is there trinity or not?

[Drew]

I am going to repost an argument I have made in other threads to the effect that Jesus sees Himself as the very embodiment of Israel's God - and is therefore "God in the flesh" as it were. This is long-ish, so there will be multiple posts:

Part 1:

One Old Testament theme is often overlooked is the theme of the promised return of YHWH to Zion – that though God has abandoned His people through the exile, He will, one day, return to them. A wide range of Old Testament texts embody this hope. Here are just two:

Ezekiel 43:1-7:

Then he led me to the gate, the gate facing toward the east; 2and behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the way of the east[ And His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory. 3And it was like the appearance of the vision which I saw, like the vision which I saw when He came to destroy the city And the visions were like the vision which I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face. 4And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate facing toward the east. 5And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house. 6Then I heard one speaking to me from the house, while a man was standing beside me. 7He said to me, "Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever And the house of Israel will not again defile My holy name, neither they nor their kings, by their harlotry and by the corpses of their kings when they die,…

Remember the context. The Jews are in a state of exile. The temple had been abandoned by God and destroyed. This vision given to Ezekiel constitutes a promise that God will return to inhabit the “temple†once more.

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

This material, just like the Ezekiel text, was written during the time of exile. Once more we have a promised return of God to the temple.

These and other texts express a deep hope of the Jewish nation – the God that had abandoned them will one day return to them. When we forget such expectations, and reduce the discussion of Jesus’ divinity to technical matters about the boundaries between the concept of “man†and of “godâ€, we entirely overlook what really matters – the Jewish matrix of expectation into which Jesus was born. I suggest the Biblically literate 1st century Jew would be anticipating this return. If that Jew were being true to the Biblical tradition, he would at least be open to the possibility that YHWH might return to His people in the form of a “humanâ€. From the famous throne chariot vision of Ezekiel 1:

And there came a voice from above the expanse that was over their heads; whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings. 26Now above the expanse that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like lapis lazuli in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was a figure with the appearance of a man.

I want to be clear: this and other texts such as Daniel 7 only hint at a possibility - there is no strong and pervasive theme in the Old Testament that clearly anticipates the notion of God incarnated in the form of man. But, and this is key, neither is such a possibility over-ruled, with texts like this one from Ezekiel and the one from Daniel 7 giving the hint of the possibility a divine human figure.

This is why arguments against Jesus’ divinity that are grounded in conceptual distinction entirely miss the point (e.g. Jesus is man, and a man cannot be God, Jesus is the “son†of God and therefore cannot be God, etc.). The real issue is the grand plan of covenantal redemption that we see woven through both testaments. If honouring the coherence of that story leads us to see Jesus as divine, so be it – the conceptual distinctions are derivative, not fundamental.

As I argue below, Jesus clearly sees Himself as fitting into the story in a specific way – it is His life’s work to embody the promised return of YHWH to Zion. And that makes Him “divineâ€, with divinity understood in the appropriate framework – not the framework of conceptual categories that have little connection to large Biblical narrative of covenantal redemption, but rather in the context of a God who promised to return to His people. In that framework, we have a young Jew named Jesus who saw Himself as called to the vocation of implementing that promised return.

 

[Drew]

Part 2 (last part)

Much of the gospel of Luke is the story of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. Towards the end of that journey, Jesus tells the parable of the returning king – the story of a king who goes away and then returns to call his servants to account. This parable is found in Luke 19:11 and following.

This parable has almost universally been understood to constitute a statement by Jesus that He will go away, though crucifixion, resurrection, and then ascension, only to return in the future (i.e. in the 2nd coming). On such a reading, Jesus sets Himself, as He tells the parable, in the role of the king who is about to leave.

I suggest this is not the correct reading. Instead, we should understand that in telling the parable, Jesus is setting Himself in the role of the returning king, not the departing one. On such a reading, the departing king represents YHWH leaving his people by abandoning the temple and sending the Jews into exile, something that lies in the past of Jesus’ audience. If this interpretation is correct, Jesus can logically fill only one role in the parable: YHWH returning to Zion as promised. And this means, of course, that Jesus is the embodiment of Israel’s God.

Why should we read the parable this way? Well, for starters, the parable does not really work on its traditional reading. Note what happens to the third servant – all that he has is taken from him. This really cannot be reconciled with the notion that the returning King is Jesus at his 2nd coming, calling his people to account. Nowhere in the New Testament is there even the slightest suggestion that any of Jesus’ followers will be cast out and lose all at Jesus’ 2nd coming as the parable would seem to suggest on the traditional reading. It is clear from the scriptures that that believers who “build with hay and stubble†will still be saved. So it is very hard to make the parable work with Jesus as the King about to go away and return at a 2nd coming.

Besides, consideration of what happens next makes it clear that Jesus is setting himself in the role of the returning king. Note what happens after parable is told – Jesus rides on to Jerusalem and, upon seeing it, says the following:

"If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43"For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, 44and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."

Clearly, Jesus sees Himself as the King returning in visitation, returning to judge Jerusalem who is set in the role of the unfaithful 3rd servant. If, as many believe, the returning King in the parable is Jesus at His second coming, then it would be deeply misleading for Jesus to give the parable then immediately ride into Jerusalem as He does, to palm branches waving no less, with all the imagery of a returning King that this action clearly evokes. No. Jesus clearly intends his listeners to understand that He is the returning King, not the departing one. In giving this parable and then riding into the royal city as a king, Jesus is clearly telling us that He, through this teaching and these actions, is embodying the fulfillment of the hoped for return of YHWH to his people. And what does Jesus do next?:

Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling. 46"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be a house of prayer'; but you have made it 'a den of robbers.'

Note how this maps perfectly to this prophecy about the return of YHWH to his people:

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

The overall picture is clear. As per an earlier post, we have the strong Biblical tradition of the promised return of YHWH to Zion (and his temple) after the time of the exile. Now here, in Luke, we have the journey of a young Jew named Jesus to Jerusalem. As He is about to enter, He tells a parable of a king who goes away and then returns. Next, He laments over Jerusalem and declares that she is not recognizing His mission as a “visitationâ€. In the context of Jews who saw themselves still in exile, and still awaiting the return of YHWH, Jesus’ intended meaning is clear. In saying that Jerusalem has not recognized her visitation, He is saying that she has failed to recognize that, in His very actions, the promised return of YHWH to Zion is being fulfilled. And then Jesus enters the temple and overturns the tables in judgement, fulfilling the Malach 3 promise that YHWH will come suddenly to the temple in judgement. The coherence of this picture is compelling. Jesus is embodying the return of YHWH to Zion. And that, of course, makes Him the embodiment of Israel’s God.

This is why arguments like “Jesus cannot be divine since Jesus was tempted and God cannot be tempted†are a spectacular exercise in missing the point. Such arguments assume a model for the nature of God-hood and human-ness and then leverage that assumption to make the case against Jesus’ divinity. Well, we should be getting our concepts of who YHWH is from the Old Testament, not from conceptual definitions with no connection to the Jewish worldview. And in the Old Testament, YHWH is the one who has left His people and promised to return. When Jesus, then, so obviously sees Himself as embodying that promised return, that, and not vague conceptual arguments, makes the case that Jesus sees Himself as the incarnation of Israel’s God. Again, the conceptual arguments you make are deeply misleading since they are built on a model of the “boundaries†between god and man that make no reference at all to the Scriptures.

 

[childeye]

Spirit is spirit and corporeal existence is only a place of manifestation. The devil uses words to divide sowing different meanings though using the same words. All of this to escape honesty. All is an analogy to begin with and moreover you cannot ever properly digitalize what is analogue to begin with. Consequently one must believe in Holiness simply because Truth did not proceed from lies. That is what some people are trying to say when they proclaim the trinity and others are trying to say by not proclaiming it.

 

[Free]

This is why arguments like “Jesus cannot be divine since Jesus was tempted and God cannot be tempted†are a spectacular exercise in missing the point. Such arguments assume a model for the nature of God-hood and human-ness and then leverage that assumption to make the case against Jesus’ divinity. Well, we should be getting our concepts of who YHWH is from the Old Testament, not from conceptual definitions with no connection to the Jewish worldview. And in the Old Testament, YHWH is the one who has left His people and promised to return. When Jesus, then, so obviously sees Himself as embodying that promised return, that, and not vague conceptual arguments, makes the case that Jesus sees Himself as the incarnation of Israel’s God. Again, the conceptual arguments you make are deeply misleading since they are built on a model of the “boundaries†between god and man that make no reference at all to the Scriptures.

Agreed. This cannot be overstated. It is absolutely necessary that people understand how important this is to this discussion.

 

[teddy trueblood]

Ted, post #20:

“For Free, #15

Sharp’s rule was invented in the 18th century by a
Trinitarian searching for “absolute grammatical proof of the trinity.”


He declared that a NT Greek construction wherein two nouns (persons) are joined
by the word “and” [kai] and the first noun has the article [‘the’] but
the second does not, always show that the two are the same person (e.g., “the
son and heir”). He found 5 such examples to ‘prove’ that Jesus is God: Titus
2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21; Eph. 5:5

The
trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris devotes a section to 2 Thess. 1:12 in his
book Jesus as God, pp. 265-266, Baker Book House, 1992. He admits, in
effect, that the argument for a trinitarian interpretation (“according to the
grace of our God and Lord, namely Jesus Christ”) is less probable
and more poorly supported than the non-trinitarian interpretation
(“according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ”). He admits that,
although “the first rendering has a few supporters,” no
English translation supports that trinitarian rendering, and, in fact, the
trinitarian NAB, LB, GNB, MLB, NLV, Douay, KJIIV,
andWeymouth translations most clearly refute it by
rendering “the grace of our God and of the Lord Jesus
Christ.” This alone destroys the assertion that this is an “absolute rule.” If
it doesn’t work at 2 Thess. 1:12, and most trinitarian scholars and translators
indicate this, there is no reason to insist that it works in any other
scripture!




The Roman Catholic scholar, Karl Rahner, commenting on
2 Peter 1:1, says that ‘God’ “here is clearly
separated from ‘Christ’.” - Theological
Investigations, Karl Rahner, pp. 136, 137, Vol.1, 3rd printing: 1965.


2 Peter 1:1 "Simon Peter, a bondservant and
Apostle of Jesus Christ: To those to whom there has been allotted the same
precious faith as that which is ours through the righteousness of our God
and of our Saviour Jesus Christ." - Weymouth
NT.

Famed British NT scholar and trinitarian
clergyman Henry Alford wrote: “I would submit that [a translation which clearly
differentiates God from Christ at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical
requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually
more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s [Paul’s] way of
writing.”- The Greek Testament, p. 421, Vol. 3.

“Of the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour
Christ Jesus” - Titus 2:13, The Bible, A New Translation by Dr. James
Moffatt, Professor of New Testament Greek at Oxford University.


And notice Eph. 5:5 - one of the examples Sharp himself
chose to “prove” Christ’s deity which Wallace completely ignores. Most
trinitarian Bibles translate this example of Sharp’s Construction: “in the
kingdom of Christ and of God” -
KJV; NRSV; RSV; NIV; NEB; REB; NAB; Douay; MLB; LB; GNB; TEV; The Amplified
Bible; Third Millenium Bible; New Living Translation; New Century
Version; God’s Word; Holman Christian Standard Bible; Wesley’s New
Testament; Phillips; and the Webster Bible. This is not the way it
would be translated if the two descriptions were of the same person! Trinitarian
scholars themselves clearly reject Sharp’s rule here! If it doesn’t work here,
there is no reason to believe it works at the other “Sharp’s Constructions”
including those in Titus and Peter!

This is what I
mean by clearly and repeatedly stated. The Greek allows for
different interpretations, and just because most Trinitarians choose a
Trinitarian interpretation does not mean that it is the correct one. It is not a
clear, undisputed (by Trinitarians themselves), oft-repeated
statement.”

…………………………

Eph. 5:5
- one of the examples Sharp himself chose to “prove” Christ’s deity. Most trinitarian Bibles translate this example of Sharp’s Construction: “in the kingdom of Christ and of God” - KJV; NRSV; RSV; NIV; NEB; REB; NAB; Douay; MLB; LB; GNB; TEV; The Amplified Bible; Third Millenium Bible; New Living Translation; New Century Version; God’s Word; Holman Christian Standard Bible; Wesley’s New Testament; Phillips; and the Webster Bible. (Hardly a mere ‘handful’). This is not the way it would be translated if the two descriptions were of the same person! (At the very least it would be rendered more literally as “the kingdom of the Christ and God.”) Instead it clearly shows two persons!

1 Tim. 5:21
is another example of a ‘Sharp’s Construction’ which Sharp himself claimed represented Jesus as God. But if we examine Trinitarian translations of it, we find they show a clear separation between God and Jesus (and angels): KJV; ASV; AMP; CEB; CEV; Darby; Douay (DRA); ERV; ESV; God’s Word; GNT; JB; The Message; MLB; NAB (’70); NASB; NCV; NIV; NJB; NKJV; NLV; NRSV; RSV; etc. (Hardly a mere ‘handful’).

2 Tim. 4:1
was not selected by Sharp himself, but is clearly a ‘Sharp’s Construction” similar to 1 Tim. 5:21. Most Trinitarian translations reject a ‘Jesus is God’ rendering:


KJV; ASV; AMP; CEB; CEV; ERV; ESV; GNT; JB; LB; The Message; MLB; NAB (‘70 and ’91); NASB; NEB; NIV; NJB; NRSV; J. B. Phillips; REB; RSV; etc. (Hardly a mere ‘handful’).

2 Thess. 1:12

The trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris devotes a section to 2 Thess. 1:12 in his book Jesus as God, pp. 265-266, Baker Book House, 1992. He admits, in effect, that the argument for a trinitarian interpretation (“according to the grace of our God and Lord, namely Jesus Christ”) [or, “…the grace of the God and Lord of us, Jesus Christ”] is less probable and more poorly supported than the non-trinitarian interpretation (“according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ”). He admits that, although “the first rendering has a few supporters,” no English translation supports that trinitarian rendering, and, in fact, the trinitarian NAB, LB, GNT, MLB, NLV, Douay, KJIIV, and Weymouth [and Darby and Webster] translations most clearly refute it by rendering “the grace of our God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” This alone destroys the assertion that this is an “absolute rule.” If Sharp’s Rule doesn’t work at 2 Thess. 1:12 [and Eph. 5:5; 1Tim. 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1], and most trinitarian scholars and translators indicate this, there is no reason to insist that it works in any other scripture!

 

[Webb]

If you can count to 3 you got it!

 

[theLords]

What are your thoughts on verse that state Christ doesn't know things that God the father does, like when stated only the father knows the day of his return? If Christ is equal to God, how would he not know this?

It's rather simple--it's a Jewish idiom! You should check out Jewish betrothal/marriage. It's got wonderful insight into the Bride's relationship with Christ. When a Jewish man became engaged to his future bride, he left her to build their home and would come back in surprise fashion. She had to be in constant watch and preparation to go with him (never knowing when he'd come). The bridegroom's father had to "okay" (give approval) of the home his son built before he could go get his wife. Hence, only the father knows the day of the wedding feast for His son. It's also a reference to the Jewish Feast of Trumpets.

Fascinating stuff.

 

[Drew]

Many arguments against the Trinitarian position fundamentally appeal to conceptual problems in respect to how we talk about the Trinity (e.g. how can a Son who is "God" have less authority than a Father, who is also God - the point here being that, by definition, to be "God", one cannot have limited authority).

The problem is this: such arguments are, I suggest, often really about the limitations of our language and our conceptual toolset, not about the real issue, which is whether we can, in the Biblical narrative, properly see Jesus as playing the God role.

Analogy: Suppose there was this colour that there was no name for. Imagine if someone argued that the colour cannot exist because there is no name for it. That would be silly of course - the fact that there is no name for the colour is entirely beside the point. But that is how it often is in Trinity debates - those who reject the concept get tangled up in problems with the descriptive tools, and, no doubt without intent (to be fair to them), pass these objections off as arguments against the real issue - whether Jesus is, or is not God.

Again, the Bible is a narrative, not a precise technical specification. So if the narrative places Jesus in the God role - and I suggest it does - we need to honour that.

 

[John Zain]

I see only 2 ways for a person to believe in the Triune Godhead:
1) being born into it and following it blindly
2) a spiritual revelation from God

E.G. MANY Christians read the 70+ verses which point to the fact that
Jesus is God, is equal to Father God, etc. ...
but just cannot get the revelation, believe, and say the words, "Jesus is God".

 

[elijah23]

I think that's called modelism?
The Trinity is ultimately just something to accept rather than comprehend.

Call it whatever you like, but I think it is the truth.