en] us†- John 17:21, NRSV.

Since some trinitarians generally want some mysterious, physical “oneness†with Jesus and the Father to indicate that they are both, somehow, God, they usually leave
en in this scripture as the more literal “in.†However, the fact that Jesus’ followers, too, are to be en Jesus and en the Father makes it reasonable that a simple unity of purpose or agreement is being described here.

That is why even some trinitarian Bibles render John 17:21 as
“just as you, Father, are in union with me and I in union with you, for them to be in union with
[en] us†- CBW.

“... let them be in union with [en] us†- AT (Smith and Goodspeed).
“May they belong to [en] us†- NLV.

And respected trinitarian commentaries even explain that John 17:21 is telling us that there must be “unity among believers†- p. 280, Vol. V, Word Pictures in the New Testament, A.T. Robertson.

And noted trinitarian Bible scholar, translator, and commentator, William Barclay tells us:
“What was that unity for which Jesus prayed [in Jn 17:20,21]? It was not a unity of administration or organization; it was not in any sense an ecclesiastical unity. It was a unity of personal relationship. We have already seen that the union between Jesus and God was one of love and obedience. It was a unity of love for which Jesus prayed, a unity in which men loved each other because they loved him, a unity based entirely on the relationship between heart and heart.†- p. 218, Vol. 2, The Gospel of John, Revised ed., The Daily Study Bible Series, The Westminster Press, 1975.

We can see that there is no reason to take every use of “in†as found in the Bible to mean a literal, physical “existing within†(or “immanenceâ€)! And this is especially true when it speaks of one or more persons being “in†another person or persons.

(Compare John 6:56; 14:20; 15:4, 5; 17:23; Ro. 8:10; 2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 2:20; Col. 1:27; 1 John 3:24; 4:13; 4:15; 4:16.)

……………..

Note:

Young’s Analytical Concordance tells us that en (or en) may be rendered into English as “in,’ ‘by,’ ‘with,’ ‘through,’ etc. – Eerdmans Publ., 1978 printing.

Daniel Wallace in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics says with respect to the preposition en that it is "the workhorse of prepositions in the NT, occurring more frequently and in more varied situations than any another." A footnote to this comment on p. 372 adds "Even BAGD (s.v. en, 258) recognizes the difficulty of cataloging every usage: 'The uses of this prep. are so many-sided, and oft. so easily confused, that a strictly systematic treatment is impossible.' "


Any cut-and-paste material is from my own original files. These files which I have originated have also been posted at numerous places on-line at various times over the past 15 years.
- Ted

 

[patience7]

“In [en] someoneâ€

The NT word most often translated “in†(en) can also mean “with,†“by means of,†“through,†“aided by,†“in union with,†“under the control or influence of,†etc. [see note at end]

For example, expressions in the Bible like ‘in Christ’ - “denote membership in Christ and his church ... 1 Thess. 4:16; Ro. 8:1; 16:11†- Kittel, p. 233, and #45 in ‘Hints and Helps’, Young’s Analytical Concordance. And sure enough, when we look up these scriptures, we see that they use en , which is usually translated “in.†But notice how these trinitarian Bibles render these verses:

1 Th. 4:16 -
“the dead in [en] Christ shall rise first.†- NASB.

“the dead in union with [en] Christ will rise†- CBW.

“those who have died believing in [en] Christ will rise†- TEV (Cf 4:14).

“those who belong to [en] Christ will come out of their graves†- NLV.

“the believers who are dead will be the first to rise†- Living Bible.

“first those who died in union with [en] Christ will rise†- AT


In fact, the authoritative, trinitarian reference work, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says of some of the NT uses of the preposition

en (“inâ€) specifically as found in the phrase “in Christ†(en christo)
(a) Incorporative union: .... “those who are in union with Christ Jesus†(Ro. 8:1).... (b) Sphere of reference: “I know a Christian man†(2 Cor. 5:21). “We make our boast in the sphere of Christ Jesus†(Phil. 3:3)... (c) Agency or instrumentality: “They are justified ... through the redemption accomplished by Christ Jesus†(Ro. 3:24). “The veil is not lifted because only through Christ is it removed†(2 Cor. 3:14). (d) Cause:.... “All will be made alive by virtue of their connexion and solidarity with Christ†( 1 Cor. 15:22). (e) Mode:.... (f) Location: .... “Have this attitude among you that also characterized Christ Jesus†(Phil. 2:5). (g) Authoritative basis: “We urge you on the authority of the Lord Jesus†(1 Thess. 4:1).†- p. 1192, Vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.

And so it is that Jesus, in prayer to God, says: “As you, Father, are in
[en] me and I am in[en] you, may they [Jesus’ followers] also be in [en] us†- John 17:21, NRSV.

Since some trinitarians generally want some mysterious, physical “oneness†with Jesus and the Father to indicate that they are both, somehow, God, they usually leave
en in this scripture as the more literal “in.†However, the fact that Jesus’ followers, too, are to be en Jesus and en the Father makes it reasonable that a simple unity of purpose or agreement is being described here.

That is why even some trinitarian Bibles render John 17:21 as
“just as you, Father, are in union with me and I in union with you, for them to be in union with
[en] us†- CBW.

“... let them be in union with [en] us†- AT (Smith and Goodspeed).
“May they belong to [en] us†- NLV.

And respected trinitarian commentaries even explain that John 17:21 is telling us that there must be “unity among believers†- p. 280, Vol. V, Word Pictures in the New Testament, A.T. Robertson.

And noted trinitarian Bible scholar, translator, and commentator, William Barclay tells us:
“What was that unity for which Jesus prayed [in Jn 17:20,21]? It was not a unity of administration or organization; it was not in any sense an ecclesiastical unity. It was a unity of personal relationship. We have already seen that the union between Jesus and God was one of love and obedience. It was a unity of love for which Jesus prayed, a unity in which men loved each other because they loved him, a unity based entirely on the relationship between heart and heart.†- p. 218, Vol. 2, The Gospel of John, Revised ed., The Daily Study Bible Series, The Westminster Press, 1975.

We can see that there is no reason to take every use of “in†as found in the Bible to mean a literal, physical “existing within†(or “immanenceâ€)! And this is especially true when it speaks of one or more persons being “in†another person or persons.

(Compare John 6:56; 14:20; 15:4, 5; 17:23; Ro. 8:10; 2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 2:20; Col. 1:27; 1 John 3:24; 4:13; 4:15; 4:16.)

……………..

Note:

Young’s Analytical Concordance tells us that en (or en) may be rendered into English as “in,’ ‘by,’ ‘with,’ ‘through,’ etc. – Eerdmans Publ., 1978 printing.

Daniel Wallace in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics says with respect to the preposition en that it is "the workhorse of prepositions in the NT, occurring more frequently and in more varied situations than any another." A footnote to this comment on p. 372 adds "Even BAGD (s.v. en, 258) recognizes the difficulty of cataloging every usage: 'The uses of this prep. are so many-sided, and oft. so easily confused, that a strictly systematic treatment is impossible.' "


Any cut-and-paste material is from my own original files. These files which I have originated have also been posted at numerous places on-line at various times over the past 15 years.
- Ted

Thank you for the information; now tell me what you said It is God in Christ is us - right?

 

[Free]

Oh, okay, so it is "implied" to be used here as a compound unity but its clearer meaning is "one". Correct?

Not quite. This verse neither says that God is an absolute unity nor that he is a compound unity. However, it does leave the door open for him being a compound unity.

Many non-trinitarians use this verse as an anti-trinitarian verse--"God is one." But that is an incorrect use as it says nothing of the nature of God. It is a claim to monotheism, that God is the only God, which trinitarians agree with.