Home
As a follower of the Most High Deity, knowing that all I have was given by him and that we owe him more than everything, it becomes my obligation to search out and to know him and his truth, and to live it. It is a quest that has been the fire in my heart, and the fuel and meaning in my life. The tool for finding truth is the Scriptures, and it has been a pleasure simply to learn how to use them properly to find truth. I'm not perfect. Nobody is. But I know it is possible to use the context of scripture to help a person know right from wrong.
I've been a christian and now I am not. But throughout my experience, I've had plenty of opportunity to find out a certain doctrine called the "trinity". It is a christian doctrine which makes certain claims about the Deity of the Scriptures. In this article, I'm going to give the christian definition of the trinity, according to them, which is most important to view it properly. Then I'm going to show the evidences they use. Then I'm going to use the scriptures themselves to test the belief to see if it is true.
Since it is christian, and thus has something to do with the christian messiah, Jesus, some may wonder why I, being a non-christian, or more properly, someone against christianity would even bother touching the subject. Well, for one, I'm not afraid of change. I love to search for and find the truths concerning the Creator of heaven and earth. If christianity has a valid point to make concerning Jesus or the Most High, then I shouldn't be afraid to approach what they have to say and test it.
Another reason is because I hate doctrines that give false notions about Deity. The trinity, if it is wrong, since it claims to have a certain notion about Deity and how he is to be worshipped, it must be refuted and destroyed, like a temple built for idols. If it is true, then the other notions are false. But it has be done in an educated, learned, and most importantly, a reverent way. This is for the glory of the Most High and to help myself, and possibly others, to grasp the subject in order to handle it properly.
The main aim is to educate myself. The only way I can grow is to learn for myself. I pray that as I go into this subject, that the Lord will be with me. My only real desire is to do his will, to do what is pleasing in his sight. May he protect me from error. As a human I make mistakes. I hope it won't put the reader off too much if I do make some booboos. I just hope this helps, me and anyone who happens to read this.
And although this article focuses on the trinity, you will see that there are parts that can be applied to belief systems, such as the "oneness" doctrine of Pentacostal and Apostolic groups, and the bi-unity doctrine of some groups. The only christian group it should leave totally untouched is the unitarian. For a brief explanation, see [29].
As usual, in order to deal with this subject properly, it is necessary to define the trinity that the christians preach of, or at least to present accurately what christians believe the trinity to be. Only by doing this can the subject be dealt with properly.
So what is the trinity? The trinity doctrine is a description of Deity, telling what Deity comprises of. The trinity doctrine describes Deity as being made up of, or comprising of, three distinct, individual persons. These persons are known as "the Father", "the Son", and "the Holy Spirit". Each person is fully divine, which means they all have the nature of deity, and are said to be equal to one another, made of the same "stuff". To say this another way, they are identical in essence or at the core, but they are distinct from one another. When we say that they are distinct, that is to say that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. There is no mixing in identity because they are all individual. To say that they are equal in essence or at the core means that, by nature, they are all omnipresent (everywhere at once), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omniscient (all-knowing) and whatever other attributes come with being deity.
Each member of the trinity can be called "Deity" or "God", so they could be known as "God the Father", "God the Son", and "God the Holy Spirit". But each individual doesn't make up the "Godhead", or the fulness of the Deity. Only all three make up the Godhead. They have eternally existed together. They are distinguished from one another by their function. The Father has never been begotten (born), but the Son has (as Jesus). The Holy Spirit is supposed to preceed from the Father. So there appears to be some ranking or hierarchy in the Godhead, but that is not because of a different in their substance. The analogy used is this: the fact that one man is a king and the other is a servant has nothing to do with the fact that one is human and the other is not. It is just the different roles assigned to them. In the same way, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same kind of being, made out of the same "stuff", but a different role and function is assigned to each.
Although this doctrine preaches a "three-ness" about Deity, christians who hold to the doctrine say that they are also strongly monotheistic. This means that they believe in one Deity, a singular Deity, but that he is simply made up of three persons. Therefore, trinitarians do not, must not say that they worship three gods or Gods, or else they would rightly be called polytheists, worshipping more than one God or god. So trinitarians would say that they serve one Deity and not three deities or Gods.
Now the more knowledgable trinitarian theologians would admit that the word "person" is not perfect to describe each of the three individual beings. Some, when hearing the word "person", would think of a physical individual existing separate to someone else. But Deity is not physical, so that wouldn't really apply. And according to christians, Deity is numerically one, so there are not three entities or three beings, but three subsistences, i.e., individual existences that have a real existence.
In this way, the trinitarian hopes to avoid any claim that they believe in one and three in the same way, which even they would admit is a contradiction. To get around this, they say that God is one and indivisable (unable to be divided) in essence, or at the core, but he is three in person. Another way that they put this is 'One "what" and three "who"'s'. That is, he is indivisible in essence or the "stuff" he is made of. But he is three in a different way, in person, in identity, in function. The Father would say "I" refering to himself alone, and "You" when refering to the Son, and vice versa. As I showed you before, the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father.
Now, even with that explanation, the fact that Deity is both one and three, or a trinity, or a tri-unity (a unity of three) as some would call it, is considered by some to be a mystery, meaning something that can never be fully understood. To some, it is beyond human reasoning and logic. According to others, the trinity can be understood as much as a person studies scripture and has what is known as "spiritual guidance and understanding" which is supposed to come from the Holy Spirit. It therefore follows, according to that idea, that those who reject the trinity don't have this spiritual guidance from the Holy Spirit, which strongly implies that those who reject the trinity does not have the Holy Spirit. I won't deal with the logic in this reasoning right now.
Some trinitarians would actually say that it is the very fact that the trinity cannot be understood fully that is evidence that it comes from Deity. Why? Because Deity himself cannot be understood fully! So, to them, it would make sense that as the trinity doctrine describes Deity who cannot be fully understood, the doctrine itself would not be able to be fully understood either.
It will readily admitted by christians that the word "trinity" is not in the scriptures. In fact, there is no single word for the three-ness of the one Deity in the Christian Bible. But they are convinced that the concept is firmly rooted in their christian scriptures. They may even use the analogy that the words "bible" and "omniscient" or "omnipotent" are not in the bible, but the concepts are strongly rooted in the bible. In the same way, they claim, the trinity is obvious from the christian bible.
This leads us to the second section of this article
For a historical rendition of the Trinity doctrine by its formulators, see [33].
Now a significant number of these trinitarian christians would say that evidence for the trinity is in the whole of the christian bible, which comprises of the "old testament" and the "new testament". In fact, they will say that the scriptures are overtly trinitarian, almost as if you cannot leave scripture honestly and come to any other conclusion. There are a few that say that it is actually the new testament, the scriptures that overtly preach Jesus as the Christ, that preaches the trinity whereas the "old testament" focuses more on the oneness of Deity. But both groups would say that there are still "allusions" or hints of the trinity in the "old testament".
For now, we'll take as "Biblical" the Hebrew Scriptures, that which the christians call "the old testament". This will help us see whether it is true that the trinity is shown or "previewed" in the so-called "old testament". Here we take the Hebrew Scriptures on their own since it would render the argument meaningless and circular if we say that we need the new testament to interpret the old. It would be saying that the trinity is clearly seen in the new testament and it is also shown in the old. But how do you know it is in the old? Because the new testament shows us. But then the old wouldn't really showing it, but essentially the new testament still. With such logic, it would be apparent that the Hebrew Scriptures don't show the trinity because it cannot speak with its own voice but needs a new testament filter. That would cause us to wonder what the Hebrew Scripture would say if it were allowed to speak for itself.
So are there unambiguous messages in the Hebrew Scriptures that point to a trinity? Let's see what the trinitarian christians use in order to prove the trinity from the "old testament".
The Hebrew word that is normally translated as "God" in all the bible translations these days is "Elohim". And the word "deity" or "god" would be a good translation of the word in many cases. The word "Elohim" is used even in Genesis 1:1 where it says "in the beginning, God [elohim] created the heavens and the earth". It is the word normally used when Scripture speaks of "God" as the one true Deity/God of the Bible. But christians who know something about Hebrew will point out that the "im" at the end of "elohim" normally means that the word is plural, meaning more than one. Trinitarians believe that it works like the way we put "s" at the end of words to speak of something that is plural, more than one, like "tables" which means more than one table, i.e., two, three, four, or more tables. And "cars" means more than one car, i.e. two, three, four, or more cars. So "banim" in Hebrew is the plural of "ben" meaning "son" or "child", thus it means "sons" or "children". The Hebrew word "kokhavim" is the plural of "kokhav" meaning "star", thus it means "stars". So, according to that logic, "elohim", having the "im" at the end, means literally "gods" which opens up the possibility that Deity could have a plurality within him, since the "im" implies plurality, being more than one, showing that there is more than one "person" in Deity.
In Genesis 1:26, Deity distinctly says "let US make man in our own image, and according to our likeness". "us" and "our" normally means "me and someone else, or some other people", so it implies that Deity was speaking to some other person or persons. It happens again in Genesis 3:22 where Deity says "look, man has become like one of us, and in Genesis 11:7 where Deity says "let us go down". This "obviously" shows that there is plurality in Deity.
In Isaiah 48:16, trinitarians say that Deity is speaking when this is said:
"Now YHWH [the "personal" name of Deity] and his Spirit has sent me"
Apparently Deity is speaking, and he says that YHWH and his Spirit has sent him. So, trinitarians conclude, that Deity is obviously being sent by another YHWH, another Deity, and also the Spirit. This shows that there is more than one Deity.
One proof for the plurality in the "Godhead" is the appearance and identity of the "angel of the Lord". This angel appears in scripture and appears to speak of himself as Deity or "Yahweh". In Genesis 22:11-12, when Abraham has just been stopped from slaughtering his son as an offering to the Almighty, the angel of Yahweh stopped him and said "you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me", implying, according to the trinitarian, that Abraham was offering the sacrifice to the angel. In Genesis 16, the angel of the Lord appears to Hagar and talks to her, and when the angel finishes talking, Hagar says that it was Yahweh who has spoken to her (cf Gen 16 v.7 and v.13). In Exodus 23, this angel must be obeyed, has the ability to punish sins, and the name of Deity is inside him, showing his divine nature.
To quote one trinitarian:
In Genesis 31 he is the Angel of God in verse 11, but then he is the God of Bethel in verse 13. In Exodus 3 he is the Angel of YHVH in verse two and he is both YHVH and God in verse four. In Judges 6 he is the Angel of YHVH in verses 11,12, 20 and 21, but is YHVH himself in verses 14, 16, 22 and 23. Then in Judges 13:3 and 21 he is the Angel of YHVH but is referred to as God himself in verse 22. [1]
In one very distinctive place in Genesis 32, Jacob meets and wrestles with a man, presumably an angel (v25). Yet a couple of verses afterwards, he says, apparently refering to the angel, that he has seen Deity (elohim) face to face (v31).
So this must show us that the angel of the Lord was in fact the Lord himself.
What about Genesis 18 where 3 "men" appeared to Abraham (some trinitarians stop here and say that this is the trinity, but others carry on to say what follows). Two of the "men" are said to be angels in Genesis 19:1, but one stayed behind and he was the Almighty. So either he is a third angel or he appeared in the flesh. If you say he's the angel, then the trinitarian point about the angel of Deity is true. If you say Deity appeared in the flesh, then that clashes with Exodus 33:20 which says that no one can see Yahweh and live. This means that there is a "Yahweh" you can see who appeared to Abraham, i.e., a second Yahweh.
Even Deuteronomy 6:4 which says "Hear, Israel, YHWH is our Deity, YHWH is one" is evidence for the trinity. How? Well the Hebrew word for "one" here is "echad". It is used in other places to mean a composite unity, more than one things or persons unified together. Take for instance in Genesis 2:24 where it says that a man and his wife shall become one [echad] flesh. Or in Genesis 1:5, where an evening and a morning make up one [echad] day. Or in Numbers 13:23, where one [echad] cluster of grapes is to be cut. If the writer of the Shema wanted to convey the idea that Deity was one solitary being, an absolute unity, then he would have used the Hebrew word "yachid" used in places like Genesis 22:2,12 and Judges 11:34, where the word is used to mean "only", like Abraham's only [yachid] son. Since "echad" means composite or compound unity, then this shows that Yahweh is more than one person unified.
Psalm 45:7-8 shows that there was another person called "god". It states:
Your throne, O Deity, is forever and onwards. A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of your kingdom. You love justice and hate crime. Because of this, Deity, your Deity, has anointed you with the oil of joy above your fellows.
This obviously shows two Deities. One has the throne, and the other has anointed the first. This shows that there is more than one Deity.
Isaiah 9:6 prophecies a child who will be called "the Mighty God" (cf Isaiah 10:21) and the "Everlasting Father". What human child can be called "the Mighty God" apart from God the Son who became flesh in the form of Jesus? Whether you accept the new testament or not, there is no denying that there is a "Deity" mentioned here that is different to YHWH. There's no denying that. Is there?
Isaiah 7:14 prophecies about a child who will be called Immanuel, which means "With us is God". This shows us that this child was God himself dwelling among us and with us, as the name implies.
Psalm 110:1 says, according to some English translations:
The LORD says to my Lord, Sit thou at My right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.(KJV)
Now the trinitarian would say that King David wrote this. They would say that David is speaking of a "LORD" who is Deity, and also his Lord, meaning someone who is over him. Since David was the divinely appointed king, then who could be over him other than Deity? He couldn't be calling an angel his Lord. Thus we have two Lords who appeared to be divine or "God".
According to Micah 5:1 we have a human governor whose origins are "from eternity" or "from everlasting" (KJV). Surely this must show an eternal being, hence Deity in the form of man.
We have a verse in Genesis 19:24 which says the following:
And YHWH caused it to rain upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from YHWH from the heaven.
Here we have Yahweh sending rain from Yahweh. Do we not have two Yahwehs here? According to people who believe that there is a plurality in Deity, this is an explicit evidence of there being at least two Yahwehs, two Gods.
In Hoshea 1:7 we have an incident that is very much like the last proof. It says:
But I [YHWH] will have compassion upon the house of Judah, and will save them by YHWH their Deity, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, nor by horses, nor by horsemen
According to the verse, Yahweh will save the house of Judah by Yahweh. Again we have two Yahwehs.
It happens again in Zechariah 2:12-13 [8-9 in christian versions], which says:
For YHWH of hosts who sent me after glory says this unto the nations which spoiled you: 'Surely, the one touching you is touching the apple of his eye. For, look, I wave My hand over them, and they have become plunder to those that served them'; and you shall know that YHWH of hosts hath sent me.
YHWH appears to sending YHWH. Again, we see two YHWHs.
As you've seen before, the word "elohim" implies plurality, being more than one. But normally it is surrounded by singular (meaning being only one) Hebrew verbs, pronouns (such as "he", and "I"), and descriptions. But there are a significant number of passages where the Hebrew verbs, pronouns, and descriptions are actually plural as well. Let me show you some examples.
And it came to pass, when Deity (Elohim) caused me to wander (Literally: they caused me to wander) from my father's house ...(Genesis 20:13)
... because there Deity (Elohim) appeared to him ... (Literally: they appeared to him.) (Genesis 35:7)
... God (Elohim) went ... (Literally: they went.)(2 Samuel 7:23)
Surely there is a God who judges ... (Literally: they judge.)(Psalm 58:12)
Remember now your Creator ... (Literally: creators)(Ecclesiastes 12:1)
Let Israel rejoice in their Maker. (Literally: makers)(Psalm 149:2)
... holy God ... (both "holy" and "god" is in the plural form, so literally "God, the Holy Ones")(Joshua 24:19)
For your Maker is your husband. (Literally: makers, husbands)(Isaiah 54:5)
All of these show that there is a plurality in Deity.
If you think you are not seeing enough of the "Holy Spirit", Isaiah 63:7-14 will change that. Here we see all of the trinity in action, when the story is recounted of the exodus of the children of Israel out of Egypt. YHWH, who trinitarians here associate with the Father is the one main one being talked about to begin with. But in verse 9, we see the mysterious angel of YHWH who has YHWH's name in him, showing his divine nature, saving the people. And we see in verse 10 that the people rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. This shows that the Holy Spirit had personality, since in order to be grieved you need to have a personality. And we see that the people were also rebelling against Him, the Holy Spirit, as well as grieving. Thus, this is one place that the trinity is seen in a clearer way.
In other places like Zechariah 12:10, Isaiah 42:1, Isaiah 61:1, and Isaiah 11:2 where all three are mentioned together.
There is another verse that shows that there is a plurality in the Almighty. It even shows us that there are two beings named Yahweh. It says in Isaiah 44:6,
Thus has spoken YHWH the King of Israel, and his Redeemer YHWH of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and beside Me there is no God.
So here we have Yahweh, the king of Israel, and Yahweh of hosts his [YHWH's] Redeemer, and they are both speaking as one, saying "I" and "me". So we clearly have two Yahwehs here.
In Daniel 7, we have this strange image. You can read it for yourself. But we have, in verse 13, a "son of man" coming out of heaven and appearing before the Ancient of Days, who we can say is Yahweh. But then we see the Ancient of Days giving him dominion over all nations and all peoples, that they should serve him, and not only that, but also an everlasting dominion. Now who could this "son of man" be other than the God-man, Jesus, receiving "all authority". No human lives forever, so no human can have an everlasting dominion. So it must refer to an eternal "son of man" who would also be God.
Proverbs 8:22 and onwards also hints at the idea that someone else helped Deity in creation. Although it is given under the name "wisdom", it is spoken of in such terms as would make you think that someone was with Deity at creation. And there was someone: the Wisdom that was the Word who was with God and was God (from John 1).
Proverbs 30:4 is the proof that shows that Deity had a Son, since it says:
Who was it that ascended into heaven, and came down? who gathered the wind in his fists? who confined the waters in a garment? who set up all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, as if you know?
Well, the argument goes that we know who did all this, right? We know how gathered up the wind in his fist: Deity. We know who can confined the waters in a garment: Deity. We know who set up the all the ends of the earth? Deity. And we know his name: YHWH. And thus we have to follow the verse to its logical conclusion with the last part: "what is His Son's name?" This shows that he has a Son, God the Son.
Thus it must be obvious that the Hebrew Scriptures surely alludes to, if not strongly hints at, the existence of the triune Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of whom are God, yet they are one.
Now remember that christians say that a person who isn't a christian cannot understand the trinity. Following on from this belief, it would be easy to conclude that if you cannot understand a subject, then an outsider, an unbeliever, such as myself, cannot really deal with it. Thus it is impossible for me, or any other "unbeliever" to properly fulfil this project, even if they fully accept the divine revelation of the Torah (the books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) and the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. Do they have a valid point?
The answer is no! The fact is that a lot of them are saying that the trinity is evident in the very Torah and the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole. This imposes, either directly or indirectly, something on the Jews of all sects of Judaism that accept the divinity of the Hebrew Scriptures, and all the non-Jews that also accept those writings in the same way. If the Hebrew Scriptures really show that Deity is a trinity at all, then the christian is saying that the followers of these scriptures have an incomplete and inaccurate view of Deity.
These students of the Hebrew Scriptures, when faced with this accusation, do not therefore have to become christians in order to understand the doctrine well enough to deal with it. They already are in possession of the evidences in the "old testament" that these trinitarians use in the Hebrew Scriptures they study. So what they can do is compare the claims and statements used by the trinitarians with the plain word of scripture. They can also look at the phrasing and context of the scriptural evidences the trinitarian imposes upon them and see if those texts really say what the trinitarians say, or if they really make the point that the trinitarians want them to make.
What about the notion that you need the christian "Holy Spirit" in order to see the "truth" of the trinity in the scriptures? A person faced with this statement must ask where this notion comes from. Is the notion based on the idea that the trinity must be true, and the holy spirit only shows you what is true, so the holy spirit will show you the trinity? That is simply backwards thinking, working from the conclusion which you dogmatically believe to be true, and imposing that truth on every aspect that can be used to aid or even refute the point. There is no scripture that really says that you need the holy spirit to accept or see the trinity. According to some verses in the christian bible, the new testament, the truth of Deity is evident in all creation and it is a choice whether you accept it or not. Trinitarians may use some long-winded logic to try to make scripture say that, but that isn't really the case.
The Hebrew Bible was written in the language of man, therefore man can understand it, as it is written. It's that simple. If the doctrine that God is both three and one is not in the words of Scripture, then it is simply an unscriptural idea and it is not evident there. If Scripture is truth, and a spirit teaches something about Deity that is not in Scripture, then the logical conclusion is that that spirit doesn't have the truth, and is therefore not from the Deity of truth.
Therefore a person who reveres the words of the Hebrew Scriptures alone, and does not accept the new testament of the christians, is more than able to judge if the Hebrew Scriptures contain any trace of a trinity in Deity. Why? Because they respect the word of Deity and are doing their utmost to let it speak for itself, in reverence to the One who gave it.
While you look at the christian scriptural evidences for the trinity, ask yourself "does scripture govern the doctrine or does doctrine govern the scripture?" Do the scriptures and words of the Hebrew scriptures they use really say that Deity is three in one? Or is that conclusion forced into scripture because the person trying to prove the trinity desperately believes in it, thus making their own dogmas more important that the word of Deity?
So trinitarians state that because the Hebrew word "elohim" has a plural ending "im", it behaves as our plural ending "s" (like in tables, and cars), and thus implies that there is plurality in Deity, or that there is more than one person in Deity.
What I will attempt to do is show you the actual logical conclusion of their words, show you how the word "elohim" is actually used in scripture, as well as show you some uses of the plural ending of words, and put this all together in order to reach a conclusion on this argument.
Let us remember what trinitarians are saying. They are saying that "elohim" is a plural word, so it must mean more than one person in the Godhead. Now christians believe that the word elohim is the plural of either the Hebrew word "el" or "eloah" [6], both of which can be translated "deity" or "god". But we need to ask ourselves something. If the word "tables" means more than one table, and the word "cars" means more than one car, what does that say about the word "elohim"? If "el"/"eloah" mean "god" (i.e. one god), then if we take "elohim" to only mean the plural of "el"/"eloah", we must say that "elohim" means "gods".
If you don't see where I'm going with this, then let me set it out as I did previously. If the plural of table, "tables", means more than one table, and the plural of car, "cars", means more than one car, then the plural of god or God, "elohim", must mean more than one god/God, i.e. "Gods". Hence, to be consistent, the word "elohim" doesn't just mean a plurality of persons, because the word "el"/"eloah" doesn't mean "person". Here, we take its meaning to be "god/God". To be consistent, and take trinitarian argument about elohim to its logical conclusion, it must mean a plurality of Gods, more than one God.
"But STOP!", I hear one cry, who actually knows what trinitarians believe. "They say that they don't believe in three Gods, but only one God." And that exactly is my point, I would reply. If you are going to look to "elohim" for any help in showing any sort of plurality in Deity, then it will automatically refute and contradict monotheism, that God is one. Why? Because to take it in a plural sense, you must say it means "Gods" which means, by definition, more than one God, which contradicts the idea of only one God.
The trinitarian may try to point to the fact that the verbs around the "plural" word "elohim" are nearly always singular, showing a oneness. And, according to their logic, it may even mean that. But, if they maintain that "elohim" is plural, this oneness can only be a unity, a unified group, of Gods, and doesn't demonstrate any sort of absolute oneness they try to push as truth. In order to prove plurality by use of their understanding of the word "elohim", they become, inevitably, polytheists, those who worship more than one god/God.
After all this, it would be good to ask what "elohim" actually means and if it is really plural.
I would ask you to remember one important thing when it comes to Hebrew words: They are not english words, used in english ways. They may have similarities, but as Hebrew is a different language and of a different culture, there is a big possibility that its words can be used in slightly different ways. And actually, this possibility is a reality.
Now the word "elohim" is the plural form of the word "eloah", since it has "im" as its ending. So it is a plural form. I don't think anyone would argue with the fact that this Hebrew word is in a plural form. What should now be asked is if a word, on its own, in plural form, necessarily means that it has a plural meaning? Rather than tell you outright, I will let the actual Hebrew language speak for me.
In Job 40:15, there is an animal called "behemoth". It also has a plural ending: "oth". Hebrew words have one of two forms: masculine or feminine. The word "elohim" is a masculine word, so it has a masculine plural ending, "im". The word "behemoth" is a feminine word, so it has a feminine ending, "oth". "Behemoth" is the plural form of the word "behemah" which means "beast". But if you look at the description of this "behemoth", you will see that it is refered to in the singular. It says "he does this" and "he does that". Read Job 40:15-24 for yourself and you will see that this animal, behemoth, is talked about in a singular fashion, speaking of one, and only one, animal. But as I told you before, the word is in a plural form. So here we have a word with a plural form, but with a strictly singular meaning.
In Hebrew, there are words like "panim" which means "face", and "chayyim" which means "life". As you can see they both have plural forms, like "elohim", having that "im" ending. Yet, they are translated in strictly singular ways to refer to one face (Genesis 3:9, "sweat of your face [panim]"), and one life (Genesis 2:7, "breath of life [chayyim]"). They can even have plural verbs attached to them, and still trinitarian translators, as well as other translators, will translate these words in a strictly singular fashion. These are some other cases of words having plural forms, but having a singular meaning.
The word "adon", meaning "lord, master" also is used most of the time in the Hebrew Scriptures with a plural ending, but time after time after time it is understood to have a singular meaning (Gen 24:9-10; Exodus 21:4; Deut 23:15) and it is used to talk about humans. Yet I don't see trinitarians trying to make a trinity out of Abraham, who was called "lord" in a plural form (Gen 24:9-10).
So we've seen that Hebrew words that have plural forms still can have strictly singular meanings. This shows that you cannot strictly apply English rules of grammar to other languages or always use English ways of thinking to foreign texts.
But to really bring the point home, it is best to see the singular uses of the word, elohim. Look at 1 Kings 11:33. Chemosh is the god of the Moabites. There is only one Chemosh. He is not a trinity, nor does he have any plurality. Yet he is called "elohim". Also Ashtoreth, a singular god with no plurality, is called "elohim". And Milcom, another singular god with no plurality, is called "elohim". In 2 Kings 19:37, Nisroch, a singular god with no plurality, is called "elohim". So we can see that elohim can have a singular meaning. This does not negate the fact that the Hebrew word can be used in a plural sense, meaning gods (e.g. Exodus 20:3), but we must be clear about which meaning is being given to the word. It is either plural, more than one, or singular, strictly one. But it cannot be both.
Lets compare the word, elohim, with the other titles of Deity and actually see if the trinitarian argument really makes sense. According to their argument, elohim is plural, showing the multiple persons in the Godhead. But we have words and titles used to talk about Deity that are strictly singular, such as el (mighty one, deity, "god"), eloah (deity, "god"), tsur (rock), ha-qodesh (the holy [one]), adon (lord, master), etc. Such words do not imply a group or a plurality. Since we know that if elohim is taken as a plural, it has to mean gods, the question will come up as to which of the "persons" is being referred to when a strictly singular title is being used. It makes much more sense that "elohim" is singular like the other titles because it is pointing to a singular Deity, not a plurality.
In actual fact, in Hebrew, the use of these plural words to have a singular meaning is called the plural of intensity, or the majestic plural. So the plural form of the word is used to emphasize some character about the word, like authority or greatness, like the plural form of "adon" or "lord" used in a previous paragraph in the section, and the word "behemoth".
All this goes to show a number of points:
It will be shown later that scripture clearly testifies of the singular nature of Deity.
To show the lengths that some trinitarians will go to, I'll show an argument they claim based on nothing but their own belief in the trinity doctrine. Some say that "elohim" is a plural that shows some complexity, i.e. a complex plural. To be honest, there is no such thing in Hebrew. To make up definitions and terms is no way to prove the trinity.
Some trinitarians and people who believe that Jesus is Deity like to use Genesis 1:26 to show that there is plurality in Deity. The text states, as follows:
And Deity said: Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them subjugate the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the beasts, all the earth, and every crawling thing that crawls upon the earth. And Deity created man in his own image. In the image of Deity, he created him. Male and female, he created them. (Gen 1:26,27)
What they would say that the "us" implies that there were others involved in the creation of man, these others being the other parts of the trinity. They also note that "us" is used in Genesis 3:22 and Genesis 11:7.
Before I get into any deep study into the reason why "we" or "us" would be used, I would like to point out some simple observations about all the "we/us" verses the trinitarians would use.
Now it is true that in Genesis 1:26 it says "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness". But what about the words around that statement? The verse starts with the statement, "and Deity said". In the Hebrew, the verb "said" is in the masculine singular form. That means that the phrase means "and Deity he said". So one singular entity said the following words. And then verse 27 says, according to the Hebrew, "So Deity [he] created man in his own image. In the image of Deity, he created him. Male and female, he created them." So, although we can acknowledge the word "us" and "our" in part of verse 26, only one person is speaking, and only one singular person does the creating. Humanity is not made in "their" image, the image of multiple persons or gods, but in the image of a singular entity. The Hebrew doesn't say "they created man", meaning that multiple persons made man, but rather that "he", a singular entity, created man, as is confirmed in Genesis 1:27.
This sort of pattern is apparent in the other verses with "us". Genesis 3:22 has Deity acknowledging that man has become "like one from among us" or "like one of us", but then Deity alone, he sends man from the garden. In Genesis 11:7, it does say "let us go down and confound their language", but in the very next verses, verses 8-9, Yahweh alone does everything.
So there is much more to the eye than trinitarians would have us believe. To focus in on Genesis 1:26, Deity may have said to someone else "let us make man in our image", yet he does it on his own, in his own image. The question a student of the Hebrew Scriptures must ask is if there is a biblical answer why.
There is a way that kings and queens and members of royalty have spoken throughout history called the majestic "we" or the royal "we". Whenever they told others of a decree or command they are making, the member of royalty would say "we decree this", as opposed to "I decree this". People who have studied the bible in the past have normally given that as the reason why Deity said "we". You'll see the evidences for this later on.
But some would say that the majestic "we" is not a good explanation of the "us" in Genesis 1:26, 3:22, and 11:7. Why? Because, they say, if Deity is talking as if he is just a representative of his subjects, it weakens his sovereignity. How? The trinitarians who use this argument take the analogy of a king and his subjects in a democratic fashion, and suggest that he is simply a voice of the people. But it should be obvious to a student of history that a king wasn't simply a voice of the people. He acted and decreed whether or not the people wanted him to because he had the right to as the supreme authority of the land. His will was the final and supreme authority before his subjects. Yet he spoke as "we" in a formal sense before his subjects.
What do I mean by "we in a formal sense"? In our day, there are times when someone is writing in a formal way, and he refers to himself as "we". He does not mean "we" in a plural sense, as if he is more than one. He simply means "I" in a formal sense. If he says "we are going to show you how this works", he is not saying "We, many people, are going to..." but rather "I am going to...". It is simply a formal way of writing.
Now the "we" used in Hebrew is somewhat like that, but it is used in speaking as well [7]. What I mean is that in a formal setting, the speaker will refer to himself and himself alone in the plural sense, "we" and "us". He will say something like "we will do this", but will only refer to himself alone doing something.
What should you be asking me now? Exactly! Do I have any biblical evidence? For those who actually asked, well done. Here is the biblical evidence. In Job 18:3, Bildad says to Job, "Why do you regard us as an animal?" Please take careful note of what he said, since it shows he was only refering to himself. If he was talking for all his friends, i.e. more than one person, he would have said "why do you regard us as animals?". But the Hebrew text says "as an animal". Also in 2 Chronicles 18:5, king Ahab says "Shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I refrain?" Notice that the first question is in the plural "we" about going to battle, and the second is in the singular about holding back. Note the reply by the prophets: "Go up". In the Hebrew, this is in the singular, as in "you (singular), go up". So the response is in agreement with the first part of the question, which was in the plural, is answered in the singular. This shows again the use of "we" in a formal, yet singular fashion. Again, in 2 Samuel 16:20, Absalom says to Ahithophel, 'Give your counsel what we shall do', yet in the next verse, the response is for Absalom alone. You can look also at Ezra 4:16-19 where a letter addressed to the king alone is responded to by the king partly in the form of "us". And you can also look at Daniel 2:36, where he says "we will tell", yet he alone speaks. All of these verses are examples of this formal speaking in the form of "we" and "us".
The important fact to see about this "us" form is that it is not consistent in our frame of thinking. In our day, we are more likely to start using "us" and keep on using "we" and "us" for the remainder of the time we are writing or speaking. But during the time of the Hebrew Bible, it was used intermittently, at irregular times. A person would start of a sentence speaking as "we", and then, mid-sentence, speak as "I".
In a similar way, YHWH speaks in a formal way as a "we", even though he himself is the only one doing the act.
A person reading this may see the fact that whenever these speakers said "we" in a formal sense, they were speaking to someone else, or in a group. But what group was with Deity? His sode!
His what?
Yes, you heard right. I said his sode (rhyming with node, toad, or code).
No, I haven't gone mad. According to scripture, there is something akin to a heavenly council of angelic beings in close communion with the Almighty which, in Hebrew, is called his "sode" (Heb: סוד "sode"), which means "a secret council" or "intimate circle" where secret things are discussed [8]. This concept appears a number of times in scripture. In Job 1, the sons of Deity, angels, come together before the Lord, apparently to give account to him, to minister and to be ready for new orders: his council. In Jeremiah 23:18,22, Jeremiah speaks of standing in the council, the "sode", of the Lord [9]. Micaiah, in 1 King 22, had a vision of the heavenly hosts surrounding Deity from which a lying spirit comes who the Lord chooses to use to his purposes, similar to how the satanic angel appears amongst the sons of Deity in Job, but that is another subject. In Daniel 7:9-10, it shows the Ancient of Days surrounded by a million beings that ministered to him. These scriptural images tell us about this "council" which was in a more intimate communion with the Almighty.
A biblical passage which can shed so much light on Genesis 1:26 and the other "we" scriptures cited by trinitarians is Isaiah 6, which, again, shows the Almighty being surrounded by his angelic host, in a vision of Isaiah. The chapter literally says that the Lord was in the temple, with special angels called seraphs, or seraphim (Isa 6:1-2) literally translated as fiery ones, or burning ones. But in verse 8 of the same chapter, the Lord says the following:
Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?
From this passage, we can make some clear deductions.
Thus, Yahweh was speaking on behalf of his heavenly servants, as a ruler.
Using this clear scripture to interpret the more ambiguous "us" passages in Genesis, we can therefore conclude that the "us" occurs when the Almighty is sharing his will or his decrees with his angelic hosts, his "sode", his council, which is with him.
Now some may wonder if l am saying that angels took some part in our creation, since Genesis 1:26 does say "let us make man in our own image". The answer would most definitely say NO! Remember, that in the very next verse, the Almighty created man on his own. So he wasn't speaking to the angels to get their help. He was not saying "us" to say "we, me and my angels are going to make man".
Rather, he said "we" and "us" in a formal, royal way, as I discussed above, meaning, "I, myself am going to make man in my image". But he was speaking in such a way to his heavenly host in order to announce his will, what he was about to do.
Of course, the question may still remain as to why the Supreme Being would speak to his angels. I'll be blunt here. The question of why isn't relevant since a similar question can be asked about the clear passage in Isaiah 6. "Why did the Lord speak for His heavenly host in verse 8, when He could have simply spoken for Himself?" The fact is that He didn't explicitly give his reasons. Jewish commentators, such as Rashi, says it teaches us that since Deity, the most supreme being, in majestic humility, still recognizes and acknowledges his servants in his decisions and decrees (e.g. Amos 3:7), we too must recognize people, at a lower rank, even if they play no active part in the action we take.
Whether or not you agree with the conclusion of Rashi, the fact is that a biblical explanation has been given for the "we" and "us" passages without stepping anywhere close to plurality/polytheism. Genesis 1:26 is understood as Deity speaking using the formal, royal "we" amongst his heavenly hosts. Genesis 3:22 has the Lord acknowledging that man has become like Him and his angels, knowing good and evil [10].
It must be said that this verse cannot be interpreted as refering to the trinity without the new testament. In other words, without the new testament, this verse cannot be said to refer to the trinity. Some christian theologians like H.C. Leupold said that "the doctrine of the trinity was not intended or taught in Genesis 1". Now I ask you, if it was not intended or taught in Genesis 1, how then can this be used as proof for the trinity?
Let me illustrate what a christian is doing when it says that Genesis 1:26 alludes to the trinity. He is firstly saying that he accepts a certain, trinitarian interpretation of a new testament passage, namely John 1, which does have other interpretations, or other new testament passages that insinuate that Jesus had some active role in creation. That christian then reads that notion, exclusively in the new testament, into Genesis 1 and says absolutely that the "us" refers to the Father and the Son and the Spirit talking together, and deliberating. But note, what was the basis of the claim that Genesis 1:26 alludes to the trinity? Was it Genesis 1:26? Was it because all attempts to answer the question using only by means of the "old testament" failed? In actuality, no, because people without the new testament look at Genesis 1:26 in line with other verses of the "old testament" and have interpretations that rule out any trinitarian idea. No, the basis of the trinitarian interpretation is the new testament.
In essence, what we have here is another trinitarian effort to say that Deity is a plurality, coincidentally using the argument of ancient polytheists. But such notions have no place in any of the divine "we" statements in scripture.
Now trinitarians would have us believe that if Yahweh's name is mentioned twice in one verse in a certain way, that it refers to two Yahwehs. Or if it seems that the Lord is speaking and he says he'll do something by "the Lord" or something similar, then trinitarians conclude that there are two Lords, or two "Yahwehs". I'll give you two examples, just to remind you.
And YHWH caused it to rain upon Sodom and Gomorah sulphur and fire from YHWH from the heaven. (Gen 19:24)
But I [YHWH] will have compassion upon the house of Judah, and will save them by YHWH their Deity, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, nor by horses, nor by horsemen. (Hoshea 1:7)
So remember, trinitarians try to say that in verses like these, there are apparently two divine beings who are called "YHWH".
Now I will show you two other verses and test to see how solid that logic really is.
Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the princes of the fathers' houses of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the city of David, which is Zion. (1 Kings 8:1)
And Lamech said to his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech; for I have slain a man for wounding me, and a young man for bruising me... (Gen 4:23)
So lets apply the same trinitarian logic to these verses. We would have to conclude that there are two "Solomons". One would be assembling the rulers of Israel. And he would be gathering those elders to the other Solomon in Jerusalem. And there must also be two Lamechs. One who is speaking to his wives, and the other to whom the wives belong. In the trinitarian way of thinking, this logic must be right.
But such logic doesn't lead to right conclusions. Proper exegesis would tell you that there are not two "Solomons". Neither are there two "Lamechs". A rule of thumb would be that if you see the same name twice in the same vicinity, then it is fair to conclude that it is talking about the exact same person. There must be an obvious sign that the identity has changed to even begin to think that there is another person being spoken of with the same name.
Now, the passages that are supposed to be speaking of two "Yahwehs" have the same or similar structure to the ones about Solomon and Lamech. There is no obvious sign that the person bearing the name is now a totally different person. The text does not say that Yahweh on earth sent fire and brimstone from Yahweh in heaven, as though there are two different people. Because it is the same name, and there's no reason in this context to think that it's someone else, it is the exact same person. It simply a way of speaking/writing, i.e., a Hebrew idiom.
In fact, in order for a person to see Genesis 19:24 as proof of plurality, that person would have to read some unbiblical, pagan concepts into the verse. Here's what l mean.
Let's suppose that Genesis 19:24 had the slightest possibility that it meant that Yahweh on earth got fire and brimstone from Yahweh in heaven. Now a biblically-minded person would know that the Bible describes the Lord Almighty as being omnipresent. That means that he is not confined by any space or any location. This is evident in the following verse.
But will Deity in very truth dwell on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You; how much less this house that I have builded! (1 Kings 8:27, compare with Jeremiah 23:24)
Thus, even if the scriptures said the Lord was both on earth and in heaven, it would still be the same Person because He can be perceived in both locations since He is omnipresent. In order for the trinitarian argument to have any force, you must say that Yahweh cannot be both on the earth and in heaven at the same time. In other words, Yahweh must be limited, confined to a certain place. Then there can be another Yahweh in another location!!!
Only pagan idols and false gods had such limitations. Scripture makes it plain that Deity fills heaven and earth. So the basis of this argument for the trinity is pagan logic, at worst, or an immature view of the Creator, at best. That's the only reason why a person would say that the possibility of Yahweh mentioned twice in supposedly different locations means that there are two different Yahwehs.
Also, take note of the passage concerning Lamech. He refers to himself in the third person. That means that he referred to himself in an impersonal way, using his own name, "you, wives of Lamech", rather than the sort of speaking we are used to, i.e., "you, my wives". I repeat that he is speaking of himself, not someone else called "Lamech". This way of speaking explains why, in Hoshea, Yahweh can say that He will do something "by Yahweh" and not be referring to another divine being called "Yahweh". He simply referring to Himself [11]. So there is no evidence for a plurality in Deity in this argument.
Another "proof" that there are at least two beings called "Yahweh" is Isaiah 44:6. Lets look at it again.
Thus says YHWH, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer YHWH of hosts:
When interpreting this verse, the first question we should ask is who is being mentioned. You should see that two names are mentioned: YHWH (Yahweh) and Israel. So we can understand the first phrase, "thus says YHWH, King of Israel". But when it comes to the next phrase, "and his Redeemer", it follows straight on from the name, Israel. So that means that "and his Redeemer" means Israel's Redeemer, the one who redeems Israel. The name, Yahweh, is mentioned again to emphasize and identify him as the one who, as well as being king of Israel, is the one who redeems Israel as well. Two Yahwehs are not mentioned, but rather his two roles are mentioned in such a way as to eradicate any doubt as to who the King and the redeemer of Israel is: Yahweh alone.
But the claim that there are two "Gods" in the Scriptures doesn't stop there. The adherents of the Trinity doctrine have used the following verses to fortify their teaching.
They will say that if you read each of these verses in context, you will only see the Almighty talking. So the phrase "sending me" can only refer to Yahweh sending Himself in the form of one member of the trinity, namely the "Father", sending another member, i.e. the "Son".For YHWH of hosts who sent me after glory says this unto the nations which spoiled you: 'Surely, the one touching you is touching the apple of his eye. For, look, I wave My hand over them, and they have become plunder to those that served them'; and you shall know that YHWH of hosts has sent me. (Zechariah 2:12-13 [8-9 in christian versions])
Come near to Me, hear this: From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there am I; and now the Lord YHWH has sent me, and His spirit. (Isaiah 48:16)
The most important question to ask, when faced with such an argument, is whether the premises are true. Is it really the case that Yahweh alone is talking in either scriptural passages? If he is, then we may really have some proper evidence for, at the very least, some sort of plurality in Deity. In order for the King to say "the King sent me" would seem to mean that there may be more than one King in some way.
But if Yahweh alone isn't speaking in these passages, then who else could possibly be speaking?
Let me ask a question. Did the Almighty directly give the prophecies in the Scriptures quoted by the trinitarian? Did He Himself speak or write the words as they were heard or read? The answer is no! There is a reason why the books that contain these words are called "the book of Isaiah" and "the book of Zechariah". The reason is that Isaiah and Zechariah were the prophets who spoke and wrote these messages for the Lord.
Also we have certain verses about prophets.
(18) I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like you [Moses]; and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him... (21) And if you say in your heart: 'How shall we know the word which YHWH has not spoken?' (22) When a prophet speaks in the name of YHWH, if the word doesn't happen, or it doesn't come to pass, that is the word which YHWH has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it with arrogance, you shall not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:18, 21-22)
Yet He sent prophets to them, to bring them back to YHWH; and they admonished them, but they would not give ear. (2 Chronicles 24:19)
From these scriptures we get some info about prophets, including Isaiah and Zechariah. The first point is that the Lord sends prophets to declare his message to the people. The second point is that one way you can know if a prophet is sent by Deity is if the prophetic word of that prophet comes to pass. Lets apply these principles to the verses in Isaiah and Zechariah and see what conclusions we can come to.
In Zechariah 2:12-13 [vs.8-9, christian versions], the important phrases for the trinitarian are "For YHWH of hosts who sent me after glory says this..." and "and you shall know that YHWH of hosts has sent me", and think that Yahweh alone is speaking throughout. But if we start reading the passage from verse one of the same chapter [chapter 1:18 in christian translations] we can see that Zechariah talks of himself also as "me" and "I". In light of the scriptural principles about prophets I deduced above, it is clear to see that when passage of scripture in Zechariah says "YHWH sent me" and "so that you will know that YHWH has sent me", Zechariah is speaking of himself. How? Well, one way to know if a prophet is a true one is to see his prophetic word come to pass. Zechariah is saying that these thing will happen or come to pass so that the listener or the reader will know that Yahweh has sent him. We also know that Yahweh sends prophets, and Zechariah is a prophet.
So it is more likely that Zechariah is speaking him the Lord sending him, than some alien doctrine which says that the Lord sends himself, which makes little sense. The verse in its natural context, taking note that there are two essential speakers, the Lord and his prophet through whom he speaks, and the scriptural principles about prophets, the natural conclusion excludes the trinitarian argument as scriptually unnatural.
What about Isaiah 48:16? Isn't the Lord clearly speaking there as sending himself? Using the scriptural principles above, and comparing it with the next verse which starts with Isaiah speaking, it is easy to see that it was Isaiah himself being sent with the spirit, and that phrase does have meaning in the Hebrew Bible. The same way how YHWH took the spirit of Moses and put it on the seventy elders (Numbers 11:24-25), or the way in which king David spoke of having the spirit of Yahweh in him and his word on his tongue (2 Sam 23:2). In the same way, the Lord sent Isaiah and the prophetic spirit in him.
Let's also look at the context. We have clear signs that this scripture is refering to the time of the Babylonians as we can see from the surrounding verses (Isaiah 48:14,20), and this theme is repeated through these chapters of Isaiah. That and the redemption of Israel from the Babylonians is the message of this chapter. So what does the trinity have the do with any of this? Absolutely nothing. It is clearly Isaiah giving the message to the children of Israel. The trinitarian has to isolate this verse from its context in order to get the verse to be ambiguous enough to add their trinity doctrine. Read in context, there is no concept of "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" since the Father and Son are not unambiguously mentioned.
The trinitarian may retort that it seems reallly odd for the passage to change the person speaking so quickly, with one sentence having the Lord speaking, and then the next passage having someone else speaking without some separation. This is a good point. But a study of the book of Isaiah will show you that abrupt changes with no clear warning or sign (apart from the way the subject is talking) happen quite often. See, for example, Isaiah 1:1-9; 5:1-8; 8:5-10; 10:12-19; 10:24-32; 14:24-27; 27:1-11; 28:14-22 [12]. If you read these passages, you will see that sometimes Yahweh is speaking and then it changes to Isaiah speaking, but there is no sign such as "and Isaiah said". The reason for this is that this is all the prophecy of Isaiah through whom Yahweh spoke, not a direct word straight from Deity. Isaiah doesn't really say "and I say this" whenever he changes the speaker or the point of view of the message from YHWH to himself since it only takes a change in the pronouns used (such as I, he, me) to show that the perspective has changed. Plus we have evidence from the other passage of Zechariah 2 to show us that the speaker can change in an instant.
The basic fact is that these "YHWH sent me" passages cannot really prove or hint at the trinity as long as the word is coming through a prophet, since the prophet will be the first contender for who is being sent, even if the speaker changes abruptly.
In this case, the trinitarians try to tell us that the angel of Yahweh is Yahweh himself. How do they try to convince us of this? Well, a summary of their argument goes as follows:
The angel refers to himself as Yahweh, which makes him the Deity himself and Scripture and human witnesses do (e.g. Gen 16:7-13; 31:11-13; Exo 3:2-4). The angel in Exodus 23:20-23 has the power to forgive sins and must be obeyed because the name of Yahweh is in him. This cannot be an ordinary angel, and the fact that the Lord's name is in him shows that he has divine status [1].
But let's just take a step back and ask some more fundamental questions before we jump to that conclusion.
The most fundamental and decisive question we must ask is this: What is an "angel"? What does that word mean biblically? The Hebrew word normally translated "angel" is the word "malakh". What does it mean? The simplest definition for the word would be "messenger". There is nothing inherently divine or supernatural in the meaning of the word, and it is used to describe humans who are sent or commissioned by other humans (Genesis 32:3,6; Joshua 6:17,25; 1 Kings 19:2), humans who are sent by Deity (2 Chronicles 36:15-16; Haggai 1:13), and, apparently, supernatural beings. This fact is a source of confusion when some translate the word as "angel" which does have fundamentally supernatural aspect to it when the Hebrew word doesn't. But for now, let's leave that point aside and focus on the fact that the meaning of the word is "messenger" [13].
Now the next question should be: what do messengers do? They bear a message on behalf of someone else. Let me take you through some examples to see an aspect of how messengers communicate the message.
A messenger from the king of the land, king Jim, comes with a scroll in his hand. He opens the scroll and reads, saying, "I, king Jim, hereby give you a pound of gold." Now does the fact that the messenger said "I" mean he is speaking for himself? The answer is no! Why? Because he is reading the king's words, in his role of a messenger, and the king is speaking for himself. The messenger is only speaking on the king's behalf.
OK, let's take it a stage further. A messenger from the same king comes, and this time he has no scroll. The only noticeable thing is that he is introduced as "the king's messenger". He proceeds to say, "I, king Jim, give you a pound of gold." Now does the fact that the messenger says "I" mean that he is speaking for himself? The answer is still no! Why? Because he is still in his role as a messenger of the king. And that role means he is speaking on behalf of the king. Thus, "I" is not the messenger speaking for himself, but the king speaking.
Now it has been shown before that, in Hebrew dialogue, the way a messenger (e.g., a prophet) speaks can change really quickly. He can start a message saying, "Thus says the Lord: I will do this and this..." and in the middle of the message say "and the Lord will be so and so..." and end by saying, "so I will surely do this." It is not like strict English where you have to consistently speak one way.
Now let's apply this info to the messengers of the Almighty. In Genesis 31:13, a being introduced as the messenger/"angel" of Deity says, "I am the God of Beth-El." Is this messenger speaking for himself? The proper answer would be no! In his role as a messenger, he could only be speaking the words of the One who sent him. In Genesis 16:10, it says, "and the angel [Heb. malakh, so properly "messenger"] of YHWH said to her, 'I will greatly multiply your seed.'" Is the messenger speaking about himself and what he, the messenger, is going to do? The answer is no! He is speaking in his role as a messenger, so he is speaking the words of the One who sent him.
A basic premise to all this thinking that I myself am presenting is that words in the Bible retain their normal meaning unless there is a fundamental, biblical reason not to. With that in mind, I conclude that a messenger is one sent to do a task. The sender is the one who sends the messenger. Therefore the sender is not the messenger. If a king commands a servant to do something, the servant does the task, not the king. If the king does it himself, then there is no servant involved. If a king uses a messenger to send a message, then the messenger sends the message, not the king. If the king gives the message himself, then no messenger is used. This is all to reinforce the fact that the sender is not the messenger and vice versa. In the language of my analogy, the servant of the king is not the king. The messenger of the king is not the king.
Now what I stated is a basic and general fact. Yet it is always possible that trinitarians will complain Deity is beyond our understanding and logic, so what I've just deduced doesn't apply. But I'm not talking about the unknowable nature of the Divine. That is beyond us. I'm simply talking about understanding the scriptures for what they say, not what we want them to say. It is sensible, if not, necessary to take words for their normal meaning unless there is a clear biblical reason not to. So, rather than assume the trinity true and all its arguments right, let's allow the words of the Bible to have their proper meaning and logical consequence unless there is good reason not to.
With that in mind, let 's look at Exodus 23:20-23, which talks about an ''angel".
(20) Behold, I send an angel before you, to protect you in the way, and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. (21) Be careful before him, and listen to his voice; don't be bitter with him; for he will not forgive your transgression; for My name is within him. (22) But if you shall continually listen to his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be hostile to your enemies, and oppress your adversaries. (23) For My angel shall go before you, and bring you in to the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Canaanite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite; and I will cut them off.
To read this normally, all it would say is that an angel will go with the people of Israel and their conduct with that angel will determine their fate. The angel would speak the Lord's word which must be obeyed. With the angel going before them, the Almighty would cut off their enemies.
There is no real unambiguous sign that this agent of the King is the King. But let's compare the word of scripture with the arguments of the trinitarians.
They say that this angel could forgive sin, a sign that he is Yahweh. But the passage actually says that the angel will not forgive. So that is no proof or hint. They also say that the fact that the Lord's name is in him proves that this angel has ''divine status", or in other words, he is Deity/God. But I would ask you just to read the whole verse. You will see that there are sentences, or phrases linked by the word ''for'' or ''because". '' Don't provoke him because he won't forgive your sins because my name is in him." There are those who say this ''name" is the same name as the grand revelation of Yahweh's name and character in Exodus 34:6-8 (you can read that yourself). But this makes no sense. The Exodus 34 revelation clearly says the Lord does forgive sin as well as punishing it (Exo 34:6,7). But here, in Exodus 23, all it says is that this angel will not forgive sin. So, this ''name" does not mean the whole character of the Almighty.
So what does the phrase "my name is in him" mean? The Hebrew view of ''name" includes concepts, such as authority and honour. In the case of Yahweh, it is his authority. So it is a special authority given at his, the angel's, dispatch. In summary, the verse means that the Lord is sending a malakh, i.e. "a person/agent who is sent/commissioned to accomplish a task" [13]. Israel shouldn't rebel against this agent because he has a special authority given by Yahweh, his name, to punish the people, but, according to the verse, not to forgive them.
So there is still no strong evidence that forces up to conclude that the Sender and the messenger are the same or that the angel is somehow another deity in a form consistent to the trinity doctrine.
But what about those occasions where a biblical character interacts with an an angel, but then say they've interacted with Deity? Didn't Jacob claim the one he wrestled with was Deity in Genesis 32:31 (v.30 in christian bibles)? Wasn't Manoah, the father of Samson, afraid because he had seen Deity in Judges 13:22 even though it was an angel (Judges 13:3)? What does all this mean?
Even though these passages are difficult to fully understand, we can still make some clear observations. One such observation is that in both cases, the apparently supernatural being is referred to as an "angel". In case you are looking at the wrestling match in Genesis 32 and wondering where a clear reference to an angel is, I refer that person to Hoshea 12:4-5 (vs 3-4 in christian bibles) where it clearly says that the being fighting Jacob was an angel.
Another observation that can be made is that the source of contention lies in two places: firstly, in the word commonly translated as "God" in the phrase, "I have seen God"; and secondly, in Genesis 32 particularly, the meaning of the phrase "face to face". I have to know if a person can literally see the One True Deity.
Well, the Lord himself had something to say about seeing him.
And [YHWH] said: 'You cannot see My face, for man shall not see Me and live.' (Exodus 33:20)
Lets pay attention to what Deity is saying. No man can see his face. And no man can see him. That means that Deity cannot be seen. So, with this rule in mind, that means that statements that talk about people seeing "God" must be taken in a figurative or indirect way [14]. But if all this is true, then what does the term "face to face" mean? Jacob wasn't the only one to have a face-to-face experience with Deity (cf. Moses, Exodus 33:11; Deuteronomy 34:10). But we have Divine justification for not taking the phrase literally.
So what does it mean? Well it does have the connotation of "directness", as well as that of closeness and intimacy. And it is something that evokes fear of death. In this occasion with Jacob, we already know it is an angel. So how is this to be understood? Since we know that, according to Yahweh's own word, no human can see Him, we can be sure that the angel was not the Almighty Himself. We could speculate on the exact meaning, but we have enough biblical information to tell us what this is not: it is not Jacob literally seeing the Lord Himself.
I asked my wife about what she thinks all this means, and she gave me a wonderful answer. It reminds me that women can have such deep insights without formal education. She already knew that an angel is simply a messenger from the Almighty. But she said that when Jacob realised who it was he was dealing with, he didn't superficially see the angel for itself, but he "saw" the Deity who sent the angel, i.e. Jacob saw it as a most direct communication from the Creator. That is where she stopped. This explanation is in line with facts we have already observed. My wife is a christian, but I hadn't told her about the contents of this article.
Some may ask, why then did Jacob say that his life had been spared as if he were in danger? Such people may not understand how scary it is to face a supernatural messenger of the Most High, beings that possess more power than humans, able to destroy whole cities, or are signs that divine judgment or destruction is coming. They are creatures that have a much closer contact to the Awesome Deity than we do and live on his commands and commissions. And if a person really knows, and thus fears the One they work for, then fear for your life is a natural response.
This answer then covers many cases of people seeing angels and seeing Deity. We don't even need to get into the fact that the word translated "God" in Gen 32:31 is "elohim" which can mean angels. Since this article deals with a christian point of argument, I will prove my point from their "infallible" scriptures. Psalms 8, in verse 6 of their bibles (verse 5 in Jewish bibles) it says that Deity made man "a little lower than the angels". The word angels is the Hebrew word "elohim". This point is further strengthened by the fact that the book of Hebrews in the christian "new testament" translates it exactly the same way in Hebrews chapter 2 verse 7, translating "elohim" as angels. It would seriously hurt the christian position if any claim is made that it is a mistranslation of Psalms 8, since then their "infallible" scriptures would be continuing in the mistake. So when Jacob or any other in a similar situation seeing an angel then say they see "elohim" it could still mean they are simply seeing an angel. Many Jewish translations actually translate the word as "angel" or "godly angel", and they have good biblical justification for doing so.
Using the very words of the Almighty as a basis, and thinking through what is read, it can be seen how trinitarian logic has distorted the meaning of the text to make it seem as if an angel is a separate "god" or the Mighty One Himself appearing to man. The principles derived from these textual examples can be applied to other cases.
The major "God-angel" texts have been cleared up. But there are a few more that are used in the trinity advertising campaign.
There is a peculiar incident in Genesis 48:15-16 where trinitarians think we have the Lord Himself being called an angel. Let me quote the King James Version to help you see why they would come to such a conclusion.
(15) And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, (16) The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. (Genesis 48:15-16, KJV)
It seems rather plain, doesn't it? Jacob, the one who is blessing Joseph, seems to refer to the God whom his fathers walked before, and which fed him, as "the Angel which redeemed him". The capital "A" that begins the word "angel" helps us to come to that conclusion as well.
But are we really looking at the whole picture?
The answer is no! If we remember all that an angel is, namely, an agent sent by Deity, another way of interpreting these words presents itself as the plain understanding of this scripture. Throughout Jacob's sojourns in life, there was an angel that appeared to him through whom the Almighty gave him assurances, messages and blessings. When he wrestled with the angel in Genesis 32, it was through the angel that the Almighty blessed him with a new name. And it was that angel through whom Deity sent the way for Jacob to be blessed while Laban was cheating him in Genesis 31.
So how does this information impact how we see this verse? What Jacob is really saying is that he is asking for the Almighty to send that angel to bless the lads. This means that verse 15 has Jacob invoking his Deity, and then verse 16 means that, with that Deity's permission, that same angel would bless the lads. Since the angel is simply an agent of Yahweh, it becomes a poetic way of Jacob asking the Lord to bless the lads in the same way that the Lord had blessed him, through the angel/agent.
Now understand that none of the words of the King James Version has to change for the understanding to change. Even the capital letter "A" with "angel" can be overlooked as the King James translators trying to put the trinity into the passage. But clearer, yet accurate, translations of the passage can be seen as follows:
(15) And he blessed Joseph and said, "God, before Whom my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, walked, God Who sustained me as long as I am alive, until this day, (16) may the angel who redeemed me from all harm bless the youths, and may they be called by my name and the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, and may they multiply abundantly like fish, in the midst of the land." (Judaica Press Complete Tanach with Rashi)
(15) He blessed Joseph and he said, "O God before Whom my forefathers Abraham and Isaac walked - God Who shepherds me from my inception until this day: (16) May the angel who redeems me from all evils bless the lads, and may my name be declared upon them, and the names of my forefathers Abraham and Isaac, and may they proliferate abundantly like fish with the land." (Artscroll Stone Edition)
(15) He blessed Joseph, and said, "The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God who has fed me all my life long to this day, (16) the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads, and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac. Let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth." (World English Bible)
A really minor one is in Exodus 3, where it says,
And the angel of YHWH appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said: 'Let me turn aside now, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.' And when YHWH saw that he turned to see, Deity called to him out of the midst of the bush, and said: 'Moses, Moses.' And he said: 'Here am I.' (Exodus 3:2-4)
I think it is easy to see the logic used to back up the trinity notion: the angel appears in the midst of the bush; Deity calls from the midst of the bush; ipso facto, the angel and Deity are one and the same. You could be excused for thinking that. Well, that's before you actually read the words for what they mean. Look again!
The messenger of Yahweh appears in the text as the fire in a bush. Now what is a messenger? Someone who bears the message of the one who commissions him. The Lord speaks to Moses. How? Through his messenger who is in the bush. There is no unambiguous sign that the messenger, the angel, is Deity Himself. That is simply reading the text for what it naturally says through normal methods of interpretation. This was a simple application of the principles derived earlier on, without even referring to them because they are so natural and normal for the text and how it communicates.
Finally Genesis 18, and hopefully I can leave it there with regards to angels. Various trinitarian groups use this passage in different ways to try to propagate their belief in the "three-ness". Because three angels appear at the same time, that IS the Trinity! Somehow, for them, all three persons become angels. For other trinitarians, they will say that Yahweh became a man or appeared like a man or as an angel, and was accompanied by two angels. Since, to that group, no man has seen "God the Father", then it must be "God the Son" that appears to Abraham with two angels.
I'm not gonna quote the whole chapter, so I recommend you read it to get a grasp of the textual context. Now I must admit that this is one of the most interesting passages in the bible. Here's how it starts.
And YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over against him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed down to the earth, and said: 'My lord, if now I have found favour in your sight, please don't pass on from your servant.' (Genesis 18:1-3)
The very first thing to state about this passage (Genesis 18-19) is that it is not clear in every aspect, especially with the subject I'm attempting to cover. There are differences of opinion in every camp, which shows how vague some areas are. So we have to be honest with ourselves, know the assumptions we make, and do our very best to let this scripture speak for itself as much as possible in conformity with the rest of the Jewish Bible. I'm gonna do my best to treat each word of scripture reverently and honestly.
The important question to ask is whether this passage fits the biblical principles that were derived before. Are we forced, by the text, to see that Yahweh literally took the form of men or angels? Who really were these men? Well, we have some strong indicators. In the first verse of the next chapter, Genesis 19:1, it describes two of them as "the two angels", or "two of the angels". Both translations are valid (see Young's Literal Translation). The passage describes these beings both as men and angels. We have examples in the Jewish Bible of the Lord's messengers appearing as men. But we have no clear scripture that shows Deity appearing literally as a man. This all lends credence to the position that the three men that appeared to Abraham were angels.
Let me state something that is not clear in the passage. Does Yahweh appear before the men show up or does he appear via the means of these three men? The passage starts with the Almighty appearing to Abraham. Then the men show up. But the text says later that the men leave to go to Sodom, and Abraham is left alone before the Lord (Genesis 18:22). Take notice of the fact that it does NOT say "two of the men went..." It may be that Yahweh was with Avraham while he took care of the three men. It makes no difference that it says that only two angels entered Sodom in chapter 19:1. The scriptures say that the men left and then two angels entered Sodom. A logical conclusion would be that one of the angels went somewhere else, e.g., back to the heavenly realm.
This is just to show that the vagueness of the situation makes it questionable to even make one of the men be Deity Himself.
There is a significant and obvious fact that fundamentally destroys the notion that the three men, or one of the men, was the Almighty Himself: according to the Almighty Himself, He is not a man, and he doesn't change in order to become one.
Deity [is] not human, since [man] lies; nor the son of man, since he relents. (Num 23:19 [for the usual translation, see [15]])
... because I am Deity, not man. (Hoshea 11:9)
(27) They shall perish, but You shall endure; yes, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a garment You shall change them, and they shall pass away; (28) But You are the selfsame, and Your years shall have no end. (Psalm 102:27-28)
For I, YHWH, haven't change, so you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed. (Malachi 3:6)
So a man can never say he is YHWH and YHWH would never say that he is a man. Although there is clear scriptural evidence that angels take the form of a man, scripture itself says that Deity does not do that [16].
Some may say, "what about the use of a special title for Yahweh in Genesis 18:3 and 19:18?" In both those places, you will see the use of the word "Adonai"? Well, there are two ways of understanding these usages.
With regards to Gen 18:3, if it is the case that Yahweh had appeared to Abraham before the men arrived, then the word "Adonai" could have been used to refer to Yahweh to say "don't pass me by as I deal with these men", straight after which he deals with the men, asking to get some water for them. Another understanding is that if he is refering to the men, then he is talking to the chief one. We have seen before that an angel can talk for Yahweh, and Yahweh responds through that angel. Thus the messenger is addressed as "Yahweh", or in this case, "Adonai", not because it is Yahweh Himself, but because Yahweh is speaking through that messenger. With regards to Gen 19:18, it is simply a case of Lot speaking to the Lord who sent and spoke through the angels.
Either way, there is strong evidence as to why the men cannot be Deity Himself: (as shown in a previous section) a king cannot be his messenger, so YHWH is not his angels (and the text does call them angels); YHWH has never been a man. And there is good reason why they should simply be seen as angels, i.e. because there is a good number of occasions in the Hebrew Scriptures where angels appear as men. And because there is an aspect of vagueness about the passage as a whole, it cannot be used as compelling evidence for a trinitarian claim. You need to already have the presupposition that Deity is three, or that He can become a man to come to these conclusions, and scripture doesn't give any of those allowances.
Have you ever wondered what would convince a trinitarian that Deity is a singular entity? Most would think that if the scriptures simply said that there is one Deity or something similar. But no, neither life nor humans are that easy.
In Deuteronomy 6:4, we come across what would appear to be a simple text:
Listen, Israel, YHWH [is] our Deity, YHWH [is] one.
Now someone not accustomed to trinitarian thinking will think something along the lines of, "how the hell can you get the trinity doctrine from that???" And such a question would be more than understandable. The Israelites had this verse with them for over a thousand years before christianity came on the scene. But there is no evidence that they saw it as implying any sort of plurality. Yet mainstream christians, those who never received, nor did their pagan ancestors ever receive, this revelation from Sinai, tell us they know better. And their evidence?
Well, there are two vital pieces of evidence they lean on. The first one we have met before, so I'll just summarize. The word "Deity", or "God" in other translations, is translated from the Hebrew word "elohim" which trinitarians see as having a plural meaning, the idea of more than one. Thus this verse is seen as a group of something being one. But I have shown that this only makes them polytheists, worshippers of more than one Deity, a concept that goes against the general message of the Hebrew Bible, and the biblical convictions of pre-christian Israel. I'll deal with the biblical status of such a foreign doctrine about Deity later on.
The other piece of evidence they use is the meaning of the Hebrew word "echad". According to their apologists, that Hebrew word means a compound unity. That means a unity of more than one members. It's a lot like saying a unified group. They will even give biblical evidence for this meaning. I'll share with you the most popular.
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cling to his wife, and they shall be one [echad] flesh. (Gen 2:24)
... and there was evening, and there was morning, one [echad] day (Gen 1:5)
And they came unto the valley of Eshcol, and they cut down from there a branch with one [echad] cluster of grapes, and they bore it upon a barrow between two; and they took some of the pomegranates and of the figs. (Num 13:23)
(16)'And you, son of man, take for yourself one stick, and write upon it: For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions; then take another stick, and write upon it: For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and of all the house of Israel his companions; (17) and join them for yourself one to another into one stick, that they may become one in your hand. (Ezekiel 37:16-17)
There are other verses the trinitarians may use to say that groups of people become "one" [echad] people, or many people singing in "one" voice. Then they may add that if the bible really wanted to say that the Almighty was a singular entity, then it should have used the word "yachid", which means unique, solitary, like in Genesis 22:2 where it says, "Take now your son, your only one [yachid]". And a person will soon say to themselves, Wow, "echad" must mean a composite or compound unity.
Unfortunately for the trinitarians, it only shows a good case of data manipulation, or, at worst, deceit. I find this one of the more disturbing of arguments used by people who may be otherwise trying to lead honest lives. Let me just show you what I mean before I say more.
What they are trying to tell us is that "echad" means "a composite" unity. They then use a good number of bible verses that explicitly speak of something that is more than one becoming one. But they miss out two vital pieces of information, and this is with a purpose. They don't tell you how to count in the Hebrew language, and they also don't show you the whole picture of how the word is used biblically.
Ask a Hebrew how to count. Look in a Hebrew lexicon or a book that teaches Hebrew how to count. You will find that where we would say "one", they use the word "echad". Experientially, you will find that that word "echad" is used exactly the same way as we use the word "one". In english, I can speak of "one group" or "one table" or "one love" or "one cell", each denoting a different sort of oneness, from a unity of many ("one group") to only a single thing ("one table", "one cell" "one coin"). In Hebrew, echad, not yachid is used in such cases. You want examples?
One [echad] witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established (Deut 19:15)
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one [echad] witness he shall not be put to death. (Deut 17:6)
There is one [alone] (echad), and without a second [or companion], yea, he has neither son nor brother.... (Eccl 4:8)
And it came to pass, while they were in the way, that the tidings came to David, saying: 'Absalom has slain all the king's sons, and there is not one [echad] of them left.' (2 Samuel 13:30)
And we shall come upon him in some place where he shall be found, and we will settle upon him as the dew falls on the ground; and of him and of all the men that are with him we will not leave so much as one [echad]. (2 Samuel 17:12)
And this is not an exhaustive list of the uses of "echad" as pointing to absolute oneness, i.e. no hint of plurality, but it shows that trinitarians are not telling us the whole story. In fact, if you look closely at the proofs they use to show that "echad" means a composite unity, you may even notice some flaws. Take, for example, the two sticks becoming one. In Ezekiel 37:16, the literal rendition of the words would show you that each stick is called "one [echad] stick", a singular stick. Or what about "one cluster of grapes"? If you took a good look at that phrase, you should notice something. It is the word "cluster" that means a group of something, not the word "echad". The "echad" which refines its meaning makes it a singular cluster, one cluster and not two. The same thing happens with "one people". It is "people" that means more than one of something, but it is the word "one" or "echad" that refines the meaning to a singular people. "one flesh" actually is a metaphor which means unity, not just the "echad" or "one" on its own. You will see that the word "one" is singular, and the word "flesh" is singular. If the reader took this literally, it can have a different meaning of a baby or something. But the words "one flesh" is a metaphor of singularity which emphasizes that the two people should be unified. And an evening and a morning make one day? I just want you to think about this one. Note that it is not that "one day" and "one day" make "one day" which is a composite unit of days where we have two days that are equally days and come together to make a bi-unity of days. It is a singular day. It is two things that are not "a day" that come together to make one single day. Now I would ask you to apply that logic to the trinitarian argument, putting the word "God" in the place of "day", and see if it really makes sense.
The word "one" by itself does mean a singularity. But it needs other words which have the meaning of plurality to give it any notion of plurality. The word "one" still means "a single thing", but now it is the "thing" that defines whether the oneness is that of a group or that of total singularity.
I just want you to think about it. The scripture says that Zedekiah was twenty-one [esreem w'echad] years old (2 Kings 24:18). What does that mean? How old was he? If we are talking years, then what is one year? A plurality of years in unity? It may seem ridiculous to you, but this is the logic of the trinitarians.
To use the words of Deuteronomy 6:4 in their normal sense, you do come up with the proper notion that all the scriptures speak of: that YHWH, the singular Deity, is one. And one of the implications of that verse is that there is only one singular Deity, who has no plurality of deities within him.
It is unjust to show only certain scriptures to produce a skewed picture of Hebrew words. The worst thing is that this is what trusting novices will fall for. And then they grow from that faulty knowledge to advocate something so wrong.
In essence, trinitarians give you a choice. Deuteronomy 6:4 is either talking about more than one God, and thus a group of Gods who are unified in that group. Or it is talking about a singular Deity who is absolutely one with no hint of plurality.
And thus, the pieces of evidence the trinitarians lean on become a broken reed, piercing the strength of their argument which was already fundamentally impotent.
Just as an aside, I was reading the commentary of Adam Clarke, a christian commentator who can be quite insightful. While commenting on Deut 6:4, he almost seem to laugh to himself when he thinks of Jews and some christians going through "extraordinary pains" to prove that "elohim" is "a noun of singular number!" He then says it has not yet been proved. But then I think to myself, "Wait there! For the Jews that he speaks of, it is their language!" Why would they need to prove anything? They have already said that "elohim" can have a meaning singular in number, and they have clear evidence for it. If someone else wishes to say "not so, it always has a plural meaning", then it is that person that needs to prove it. And, to mimic him, "That has not yet been proved."
In Psalm 45, we come to one of the more interesting of the trinitarian proofs that say that even in the "old testament" there is more than one Deity. Just look!
(6) Thy throne, O God [elohim], is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. (7) Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God [elohim], thy God [elohim], hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (Psalm 45:6-7, King James Version [verses 7-8 in Jewish translations])
When I was a christian, it was this verse, and the place in the "new testament" book of Hebrews 1 that refers to it, that, at the very least, convinced me that Jesus was God, as well as the Father being God. So I know how this verse has been used. Even without the christian greek scriptures, you could be forgiven for thinking that there was a "God" whose throne is for ever and ever, and another "God" who anoints the first one. But the question is whether this really is what it means? Can it mean that, in a trinitarian sense?
There is one significant problem with the verse, and it comes from the trinitarian notion about the meaning of "elohim". Remember, they say that it has a plural meaning. I even showed Adam Clarke "laughing" about the fact that it has never been proved to have a singular meaning. And yet, if we view this verse in that light, then we come to some very strange but logical conclusions, based on their conception of the trinity.
Why? Because there are two "elohim" in this verse! And according to mainstream christians, each refers to a different individual in the trinitarian godhead. The first "elohim" refers to the Son, and the second to the Father. Yet if it is true that elohim is always plural, meaning "Gods", then how many "Gods" is the Son? and how many "Gods" is the Father? The trinitarian addiction to the number three shows that we must say that there are at least 7 persons in the trinity. We have the first "elohim" in this passage being at least three divine persons, and the second "elohim" being at least three divine persons. And lets not forget the person of the Holy Ghost, who isn't explicitly called "elohim" in the "old testament", so we have 7 divine persons. As you may see, there is a distinct problem with regarding "elohim" to always mean a plurality.
Also, there is the fact that the first "elohim" seems to have another "elohim" over him. They cannot be equal in authority. But this doesn't fit so well with some understandings of the trinity.
But let's say that "elohim" has a singular meaning. Surely, this must still be troublesome for a person who says that there is only one Deity.
Actually, when we know how the word "elohim" is used, we will find that there is no problem. This is because the word "elohim" can refer to men.
"WHAT???" I hear some scream. "He accuses us of making man into a god, and he is doing the same thing."
Actually, I'm not doing the same thing. In their case, they are literally making a man, Jesus, the Ultimate Supreme Being, that being one definition of the english word "God". What I'm doing is showing that men are referred to as the Hebrew word "elohim", while still remaining purely human. And that is not the same thing at all [17].
Now there are places in scripture where men are called "elohim".
And YHWH said to Moses, See, I have given you [to be] an "elohim" to Pharaoh... (Exodus 7:1) [18]
He [Aaron] shall speak for you [Moses] to the people, and it will be that he will be your mouth and you will be his "elohim". (Exodus 4:16)
If the thief is not found, the owner of the house shall approach the "elohim" that he has not laid his hand on his neighbour's goods. (Exodus 22:7) [where "elohim" is understood as "the judges" or "the court", cf. Exodus 21:6]
(1) A Psalm of Asaph. Deity stands in the congregation of Deity; in the midst of the "elohim" He judges: (6) I said: You [people] are "elohim", and all of you sons of the Most High. (Psalm 82:1,6) [Here, "elohim" refers to human judges.]
So it is seen that the Hebrew word "elohim" can apply to men who are in a position of power, the place of rulership or the seat of judgment. So if it means anything in Psalms 45:6, it means "ruler" or "judge". Therefore the second "elohim" refers to the Deity himself.
When we also look at the whole 45th chapter of Psalms, not only does it become obvious that it is talking about a king or ruler, and the latter part talks about his queen, described in very earthy language. Is there any proof, other than the trinitarian understanding of the word "elohim" that can show that this verse is not talking about a man?
The fact is that the claim that there are two "Gods" here who are both divine beings cannot be proved from the text, which appears to more likely be talking about a king like Solomon who sat on the throne of Yahweh (1 Chronicles 29:23).
Although, in the vast majority of cases, the Almighty is spoken of as strictly singular sense, there are some, relatively few, verses that seem to speak of him using plural nouns, verbs and adjectives in the Hebrew. I'll just quote again some of the verses used by the trinitarians.
And it came to pass, when Deity (Elohim) caused me to wander (Literally: they caused me to wander) from my father's house ...(Genesis 20:13)
... because there Deity (Elohim) appeared to him ... (Literally: they appeared to him.) (Genesis 35:7)
Remember now your Creator ... (Literally: creators)(Ecclesiastes 12:1)
... holy God ... (both "holy" and "god" is in the plural form, so literally "God, the Holy Ones")(Joshua 24:19)
For your Maker is your husband. (Literally: makers, husbands)(Isaiah 54:5)
It looks pretty convincing, doesn't it? Well, it does until you actually think about the point they are trying to make and the logical conclusion of such a point, and it is awfully similar to the logical conclusions about their view of the word "elohim".
Now remember, the trinitarian point is that the fact that there are places where the Hebrew uses all plurals to refer to the Almighty. Thus this means that there is a plurality in "God". I would just ask you to pause and look again at their examples from scripture. The word "creator" in Eccl 12:1 is meant to be plural, i.e., creators. What does "creators" mean? It means more than one creator. What about the fact that in Joshua 24:19 'both "holy" and "god" is in the plural form'? Here they get a bit inaccurate. It wouldn't mean "God, the Holy Ones". To be consistent, it means "Gods, the Holy Ones". What does "Gods" and "Holy Ones" mean? It means that there is more than one "Holy One", and, most importantly, there is more than one "God". Remember that "God" is not a proper name like "David" or "Peter" or "Sarah". It is a title, like "king" "master", "emperor". So there is more than one God, according to the trinitarian depiction of scripture. Again, "makers" and "husbands" in Isaiah 54:5 means more than one "maker" and more than one "husband".
Now a charge of gross inconsistency must be leveled against the trinitarians who use these proofs and then say that they are monotheists. The word "monotheist" means "one who accepts a singular deity". Yet the proofs they are using, if used consistently, are telling us that they believe in more than one Deity, more than one Creator, more than one Maker, more than one Husband for Israel. No matter how "one" you try to make it, you will only end up with a group of two or more. They may try to glue this together using man's reasoning, but still that same reasoning revolts against the idea of something being absolutely singular while being more than one, since that is an utter contradiction, as impossible as a square-circle, i.e., something that cannot exist in any reality. Thus they can never really be called "monotheists", but rather "polytheists". And what is worse is that they are saying that this is what the Hebrew Bible teaches!!!
Now, again, the trinitarian may protest and say that they are not trying to say there is more than one "God", and that is not what he believes. But the response must then be, why then give scriptural evidences that say exactly that, if we follow his evidence to its logical conclusion, reading the scriptures as plural, meaning more than one? His own arguments become his worst enemy.
One thing a person should do when confronted by such arguments is look at the context. Now this is difficult for those who do not know Hebrew, because this argument is based on the Hebrew words. I hope that my explanation will be a help to those people as well. Although we will not, cannot, ignore the relatively few times the plural is used to speak of the Almighty, it should also be noted that in the vast majority of scripture, He is spoken of in the numerical singular, i.e. as one and only one. This should at least make a person stop and think. Why? For two reasons! Firstly, because if the trinitarian camp were consistent in the exegesis, then since they take the plural as literally meaning "more than one" thing, then when they see the Almighty spoken of in the singular, they would have to take that as only refering to one and one alone. This at least shows something to ponder on. Secondly, if we have 1000 clear cases of the Almighty being referred to in the singular and 10 cases of him being spoken of in the plural, then is it proper to let the 10 dictate our doctrine? I'll just leave you to think about that, rather than answer it.
The reason why context is so useful is because in many of the cases that the trinitarians use, in the very same verse or sentence, there is a very singular term used. For example, in Joshua 24:19 it says "...for he is a holy Deity". The trinitarians will point out that "holy" and "Deity" are in the plural form in the Hebrew. But in the very same sentence, the word "he" is singular. Or in Deuteronomy 5:23 it says "...the voice of the living Deity speaking..." Some would note that the word "living" and "Deity" are in the plural form in the Hebrew. Yet the word "speaking" which is directly linked to those words, which should agree and be in plural, is actually in the singular form. Or, in a different way, Abraham says in Genesis 20:13, "when Deity caused me to wander". Again, trinitarians say that "Deity" and the verb translated "caused me to wander" both have plural forms in the Hebrew. But when Abraham relates the fact that the Almighty took him from his father's house in Genesis 24:7, all the verbs are in singular form.
If you remember the previous section that showed that "elohim" may have a plural form but has a singular meaning, so whenever the trinitarians say that "God" or "Deity" is in the plural form, as in the previous paragraph, you should know that it proves nothing. But then the question should arise: if some Hebrew word has a plural form, does that necessarily mean it has a plural meaning? This question should hit home more when you balance that with what I've just said about the constant singular force that is always nearby these trinitarian plural passages.
Now the more consistent monotheists, the Jews that accept the Hebrew Scriptures, have good explanations for the fact of plural things to refer to Deity, and they also show that it doesn't only happen to the Almighty alone, but to single humans as well. Let me quote one of the most excellent commentators I've read, Rashi, to give one of the explanations.
When God caused me to wander [The verb [hith'u] is] in the plural. But do not wonder at this because in many places, words denoting Godliness and words denoting authority are expressed in the plural, (e.g.), (II Sam. 7:23):“whom God went (halekhu) (to redeem)” ; (Deut. 5:23):“the living (hayyim) God” ; (Josh. 24:19):“a holy (qedoshim) God.” And all references to Godliness or to authority are in the plural, as for example (below 39:20):“And Joseph’s master (adoney) took” ; (Deut. 10:17):“the Lord of (adoney) lords” ; (below 42:33):“the lord of (adoney) the land,” and so (Exod. 22:14);“if its master (be'alayw) is with it” ; (ibid 21:29):“and if its master was warned (bive'alayw).” [20] (For those whose browser can read Hebrew, see [19])
Rashi gives many, but not all, examples where a plural word is used to describe a singular thing. Four out of the last 5 scriptural examples are talking about individual humans. The fact that a plural word is used does not mean that the person talked about is a plurality of people or things, or many people. It is just a way of expressing authority. The fact that it is used for both humans and Deity shows that a word in plural form can still have a singular meaning. It is just an idiom in Hebrew, which means that it is a way of speaking in the Hebrew language.
There is also a more linguistic explanation for the occurrences of plural nouns verbs and adjectives. It is a term called "attraction". This is where a word, a verb or an adjective is affected by nearby noun which makes act differently than the usual usage. I'll give you an english example quoted from a website that has nothing to do with the trinity subject at hand but used to show how attraction is used.
'In each of the examples to be given it is beyond question that what starts as a singular pronoun (=that which, or a thing that), because a singular verb follows it; but in each also the next verb ... is not singular but plural. This is due to the influence of a complement in the plural, and the grammatical name for such influence is attraction; all the quotations are on the pattern What is said are words, instead of What is said is words. ... in the quotations that follow, if the singular is is to stand..., the roman-type verb should have its number changed from plural to singular: ... What is required are houses at rents that the people can pay./... What is needed are a few recognized British financial corporations.' (Fowler, p. 691.) [21] [italics his] (see also [22] for a Wikipedia definition)
This is an example of attraction in the english language. In other languages it can occur in a different way. It even occurs in the Septuagint and the christian new testament. An example of how it is used in the Hebrew language, in the Bible can be seen in Numbers 12:1 where it says that "Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses". As you can see, there are two people speaking, so you could expect the word "spoke" to be plural in the Hebrew speaking of more than one person speaking. Yet it is singular because of its proximity to the name "Miriam". And again, in 2 Samuel 7:16, it says "your house and your kingship [2 things] shall be made sure". But the verb "shall be made sure" is in the singular because it is close to the word "house" in the Hebrew.
A great example of this is Exodus 32 and the golden calf. In verse 4, Aaron make one molten calf, but in the very next verse, he says, according to the Hebrew, "These are the gods which [they] brought you up from the land of Egypt". The Hebrew words translated "these" and "brought you up" are both in the plural form. Yet, the text clearly shows that only one molten calf was made. Even the Almighty says in verse 8 that "[they] have worshipped it and sacrificed to it" refering to the god in the singular. In verse 5 an altar is built in front of it, again in the singular. In Nehemiah 9:18, when retelling the story, the Hebrew says,
Indeed, when they had made for themselves a molten calf, and said: 'This is your Deity that [he] brought you up out of Egypt, and had done great despicable things.
As you see, everything is put in the strict singular. So the best way to understand that use of the plural terms is attraction, where the surrounding words are affected by the plural form (but not meaning) of the word "elohim".
One last example is from 1 Samuel 2:4 where it says, according to the Hebrew, "the bow of the mighty men are broken". So the word "bow" is singular. So the normal rules of language say that the phrase should be "the bow of the mighty men is broken". In the Hebrew, the word "broken" should be in the singular to agree with "bow". Yet it is in the plural. Why? Because it is influenced by the plural word "mighty men" which is near it.
Going through all these examples it can be seen that attraction can and does account for the times when a plural verb or adjective appears near the word "elohim". It is not because it is plural in meaning, but the form can influence the surrounding words. This is shown by the fact that either surrounding words or sentences or retellings of these accounts always tend to be strictly singular. Thus all the trinitarian proof texts are not referring to a literal plural as they would have us believe. It doesn't mean that there is more than one "God", or that more than one "God" was doing something if the verb is in a plural form. It is a fact of language that affects the form of words, not necessarily the meaning or intent [35].
So there you have it. It can either be shown that the words in plural form are either majestic plural, or plurals of intensity, or authority, which agrees with Rashi. Or it is the linguistic phenomenon called attraction. These facts account for "creators", "husbands", plural verbs. An important fact to remember is that these plural occurrences are in the small minority, and shouldn't be used to affect the vast majority, unless there was some clear statement that says that Deity is more than one. That statement does not exist in scripture. He himself clearly says he is absolutely one.
Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6 are messianic verses for christians in general. For trinitarians, these verses not only point to the messiah, but they also show that this messiah is supposed to be divine, even the Lord Almighty Himself. How would they get this notion? I'll now go through these verses individually. Lets see what they say and if they really say what trinitarians would have us believe.
Just to let you know that this discussion is not about the identity of messiah. This is about the understanding of these verses and the principles we can extract about Deity and man.
Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman is pregnant, and is giving birth to a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)
Now the key word in this verse is "Immanuel". Why? Because it means "Deity [is] with us". In simple terms, trinitarians say that this means that the child who bears this name would literally be the Deity with us, the Lord Almighty walking in our midst as a man.
Is this true?
First, let's just look at verses nearby. This is what the next verse says.
(15) Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good. (16) Indeed, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good... (Isaiah 7:15-16)
Now remember, this child is supposed to be the all-knowing Deity. Yet this passage clearly shows that there is a time when the child, or the Lord, doesn't know to refuse the evil and choose the good. The reader should spot a significant problem with this interpretation. Can there really be a time when the All-knowing One doesn't know something? Also, Deuteronomy 32:4 says about the Lord, "The Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice; a Deity of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and right is He." Does it really make sense that this righteous Deity not know to "reject the evil and choose the good"? [23]
In light of this, it is necessary to ask, if someone or something bears a name that has Deity or Yah (a shortened version of the name of Yahweh) in its meaning, does that mean that name tells us the nature of that person? I'll show you what I mean by examples.
Abraham was tested to sacrifice his son. At the last moment, the Lord said "stop!" as he was only testing Abraham's commitment, and promptly provided a ram to make the proper sacrifice. Abraham called that place "YHWH Yireh", which can be understood as "Yahweh will provide". Does that mean the place now bears the nature of Yahweh? Can we now worship that place? In Jeremiah 33:16 (cf with the trinitarian view of Jeremiah 23:6), the city Jerusalem is called "YHWH Tzidkenu" or "Yahweh our righteousness". Does that make that city have a divine nature? Again, Jerusalem is called "YHWH Shammah" in Ezekiel 48:35, which means "Yahweh is there". So there will be a time when Jerusalem shall be YHWH here with us???
Some may say that those examples are only places. Yahweh may not be able to be a place, but he can be a man. But that makes little difference. There are scores of biblical names of men and women that have the divine name in theirs. Elijah means "Yah is Deity" or "Yah is my Deity". Samuel means "Deity has heard" or "name of Deity". I could add other names like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Mattaniah, Zedekiah, Daniel, Zephaniah, etc. But some strong cases are names like Elihu, which means "He is my Deity" or "My Deity is he", or Abijah "Yah is my father", or Jehu "he is Yah". Are these last three, Elihu, Abijah, and Jehu, different manifestations of Deity because of their names? We even have a woman in 1 Chronicles 4:18 called Bithiah, meaning "daughter of Yah".
The answer has to be no! The Hebrew people gave names to people and things to give glory to the Most High. The names had symbolic meaning, meaning that they spoke about Deity rather than they did about the man who bore the name. The name Yishmael meaning "Deity shall hear" speaks about the Deity who hears, not the man who bears the name. Joshua means "Yahweh is deliverance/salvation", which speaks of the saving power of the Almighty, not the man. Israelites would add a divine title or name to the names of their children. The Lord himself does this, as is shown by his angel changing the name of Jacob to Israel. That didn't make Jacob into a divine being.
When we look at the biblically-universal use of names, there is no biblical reason to believe that this child, Immanuel, is actually Deity himself, but rather a sign that the Deity, who is not the child, is still with his people, and this is shown in the fact that He, the Almighty One, will deliver his people from what the context of Isaiah 7 speaks of: the joint forces of Syria and Israel, as well as the coming of Assyria.
Now that a principle has been gained from scripture about the use of names, let's look at Isaiah 9. Now instantly we arrive at a problem. There are different ways that the text has been translated [24]. But for the sake of argument, I'll just use the christian version. It says that the child who shall reign on the throne of David will be called "Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace". Based on the principle that was observed above, it naturally follows that these names do not tell us the nature of the child, but tells us about the Deity who would bring to pass the events that would occur around the child, which you can read about in the context of this verse. To quote Isaac Troki:
The preceding epithets are applied to the Almighty as indications of marvelous occurrences accompanying the life of Hezekiah, "God showed Himself Wonderful," causing for his (Hezekiah’s) sake, the shade of the sundial to recede; as "Counselor," the Lord established his own designs, and frustrated those of Sennacherib; as "the Omnipotent God," He evinced His divine attribute by suddenly destroying the immense army of the invading king; as "Father of Eternity," and Ruler of time, who, according to His pleasure, adds to and diminishes from the life of mortals, He manifested His power by prolonging the life of Hezekiah for a period of fifteen years. [25]
Now the subject could be wrapped up and finished right there. But let's consider the trinitarian position. According to them, the Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son. Yet we have the Son being called "the everlasting Father". That doesn't seem too consistent, again.
For those eternally convinced that the names given to the child must and must and must refer to the child, unfortunately for them there is still an alternate understanding given by Jews that shows that all of the titles can still refer to a human who is not the Creator of the whole universe. A man can be called a miracle or a wonder, since a miracle is what the Almighty does, not what he is. So he can cause a human to be a miraculous aid to Israel. Any man can be a counselor. "Wondrous counselor" means a counselor given who is a wonder to his people. The Hebrew words translated "Mighty God", actually is "el-gibbor". The word "el" can be translated Deity, but its root meaning is "strength". Laban says he has strength [el] in his hand to hurt Jacob in Genesis 31:29. Deuteronomy 28:32 says the people will be weakened so much there'll be no power or strength [el] in their hand. Nehemiah 5:5 says that the people didn't have the power [el] to redeem (buy back) their children from slavery. That's why the word "el" can refer to men like in Ezekiel 31:11 and Ezekiel 32:21. The word "gibbor" can mean a human hero or mighty one like in Genesis 6:4, chapter 10:8, and Joshua 1:14. It is even used in relation with "el" in Ezekiel 32:21. The words translated "everlasting father" is "avi-ad". "avi-" means "father of". It can mean a literal father, like a biological dad. Or it can figuratively mean head, founder, patron, originator, ruler, chief, or used simply as a term of honour or respect, according to Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) Hebrew Dictionary. "ad" means, in this case, means a continued existence. It can mean eternity, or it can mean a more limited existence, like a natural reading of Psalm 21:4 or chapter 119:44 or Proverbs 29:14. So this "father of continuance" would be known as such because he was the main part in keeping something going. And the final words "prince/ruler of peace" can refer to anyone who rules in a peaceful manner, such as Solomon whose name actually means peace [26].
With all that in mind, it is no wonder that there are some Jews that see the names as applying to Hezekiah (whose name actually means that "Yah is strong" - compare with "el-gibbor"), since this is the king that did many good things for Israel, like stand up to Assyria with the help of Yahweh, and who helped in the continuance of the throne of David and the preservation of Judah.
The trinitarian may say, "Hold up! But isn't "el-gibbor" translated as "Mighty God" in Isaiah 10:21? Isn't that talking about the Almighty? How can you say it means one thing here in chapter 9, and another thing in chapter 10?"
Well, let's apply such a question to both approaches to understanding what the name means. The first approach was that a name glorifies the Most High, not the man with the name. So both occurrences of the name is talking about the Most High.
But the second approach says that the name can talk about the man with the name. So how do you know if there is a difference between the word used in chapter 9 and chapter 10? The same way that you know that the two "elohim" in Psalm 82:1 and the one in Psalm 82:6, the very same chapter, refers to different people. If you look at Psalm 82 verse 1, it says "Deity [elohim] ... judges among the judges/gods [elohim]". It says in verse 6 of the same chapter "I have said, "You are judges/gods [elohim], and sons of the Most High, all of you." You know by the context that even though the passage uses the same word, it is referring to different people because of context. And this is the same chapter.
So in Isaiah 9, we see "el-gibbor" being apply to a child who will sit on the throne of David, thus it is talking about a human being. We have seen that both Hebrew words can refer to men. In Isaiah 10, it refers to Deity. Thus context shows us that we are talking about two essentially different people, even if the same term is used.
So both approaches can still take Isaiah 10:21 in stride very easily.
So we have many reasons why these verses do not imply that a man can be Deity just because of his name. Biblically speaking, a name points to the Almighty, not the human that bears the name. And an understanding of the words used in Isaiah 9:5 doesn't pin us down to thinking that a man is Deity. There is enough evidence in scripture to show us that if a god takes the form of a man, it isn't the Deity that spoke in Deuteronomy 4:15-19.
Look at the following verse.
The LORD says to my Lord, Sit thou at My right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Psalm 110:1, KJV)
The trinitarian argument, simply put, is as follows. It is assumed that King David wrote this psalm or song. So both Lords here must be superior to the King of Israel. Who else could that be other than the Almighty? David is saying that the Lord, one Divine Being, says to his Lord, his superior, thus another Divine Being. So we have two Divine Beings.
But there is a problem with this understanding. This time, rather than going through all the inconsistencies of the trinitarian understanding of this verse, I'll just deal with what the verse actually tells us, specifically the words used. The key phrases are "A Psalm of David", "the LORD", and "my Lord".
Firstly, "A Psalm of David". In English, we understand this to mean "a psalm belonging to David because he wrote it". But in Hebrew this is not the case. The phrase is "ledawid mizmor" which literally means "to David a song". That first letter "l" (or "lamed" in Hebrew) before "dawid" can mean "belonging to", so that would mean "by". Or it can mean "for" which would mean either about someone or for someone else to sing. I'll give an example of each.
For the Leader; a psalm for the sons of Korah. (Psalm 47:1)
A Psalm of David. YHWH is my shepherd; I shall not want. (Psalm 23:1)
(1) [A Psalm] of Solomon. Give the king Your judgments, O Deity, and Your righteousness unto the king's son; (20) The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended. (Psalm 72:1-20)
In my quotes from Psalms, the highlighted word is that Hebrew letter "lamed" or "l". You can see for yourself its different usages.
Since Psalm 110 starts with "a psalm of David", it can mean "a song by David", "a song about David" or "a song for David [to use]".
What about the words, "the LORD", all in capital letters in the King James Version, the first "Lord"? Well, that is "translated" from, or more properly, a mask over the special name of Deity, YHWH, which I pronounce as Yahweh. This is the distinct name of the Creator of heaven and earth, the Deity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The second "Lord" is translated from the Hebrew word "adoni". It is the word "adon" which means lord, or master. But the form "adoni" means "my lord" or "my master". Now how is that word used in the Hebrew Scriptures? Well, the Hebrew word "adon", simply "lord/master" is used for both man and Deity. But the form "adoni" is only used for humans or angels, never the Almighty! If you want to refer to Deity and say "my Lord" in Hebrew, it is not "adoni", but "adonay", and that little change makes all the difference.
With all these facts in place, lets see what Psalm 110:1 really says.
Firstly, based on Psalm 110 alone, it is not certain that King David wrote it, since it could have been written for him, about him or concerning him. If this is true, then we can understand the meaning of the phrase, "YHWH said to my lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool." It would simply be the Almighty talking to David, the master of the person writing the song. There would be no problems with interpreting the verse and the following chapter in this light. To sit to the Lord's right hand is to be in a prominent and important place, e.g. ruling as king of Israel. Even verse 4 which can be understood as speaking of being a priest forever like Melchizedek can apply to David since he did fulfil some priestly functions (2 Sam 6:14,17) and like a priest, he drew the nation of Israel closer to the Almighty. And verse 5 simply shows that the Almighty would be at his right and to win victories for him. Apart from the trinitarian understanding of verse 1, there is nothing in the chapter to imply divinity.
But let's assume that it is a psalm written by David. Does that force us to concede that the "my lord" is someone else who superior to David, someone divine? Only a few facts are needed to help us reach a conclusion. The first is that this psalm is a song. This may seem obvious to some, but it needs to be stated since it can get treated like an historical narrative.
The second fact is that "adoni" is only used for men or angels, but never applied to Deity Himself.
The last fact is that David refers to himself in the third person in his own songs. This is where instead of referring to himself as "me" or "I", he talks about himself impersonally, calling himself "he" or "him" or "David". Take, for instance, Psalm 144.
(1) [A Psalm] of David. Blessed be the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle; (10) Who gives salvation to kings, who rescues David Your servant from the hurtful sword. (Psalm 144:1-10)
So, in Psalm 110:1, king David could be putting himself in the shoes of one of his soldiers or servants, looking at himself and assures himself of the Lord's promises and faithfulness throughout his battles. Reading the psalm in this light doesn't make it egotistical or selfish. Rather, it is David encouraging himself.
Add to this the fact that these songs were for worship and possibly for the Levites to sing. So, in their mouths, the second "my Lord" still makes a lot of sense.
But we cannot exclude the possibility that it does refer to the messiah. But if it does, and David calls him "lord", doesn't that make the messiah divine? Again, it should be remembered that David would have called him "adoni", a term used for humans or angels. There is no biblical claim that the messiah would be an angel. So David is referring to a human master. And there is nothing wrong or odd about calling a descendant "my lord". When the messiah would come, David wouldn't be king anymore. So this human lord would still be David's superior. Plus that future Davidic king was promised to do great things and be a great man. Why wouldn't David call him "my lord"?
The problem with this divinity claim is that there is nothing inherent in the words used or the context that would suggest, or be compelling evidence that this lord of David is anything more than human, much less the Most High Himself.
Now so far, in these proofs, we have seen the trinitarian try to show plurality, much to the perversion of monotheism. We have see the trinitarian try to show that there is at least two Divine Beings. But there is one member of the trinity that doesn't seem to be getting much attention here. Which member would that be? That would be the "Holy Spirit" or "God the Holy Spirit". We've seen a lot of attempts at giving evidence for two "Gods", who would fit the roles of Father and Son. But there doesn't seem to be much to show "God the Holy Spirit".
The trinitarian, knowing this, will point you to scriptures that are meant to show, in one way or another, this "God" in the trinity. The scriptures normally pointed to are Isaiah 63:7-14, Zechariah 12:10, Isaiah 42:1, Isaiah 61:1, and Isaiah 11:2. Now I think it would be beneficial if we went backwards and went through the last four first. You'll see why.
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, a spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look to Me concerning him who they have thrust through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for [his] only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] first-born. (Zechariah 12:10)
Behold My servant, whom I uphold; Mine elect, in whom My soul delights; I have put My spirit upon him, he shall cause judgment to go forth to the nations. (Isaiah 42:1)
The spirit of the Lord YHWH is upon me; because YHWH has anointed me to bring good tidings to the humble; He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the eyes to them that are bound; (Isaiah 61:1)
And the spirit of YHWH shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of YHWH. (Isaiah 11:2)
Now I'm confused. How do any of these show the person of "God the Holy Spirit"? How do any of these show that the spirit of Deity is a Divine Person in his own right? The fact is that these verses don't show this at all. I could add the other passages given as proof like Genesis 1:2 and 6:3, Job 33:4, Psalm 51:11 and 139:7. But they all share a fundamental flaw. All they do is speak of "the spirit of the Lord" and "the spirit of Deity". But all you can conclude from that is that the Almighty has a spirit that he uses. This doesn't give it any personality, and none of these passages can be used to prove or even hint at the notion that somehow this spirit is a Divine Person distinct from the other "Gods" in their trinity. Lets be blunt here. Simply because a scripture states "the spirit of the Lord" or "his holy spirit", that doesn't make the spirit a person. And having scriptures that show a servant of Deity, his spirit, and his name in the same verse or passages doesn't make a trinity any more than me stating that "I hit my wife with a pan" make me, my wife, and the pan a trinity. Stating three things in a verse don't really tell you anything that would lead to such a conclusion as the trinity.
In fact, if you do a study of the word "spirit" or the Hebrew word it is translated from, "ruah", you may be surprised as to how it is used. It can be used to speak of the wind or coolness (Gen 3:8; Gen 8:1), breath (Gen 6:17; Psalm 135:17; Job 4:9), or a mood or disposition or mind (Gen 26:35; Gen 41:8; Exo 6:9; Deut 2:30). When it is used concerning the Almighty, it gives people prophecy (Num 11:25-29; 24:2; 1 Sam 10:6; 2 Sam 23:2) or strength, power, wisdom/knowledge or courage (Exo 31:3; 35:31; Judg 6:34; 14:6). But none of these facts makes the spirit of Deity any bit a person in its own right. In fact, since the root understanding of the Hebrew word "ruah" seems to be "invisible force", and can imply a person's mind, then it would be more obvious that the spirit of Yahweh is his "force", his active presence, his influence in the world and in the hearts of men. This is why, in the Catholic Encyclopedia, under the heading of "the Blessed Trinity", this is said:
Nor indeed can it be said that the passage, even though it manifests some knowledge of a second personality in the Godhead, constitutes a revelation of the Trinity. For nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person. Mention is often made of the Spirit of the Lord, but there is nothing to show that the Spirit was viewed as distinct from Jahweh Himself. The term is always employed to signify God considered in His working, whether in the universe or in the soul of man. [27]
Just in case you didn't know, the catholics are trinitarian and believe it to be true both based on their catholic tradition and based on the christian scriptures (the "old testament" and the "new testament"). Yet even they admit how the spirit operates in the Hebrew Scriptures, even if they think that there are signs of a second personality in the Godhead.
So unfortunately for trinitarians, no verse in the Hebrew scriptures shows the personhood of the spirit of Deity! Except possibly....
Well, I only dealt with 99% of the trinitarian verses. I didn't deal with Isaiah 63:7-11. Has that got the evidence we need to change everything around for the side of the trinitarians? Let's see.
(7) I will make mention of the mercies of YHWH, and the praises of YHWH, according to all that YHWH has bestowed on us; and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which He has bestowed on them according to His compassions, and according to the multitude of His mercies. (8) For He said: 'Surely, they are My people, children that will not deal falsely'; so He was their Saviour. (9) In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the angel of His presence saved them; in His love and in His pity He redeemed them; and He bore them, and carried them all the days of old. (10) But they rebelled, and grieved His holy spirit; therefore He was turned to be their enemy, He Himself fought against them. (11) Then His people remembered the days of old, the days of Moses: 'Where is He that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of His flock? Where is He that put His holy spirit in the midst of them? (Isa 63:7-11)
How does the trinitarian mindset view this passage? Well they will say that they see Yahweh, the angel of His presence, and His holy spirit in the same passage so we have the holy trinity right there. Also, they will say that the holy spirit must be a person because, according to verse 10, they grieve His holy spirit. And surely you can only grieve a person, right?
There are three points to be made about such a mindset. The first thing is that although the three are mentioned in the same passage, that tells you nothing about a trinitarian relationship. It gives no sign that they are one. It definitely gives no sign that they are all Yahweh. So the mentioning of the three is no proof or hint of a trinity. Anyone who tries to use this as proof of a trinity is guilty of circular reasoning. What has happened is that they already believe in the trinity and thus whenever they see the three they instantly think "trinity". But there is no such relationship or mention of such a doctrine in the text itself, only in their minds.
Secondly, as has been shown before, the Almighty isn't his own messenger/angel. So "the angel of His presence" isn't the Almighty. From verse 9 to 11, every "He" and "His" refers to Yahweh himself, not the angel or the spirit. So when it says "the angel of His presence saved them; in His love and in His pity He redeemed them" the phrase about "his love" and "his pity" belongs to the "his" in "the angel of His presence. It was Yahweh's presence that the angel was sent from. It was Yahweh's love, Yahweh's pity, Yahweh's holy spirit. It was Yahweh that turned to be their enemy, and that fought, etc.
Thirdly, I want to talk about this grieving of His holy spirit. Is it true that only a person can be grieved? This is partly true, but not in the way that trinitarians would like you to believe. Let me give another scriptural example to help us understand what is happening.
And they [the Hittite wives of Esau] were a bitterness of spirit to Isaac and to Rebekah. (Genesis 26:35)
This means that the Hittite wives of Esau were, to put it mildly, upsetting to Isaac and Rebekah. The scripture puts it that it was a bitterness to their spirit. Since we know that spirit can mean "mind" or "mood" or "the inner seat of emotion", another way of saying this is that the wives grieved Rebekah's spirit, as well as Isaac's.
In very much the same way, the Israelites grieved Yahweh's holy spirit. With their rebellion and unholy attitude, they were bitter to Yahweh's spirit. And the Almighty, in response, fought them. This is based on the natural definition of the word "spirit".
Where did the trinitarians slip up? It is very easy to do. If you see the holy spirit as something distinct from Yahweh, and you forget or don't know the way "spirit" is used in the Hebrew Scriptures, you will wonder how a thing can be grieved. But when you realise that "spirit" in the Bible can mean the inner "force", the mood, mind, disposition, you see that to grieve Yahweh's spirit, his holy spirit, is like grieving a person's mind or heart. As our spirit is an extension of us, not a separate person, and it can be grieved, in the same way Yahweh's spirit is an "extension" of him, not a separate person. For a trinitarian, there is still circular reasoning involved to split Yahweh's spirit apart from him. And the way the question is phrased to others who are looking into the subject can plant that false notion about "spirit" in their head before they even know it.
The fact is that the notion that the holy spirit of the Lord is a separate person, another Divine Person, is absent from the Hebrew Scriptures. A good amount of christians can see that. Unfortunately for truth, too many want it to be there so badly, they force scriptures that say nothing to say something.
This is not a proof that is often used by trinitarians to prove the doctrine of there being more than one eternal, thus divine, being. But it is still put forward as evidence so let's take a look. The proof-text is Daniel 7:13-14.
(13) I saw in the night visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the Ancient of days, and he was brought near before Him. (14) And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
What is the logic of the trinitarians? To summarize it, they notice that this "son of man" has an everlasting dominion. They ask, who can have an everlasting dominion except an eternal being? Who else is eternal, besides the Almighty Himself? And don't you see, they may add, that all peoples and nations must serve him? Who should the nations serve other than the Almighty Himself? And with logic like that, it isn't hard to believe that this son of man coming from the heavens, who is distinct from the Ancient of Days, is another eternal divine being, i.e., another Deity. The trinitarian may even add that their messiah is also called "the son of man", attempting to make an obvious link between their messiah as the son of man, and this son of man in Daniel 7.
But we run into problems from the very beginning. We can start from the fact that the first verse quoted is verse 13. A valid question would be, what came in the verses before? Also, what does the very first phrase of verse 13 say? "I saw in the night visions"! This is a vision, possibly even a dream, since it is a vision of the night. If you have any experience of scripture or even in the ways that people see dreams in our day and age, you will see that dreams or visions don't necessarily have literal fulfilments or interpretations. Sometimes images are used which represent something else. Another way of saying that is that it is symbolic. So from the very beginning, we have reason to hesitate before we accept the trinitarian logic which makes the vision out to be very literal.
I hope that so far in my study you have noticed something. When it comes to scripture, if I can, I will point out something that should be obvious even if you can only read the english translations. This is to show that you don't need a degree in foreign languages to see problems in trinitarian arguments and proof-texts. You only need to be able to read the context and just do some thinking. My essay may have some length to it, but the principles in it are simple: read in context, understand in context, and compare trinitarian argument with the contextual understanding you've gained, as well as each phrase in that context.
Ok, let's see what the context is saying.
Verse 1 of Daniel 7 has Daniel saying that he's written down his dreams and visions on his bed. This confirms the fact that this "son of man" incident is part of a dream. From verses 2-14, he describes a dream that includes seeing four beasts and this son of man. According to verse 16, he doesn't understand that truth of the dream. This again should make you think. If the dream was simply meant to be taken generally literally as trinitarians take it, then why would Daniel have to wonder about anything? He would know what the dreams meant. Then from 17-28, the interpretation of the dream is given. So if you are wanting to know what the dream meant, including the bit about "a son of man", then the answer is still in Daniel 7.
We are told in verse 17 that the four beasts represent four kings or kingdoms. We can know that the word "kings" should be interpreted "kingdoms" or "dominions" because in verse 23, it says "the fourth kingdom". This means that something in Daniel's dream represented something else, i.e. it was symbolic.
At this point, I want to point out a pattern that occurs with each significant element of Daniel's dream. When it comes to describing these symbolic beasts, Daniel always says that they were like something. The first beast (v.4) was "like a lion...". This represented one kingdom. The next beast (v.5) was "like a bear...". This represented another kingdom. The next beast (v.6) was "like a leopard". This represented another kingdom. The fourth beast was described vividly, but it still represented another kingdom.
Now after the final horrible beast, in Daniel's vision, we have something "like a son of man" appearing. Now is this the only time when we are supposed to take the dream literally? Do we have any sign that we should? No! The question that could be asked is whether this being that was like a son of man could represent something else. Here I will give the angel's interpretation of the dream.
(18) But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. (27)And the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them. (Daniel 7:18,27)
You will see that verse 17-18 gives a brief summary of the dream, but the rest of the chapter goes in-depth on one of the kingdoms and ends with talking about the saints again. I would ask you to compare this verse to the proof-text of the trinitarians, Daniel 7:13-14. You will see that the "one like a son of man" represents "the people of the saints of the Most High". You will see that in the place of "his dominion is an everlasting dominion", it says "their kingdom is an everlasting kingdom". And finally, you will see that where it says in verse 14, "that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him", it says in verse 27, its interpretation, that "all dominions shall serve and obey them".
We have seen that scripture has interpreted scripture, even in the very same chapter. It is not within the scope of this article to name who the saints are, so I'm not going to go in-depth into that. All I will say is that trinitarians and a great many christians would say that it refers to them, i.e. christians. But the context of Daniel shows that it is actually point to literal Israel, being restored, and all the other nations and kingdoms will serve it. A simple way of knowing this is that it is biblical that Deity has a covenant with literal Israel that will not be revoked, even in their sin (see Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28-30, and Ezekiel 37).
Now trinitarians may add other arguments to Daniel 7, like, as said before, only Deity can be served. That is plainly wrong, since biblically, kings can be served and obeyed, and one nation can rule another. There is a worship that belongs to Deity alone, but context would tell you whether this is the worship that is meant, and that is not what is meant here in Daniel 7. They may add that the one "like a son of man" was coming with the clouds of heaven, showing that he came from heaven. But again the problem is that they are focussing on the symbolic dream, thus the clouds of heaven can mean something other than the clouds of heaven. Like what? Well it could just symbolize the authority this kingdom represented by one "like a son of man" has. Whereas the beasts' kingdom was based on this world, the kingdom of the son of man would be based on the authority of heaven. Now I'm just speculating. The fact of the matter is that the main essence of the dream has already been given by the angel to refer to a kingdom, not simply an individual. Again the trinitarian may come back and say, "what about your beloved commentator, Rashi? Doesn't he see the one "like a son of man" refering to Messiah?" I would say three things. Firstly, yes he does, but he takes the "son of man" part literally to say that the messiah is just a human (which is what "son of man" means) which is not what the trinitarians are trying to prove since they want this "son of man" to be divine. And secondly, with no disrespect to Rashi, the angel already told us what the dream means, and that it means a group of people, not just one. Maybe Rashi just saw that this would occur with the coming of the human messiah. Either way, the angel's interpretation is the most important. And lastly, I don't love Rashi. He is a great commentator, but I don't agree with a guy just because he is a great commentator. Sometimes I may come to different conclusions than him. He is not the source of my faith, the scriptures are. And they should be the source of faith to at least Protestant (i.e., non-Catholic) christians. So there's little point in arguing over Rashi when it is scripture that refutes your claims.
So Daniel 7 tells us nothing at all about a plurality in the Godhead. In fact, it confirms monotheism by implying that there was one Ancient of days, and that the one "like a son of man" or a human was someone else who was not divine.
Ah yes, Proverbs 8:22-31. Another colourful proof-text of the trinitarian. What does it say? I'll quote from the King James Version, since trinitarians use it and translations like it to make their point.
(22) The LORD possessed me in the beginning of His way, before of His works of old. (23) I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. (24) When [there were] no depths, I was brought forth; when [there were] no fountains abounding with water. (25) Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth; (26) While as yet He had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. (27) When He prepared the heavens, I [was] there; when He set a compass upon the face of the depth, (28) When He established the clouds above, when he strengthened the fountains of the deep, (29) When He gave to the sea His decree, that the waters should not pass His commandment, when He appointed the foundations of the earth; (30) Then I was by Him, [as] one brought up [with him]; and I was daily [his] delight, rejoicing always before Him, (31) Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth, and my delights [were] with the sons of men.
According to the trinitarian, this is supposed to be a poetic way of saying that there was someone else with the Almighty at creation. As you can see, according to the verse 23 of the King James Version has this being existing "from everlasting", which they would understand as "from eternity", thus having no beginning and being an eternal being. Although they do observe the context to be talking about something called "wisdom", they take everything in this passage as pointing to a literal eternal Person, i.e. the Son, another Deity. In verse 30, some christians take the Hebrew word translated "[as] one brought up [with him]" to mean a director, a chief designer. They link the whole thing to this translation of John 1, "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", understanding "Word" to be essentially the same as "Wisdom" here, and reading "Jesus/Son" in the place of "Word".
If you have the time, I would ask you to actually read the whole book of Proverbs, doing your best to let it speak for itself. The best way to gain truth about this subject is just to read the book for yourself and get used to the whole context of Proverbs to understand how Proverbs 8 fits into the book first. That will bring clarity when it comes to dealing with this subject. But if you haven't done so yet, or you don't have the time, or you are just reading this to criticize my arguments and analysis of the trinitarian proofs, then you can carry on reading.
Let's compare the doctrine of the trinity with the words of this passage and see if it really makes sense. At first, I'll just look at the english translation we have before us. Take a look at verse 24 and 25. It is repeated that wisdom was "brought forth". This means "generated", or "brought into existence", or "born". Yet that implies that wisdom had a beginning. But wait! If wisdom is supposed to be eternal, then how can it have a beginning? To put in a more simpler way, the word "eternal" means "no beginning and no end". Yet "brought forth" means "bring into existence" or "generate", both of which imply a beginning. So how can something or someone with no beginning have a beginning? There is no scripture that says that Deity was "brought forth". So the notion that the Divine Person meant by "wisdom" is eternal cannot be correct because there is an inherent contradiction. Those trinitarians that accept the notion of "eternal generation" live in this contradiction: a beginning that has no beginning.
Also there are strong signs that wisdom is not on the same level as "the LORD". In this passage, the LORD is portrayed as being in charge, giving commands and decrees. The waters obey His, the LORD's, command; the LORD appoints the foundations of the earth. Meanwhile, this "wisdom" is with him rejoices before him, more like an servant or a tool than a "co-equal" partner. Rather than setting itself up, wisdom was set up by the LORD. This doesn't really tally or balance with the trinity claims. Why would someone that rules everything, or something that is already standing need someone else to set it up? No, that doesn't really make sense.
Also, if we just look at the very beginning of this "wisdom" speech, wisdom says something kinda odd for a Divine Being.
(12) I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions (Proverbs 8:12 [KJV])
I'm still using the King James Version because sometimes it is good to use the weapon of the opponent on him. Now the questions that arise from this text is, who is prudence? It cannot really be the holy spirit because that is never called "prudence" in both the Jewish and the christian scriptures. If wisdom is a person, then why not prudence? Maybe this is a hint of a fourth person in the trinity???
If we do, in fact, go a little deeper, it can be seen that the King James Version skews the translation of a certain phrase. Look at the phrase from verse 23, "from everlasting, from the beginning". If we understand "everlasting" to mean "eternal" or no beginning, then how can these phrases be joined together, "from eternity, from the beginning"? Actually, if you checked out the Hebrew, the word used is "me'olam", which means "from a distant time". This phrase can be used in two different ways. It can be used to denote an indefinite time period in reference to Deity Himself (Psalm 93:2). But with regards to other things, it means from a long time in the past, but not eternity (Gen 6:4; Josh 24:2; 1 Samuel 27:8). Now looking at the words we have in this particular context of Proverbs 8:23, "me'olam, from the beginning", it is much more likely that we are talking about a certain time in the distant past. So the proper translation would be "of old, from the beginning" or "from old times, from the beginning". Context would tell you this because there was a time when wisdom was "brought forth", generated (verse 24,25).
So looking at the text in front of us, and a little deeper, we can see that what trinitarians are saying doesn't seem to be exactly right.
In order to deal with this claim, I want to start from the bottom, and work my way up. Sometimes in order to properly analyse claims like this, you need to take a step back.
The first question to ask is what book of the Bible is this passage in? The answer is, the book of Proverbs. What is a "proverb" in the biblical sense of the word? Well, the Hebrew word is "mashal" (Strongs no. 04912), and dictionaries define it as meaning "sentences of ethical wisdom" and "parable" and "simile". For an example of its uses, see Numbers 23:7, Job 29:1; Psalm 78:2, 1 Samuel 24:14, Ezekiel 12:22, It is a means of teaching that can include parables and similes, which means figurative speaking. So basically what we have here is a book of teaching.
What is the purpose of the book of Proverbs?
(2) To know wisdom and instruction; to comprehend the words of understanding; (3) To receive the discipline of wisdom, justice, and right, and equity; (4) To give prudence to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion;(Prov 1:2-4)
So basically it is there to teach wisdom. And this foundational knowledge is the beginning of problems for the trinitarian.
Why? Because once we see the way it is used in the book of Proverbs, the notion of it refering to an actual divine person becomes baseless, not based on the text of Proverbs, but an external belief, wish or desire. We need to know what wisdom is, because according to Proverbs 8, it is wisdom that was with Deity in the beginning. So what is wisdom? If you read through the book of proverbs, the best way to summarize wisdom is with this definition: "the ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight" in the right way (from Wordnet dictionary).
How is wisdom portrayed in the book of Proverbs? Although it is used in a normal fashion a lot of the times (e.g., Proverbs 3:19; 4:5; 5:1; 9:10) being reflected by understanding, there are times where it is spoken of in a more personal way. It is spoken of as though it were a woman (Proverbs 7:4), crying out for attention and chastising and scorning fools (Proverbs 1:20-33; 8:1). Yet this same wisdom "rests on the heart of those that have understanding" (Proverbs 14:33). Now we all know from experience that wisdom is not a real person, literally calling out with an audible voice. What is happening here?
It is a tool of poetry and parable called "personification", where you give something that is inanimate (non-living) the qualities of a person, like the phrase "money talks!". Literally, it doesn't! But it is given the qualities of a person to describe what it can do in a figurative way, like a simile or a proverb. A biblical example is where the Almighty says to Cain "sin lies in wait at your door". Sin is not a person or a living being. Yet it is described as though it is.
It is this notion of "personification", the language of proverbs, parables, and similes, that give a holistic understanding of the use of the word "wisdom" in the book of Proverbs. It is not how trinitarians appear to make out: that wisdom everywhere else in Proverbs is talking about the inanimate object, but just in this chapter 8, it is talking about a divine person. Rather, we have this amazing quality called wisdom, the tool with which Deity made the heavens and the earth, being shown to be available to man in order to live his life in the right way. In Proverbs 8, we have a passage that is meant to be taken figuratively to speak of the amazing quality, not literally to talk of another divine being who was with Deity. Especially, when we have the word of Yahweh telling us that he formed the universe on his own, by himself, alone (Isaiah 44:24). Think about it. Here in Proverbs we have Yahweh, the LORD, and something else called "wisdom". The flow of the passage forces us to conclude that Yahweh and "wisdom" are not the same individual. Now, if it is a Divine Person, as trinitarians would have us believe, then this passage is telling us that Wisdom, a separate Divine Person, is not Yahweh, but was with him at creation. But Deity, Yahweh, says that there was and is no Divine Person with him (Deut 32:39).
To bring all these pieces together and sum it all up, the passage in Proverbs 8 is a proverb in the biblical sense of the word: an ethical statement or a parable which uses figurative language. The aim of the book is to teach wisdom, which is the ability to apply knowledge or understanding, or experience, or common sense and insight in the right way. Wisdom is a quality, not a divine person. Proverbs 8, like other places in the book of Proverbs uses language of personification to show how important wisdom is, since it was by wisdom that Yahweh created the universe, wisdom being a tool that was used. If wisdom is made to be another divine person who was with Yahweh, then it becomes incompatible with the general message of Scripture which says that Yahweh made everything alone and there is no other Deity with him.
In a way, I was loathed to actually deal with this proof by the trinitarians. It shows one of two things: either ignorance in not knowing figurative speaking and personification; and/or terrible eisegesis, where they read concepts into a text that were never there. In essence, this is an non-proof when it is read naturally, as it is written, because it has nothing to do with a plurality in Deity, but rather speaks of his wisdom, a thing, not a person.
Let me first quote Micah 5:1 from the King James Version.
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. {everlasting: Heb. the days of eternity}
The trinitarian logic is clear when you read the final words, especially when the King James Version I have used gives us such a helpful footnote. We are supposed to see here a ruler who comes from Yahweh, but his "goings forth" have been from "everlasting" or "the days of eternity". We clearly here have a Divine Person, an Eternal Being who is distinct from the One sending Him.
Or do we?
I want to let any reader that only knows english know that the explanation I'm about to use here is based on some Hebrew. But do not fear or be discouraged. I ain't gonna go in-depth on that front, and you'll see enough english for you to firmly grasp the point.
This point is, in fact, quite similar to the previous point about the words "from everlasting". However this time the Hebrew phrase behind those words are actually "yamei 'olam" [28]. This phrase means "days of a distant time". It is normally used about the past, so can be understood as "days of the distant past" or "days of old".
That's as far as we go when it comes to the Hebrew, because now comes the decisive information. I'm going to show you all the times the phrase is used in the Hebrew Scriptures, using our very favourite translation, the King James Version, to show how the phrase is used.
Deut 32:7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.
Isa 63:9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.
Isa 63:11 Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?
Am 9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
Mic 7:14 Feed thy people with thy rod, the flock of thine heritage, which dwell solitarily in the wood, in the midst of Carmel: let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old.
Mal 3:4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.
First, let me note the most obvious fact. The King James Version translates the phrase exactly the same way, as "days of old", every single time. Well, that is, every single time apart from Micah 5 for some reason.
Ok, the second and most important fact. Every single time, setting aside Micah 5 for a second, the phrase refers to a certain time period in the past, such as the trek of Israel in the wilderness when Moses led them out of Egypt, or the time of king David. Just think how nonsensical those passages would be if they really referred to an eternal past, which means a past with no beginning. Would Deity really tell Israel to remember an eternal past, and also to ask their fathers and elders about it? Such a notion just doesn't fit into what all these passages are saying.
Just as a final, but small, point, none of these "days of old" passages refers to Deity.
Now let's look at Micah 5 and see what it really says about this ruler and his "goings forth", which just means his origins.
Now the verse talks about Bethlehem Ephratah. Now if we understand his origins to come from some point in the distant, but human, history, then the question must be twofold. Firstly, what period in history is this verse refering to? And how are we to understand the word "origins"? I believe one answer will lead to the other.
As to a period in history, we have Bethlehem as a clue. We also know that the person in Micah 5 is a ruler. What do historical Bethlehem and a ruler have in common? Well, there is a very important figure, a ruler that came from Bethlehem. His name is David (1 Samuel 17:12). And from him, future kings, including the promised messiah. So we have our point in history.
So how are we to understand the "origins" of the ruler in Micah 5? Well, it's not his own origin in the sense of his own birth, like we may say the town we were born in, or our immediate parents are our origins. Rather, his origins speak of his family line, his lineage, his ancestors or where his ancestors have come from. It is similar to the way that a lot of black people believe our origins is from Africa.
Either way, it can be seen that Micah 5 doesn't talk about a Divine Being other than Yahweh. It talks of a descendant of king David whose origins are from old times, from Bethlehem. It speaks of a human being, not a divine one.
Now I come to the last trinity proof-text. Ok, so let's just quote their text and summarize their logic.
Who has ascended up into heaven, and descended? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has bound the waters in his garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name, if you know? (Proverbs 30:4)
Trinitarian logic: The writer of this proverb seems to have a glimpse into the heavens. First he describes things only Deity can do. Then he asks what is "God's" name, and then asks us what is the name of "God's" Son. So he knows that Deity has a son. Who could the Son of "God" be other than Jesus, who is called "the Son of God"?
But I have a question, and it is about the very first phrase in this passage. It asks who has ascended, gone up, and descended, come down? But if this were refering to Deity, then wouldn't it be more reasonable to say "who has descended and ascended?" I mean, Yahweh or his angels are normally depicted as originally coming down from "heaven" which is their "abode" to put it in a figurative sense. So it doesn't make sense that Yahweh should first ascend and then descend.
Also, the writer, Agur, has just told us in the previous verses that he sees himself as more stupid than any man, and that he doesn't know anything (Prov 30:2-3). Why then would he then launch into some statement about Deity having a Son (note the capital "s" in the trinitarian understanding)? What is that verse really saying?
I'm going to cut to the chase when it comes to what the verse really means. Going from the point of view of the first question in verse 4, it appears that Agur is asking this about humans. It takes a human to ascend and descend, not a heavenly being. So we see Agur asking his reader these questions. Which person has done all these things? The obvious answer is nobody has done all those things. And then he does something that people these days do. He knows that if anyone has really done these, then he needs to find out this person's name; and if this person is so great, then his son, a close relative, must have some of that greatness as well. He asks "what is his name, and what is his son's name, if you know?" Note that final phrase "if you know"? This points to the fact that Agur knows that ther reader doesn't know anyone like that.
So basically, this isn't a serious question delving into the mysteries of Deity. The last phrase before this question has him stating that he doesn't have the knowledge of the Holy One. And the questions that follow are simply his way of saying "yeah, so I don't have such high knowledge as Deity, but who does? If you know someone that does, can you give his name or his son's name?" So the question isn't a serious one where he is really asking for such a person. He is using rhetorical questions to show that no-one has attained to the knowledge of Deity and no-one can do what he does. It is to focus on our low and humble status. It is similar to how the Almighty questions Job in chapters 38-41 saying "were you there at the beginning" and "can you do this Divine thing" and "can you know this secret thing". And in the end, the beginning of Job 42, Job gets it and realises he isn't in that place, he doesn't know it all. This is similar to what Agur is doing here to show us that we ain't all that! We don't know it all!
But let's just, for the sake of argument, accept the claim that Agur, here in Proverbs 30, is really trying to tell us something about Deity. He asks all these questions, and to each one the "knowledgeable" reader would reply "the Almighty, the Almighty, and the Almighty". And then we get to the part that says "what is His name?". If that reader is knowledgeable in the scriptures, he will say that His name is YHWH (Exodus 3:15; 6:6; Psalm 83:19 - covered over many times in too many English versions with the word "the LORD" or "GOD" all in capitals, or christians know the name as "Jehovah" or "Yahweh"). So we know His name.
But here's the serious question: if a Jew read this in the times of King Solomon, or even the Babylonian exile, would he have an answer for the question "and what is His son's name"? Would they be lost and only have an answer when Jesus came on the scene, and his followers started calling him "the Son of God"? The answer is a big NO! Let's look at the contenders for the son/sons of Deity.
So there really is no mystery as to who His son is, because the Lord Himself has already called a number of people his son.
The trinitarian, nay even the other forms of christianity, may retort and say "what about Jesus?" I could take it in another way and say "yes, what about him?" The fact is that Proverbs 30:4 doesn't say "who is his divine son". It doesn't come right out and tell us that the son must be literal and of the same kind of being as the Almighty. Plus we have people who are outrightly called his son in such a way that no-one can argue. But Jesus' sonship is a debateable matter, and here is not the place to debate it. One sure thing is that this verse in Proverbs cannot prove a trinity, nor can it be used as evidence or even a hint that a Divine Person is intended. Since that is the status of this verse, we are still left looking for signs of this one-in-three and three-in-one Deity.
Let me say that there is an insidious problem with the trinitarian belief in their three-"God" doctrine. I use the word "insidious" because I believe it is purposefully set as an obstacle to either really proving or, in my case, disproving the doctrine biblically. This makes the doctrine fundamentally a trust in the interpretations of the trinitarian church, as opposed to a clear biblical teaching.
As shown in another place in this essay, there are many normally clear verses and passages in the Scriptures that attest to the fact that there is only one singular Deity with no plurality of persons within Him. Read normally and naturally, in line with simple methods of interpreting scripture, they exclude any trinitarian notion and anything like it.
How is this possible? Well, we would ask the question: what would the Bible have to say to show that there is one singular Deity? The simple answer would be that we would expect words and phrases like "Yahweh is one" or "one Deity/'God'", that He is "alone" or "by himself". He would be referred to using singular pronouns (I, he, me, him, etc.), titles, and nouns. Using the biblically and logically proven principle that the Scriptures are written in the language of humanity, to be understood by humans, because it is primarily a communication to humanity, we would see that the use of such words and phrases would and should normally tell us of one, singular Deity with no hint of plurality of persons.
But here, the formulators of the trinity and the followers throughout the time after them, trip up the honest searcher for biblical truth. "One" cannot mean one, when normal reading in context would tell you that it means a single one. "Alone" or similar phrases cannot mean "alone", but rather a group of beings that are alone. Any and every scripture that points to or clearly states the oneness of Deity, as opposed to a "three-ness" (which is what "trinity" means), must be neutered, hamstringed, rendered ineffective and powerless. Understand that this is not a case of the Hebrew Scriptures naturally stating that Deity is three-in-one and that natural meaning is simply being brought out. The original bearers of the Hebrew Scriptures, the faithful Israelites/Jews, never accepted such a belief, but were strongly monotheistic, acknowledging and worshipping only one singular Deity.
No, this is a case of the natural intent and voice of the Hebrew Scriptures saying one thing, i.e., that there is a singular Supreme Being, and that meaning being undermined and changed. By that, I mean that, essentially, the words of scripture aren't changed, but the view and perception of the reader is programmed first into believing the trinity doctrine in such a way that words lose their plain meaning. So the problem is not with Scripture or those that defend its monotheistic teaching biblically and logically. The problem is with the teachers, defenders and propagators of the doctrine who leave the words of scripture aside in order to build a doctrine first, a trinitarian mindset first, and then, having undermined scripture, leave their "students" to "conclude" that the Hebrew Bible hints at this alien doctrine using ambiguous texts and erroneous definitions.
Once this is done, the plain words of the Hebrew Bible, "the old testament" cannot disprove or prove the doctrine based on simply the words of the Bible for the trinitarian, since his mind and the doctrine it holds is more important than the word of scripture.
This sort of indoctrination makes a biblical refutation of the trinity elusive, but not impossible. If a person who biblically understands the monotheistic doctrine of the singular "person" of Deity, and reverently puts it forward, challenges the recipient to look for and accept the natural meaning of words and passages, and the primary message throughout the Hebrew Bible, then it is more than possible to aid a person earnestly searching for the Creator, the one true Deity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and for his truth, in worshipping that Deity in truth.
Sometimes a person doesn't need to go through the list of trinitarian proof-texts to see the problem with the Trinity. Armed with a simple understanding of the Bible, a person can see the problems with the Trinity just by thinking about the simple core statements that describes it and balancing those statements with Bible and good sense.
For instance, here is some simple logic being applied to the doctrine.
Stretching this simple logic to include what trinitarians say about the Holy Spirit, we see that, despite the trinitarian convoluted explanation and protest, there are, in fact, three Gods.
Again the trinitarian will cry, "foul!" He will attempt to restate that he is a monotheist, worshipping only one God. But a simple thought into what his doctrine states shows that he can only pay lip-service to monotheism.
Or some more knowledgeable trinitarian may say that I am mistaking the "who" for the "what", or the identity of each divine person for the substance; that there are three "who's" or entities and one "what" or substance. But let's think this through. Once you make a separation or distinction between the "Persons", even if their nature is the same, each can rightly be called a separate divine person, a divinity, a god. Whether you are talking concretely, using physical analogy, or abstractly, using non-physical examples, you are always left with this problem. Here's an easy physical analogy: three humans have the same human nature, but are distinct entities. Each is a human in his own right, but they still have the same nature. Or a non-physical example: there are three distinct ideas, which have the same nature, that of being a thought. Each is a thought in its own right, but still share the same nature. No matter how you try to spin the "who" and "what" issue with Deity, you will always be left with 3 gods because of that distinction made between the persons.
The main essence of the matter is that you think through what is claimed by the trinity doctrine. The problems are close to the surface and run deep, if you think it through.
It is likely that adherents to the doctrine will say that we cannot understand the nature of Deity so we can't make any accurate analogies or comparisons. And because the nature of Deity is unknowable and beyond comparison, the Trinity is fundamentally unknowable and beyond comparison. With such a thought in mind, they may say that using analogies to disprove the doctrine is wrong because they limit Deity to our reasoning. Sometimes it seems they are saying you can only take the doctrine by a faith that rules out reason.
But we are not critiquing the nature of Deity. We are examining the Trinity doctrine, and they are not the same thing. The nature of Deity is objective truth, existing regardless of a doctrine. The trinity is a teaching of certain christian groups which is the result of people trying to understand what sort of Deity they worship by tying certain verses together with a certain way of reasoning. Now the honest investigator has to judge whether such a conception is true by two means: Scripture; and judgment/reasoning. Scripture does not compel a person to accept the trinity doctrine; neither the Hebrew Scriptures, nor the christian new testament, since it has to be based on the Hebrew Scriptures. When it comes to reason, the very fact that the Almighty has communicated in a way that man understands show that He has revealed as much of Himself as can be grasped by man. He is the One that blessed us with mental abilities to judge one thing from another. With scripture we eliminate what is impossible in the realm of Deity. With reason, using comparisons and analogies, we can eliminate contradictory, and thus impossible, doctrines and statements made in our realm. It is for us to judge whether the trinity makes or results in contradictions. If it does, then it can be known whether it is true or not. But it has and will be shown that it is full of such contradictions.
Understand that the problem isn't simply that the Trinity doctrine is hard to understand. That is not the problem. Every person who reveres the Almighty knows that there are things beyond our knowledge. This is not the case of us not understanding it like a person may not be able to understand how a plane, something heavier than air, can fly, or how to build a plane. But there is nothing contradictory about either thing. It is still logically possible. In the same way, I may not be able to understand how Deity can be timeless, or how he created everything by just speaking, but it is still logically possible, even if the "how" is beyond us. But the problem with the trinity is not that it is simply beyond us. It makes statements that cancel out its own existence. It is a bit like if you have something positive and, in the same way, something negative and put them together. They would cancel each other out and you would get nothing. You will have one aspect of the Trinity that is defined one way, and then you hit a fact that is defined in a way that cancels out the possibility of its existence. I'll show you what I mean.
Let's apply the trinity doctrine to the christian bible, and see if it can really exist.
Trinitarians claim that Jesus was fully man and fully Deity, 100% man and 100% Deity. There's no such thing as a 200% person, since then you would be talking about two separate entities, one which makes up the first 100% and the other to make up the second 100%. So either there are literally two separate beings that just co-exist, which trinitarians would never say because then it would just be a man having a relationship with Deity. Or, it is impossible to split the two essences if this is the case, if such a thing were possible. Why? Because if 100% and 100% cannot make 200%, then it can only make 100% entity whose two natures are inseparably one. But even at this point we hit a problem.
The nature of man is to be frail, finite, mortal, amongst many other things. But the nature of Deity is omnipotent, infinite, and immortal. Remember that "positive and negative cancelling out" analogy I gave. Let's see what we have when we put these different natures, divine and human, into the same creature.
In each case you will find that you only end up with a non-existent being. To be both human and Deity is a contradiction, and thus is impossible, something that cannot exist.
Keeping this union of Deity and man in mind, we fall upon other horrible and/or reccuring problems that come back again and again.
The last verses of Psalm 102 tell us that Deity cannot die, that he will remain the same while everything else perishes. Deuteronomy 32:40 says that he will live forever. And Psalm 90:2 shows that in all the continual ages, he will always be Deity. Yet Jesus, supposedly the inseparable unity of man and Deity died! We have clear biblical statements that shows us that Deity cannot die. And everyone knows that man dies. So the trinitarians put their bible itself in a state of contradiction.
And this inseparable unity of man and Deity, Jesus, says some odd things. We know that according to scripture, the Almighty knows everything, that he is omniscient (Isaiah 40:28, Psalm 147:5). So Deity, by definition, has unlimited knowledge. Now, what does this mean for the perfect unity of man and Deity when he supposedly says the following?
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. (Mark 13:32, KJV)
The implication of this is that Jesus didn't know something. To say that must mean that both the "fully man" and the "fully God" didn't know something, since both had to be saying the same thing at that time, or else there is a separation which the trinitarians cannot say. So are we supposed to have here a Deity that has limited knowledge (something he doesn't know) and at the same time has unlimited knowledge (nothing that he doesn't know)?
What about some other odd things that this perfect unity of man and Deity says? For example,
Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. (John 8:28, KJV)
Jesus can do nothing of himself? I believe those who have understood what I've said already in this section already see the problem. Can Deity say that? Can one who is inseparable Deity and man do nothing of himself? Essentially, it would be Deity himself saying he can't do anything of his own will or strength. But we are talking about Deity here!!! The One of whom it is said "who hath created these things, that brings out their legions by number: he calls them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one fails" (Isaiah 40:26)! No, there is something very wrong here.
The verse also says that the Father taught Jesus. Can you teach someone who is supposed to know everything?
The book of James adds more frustration to this belief when it states that Deity cannot be tempted to evil (James 1:13). But we humans can and are very frequently. So Deity cannot be tempted to evil and man can be. Yet Hebrews tells us, in agreement with Matthew 4 and Luke 4,
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour [meaning, help or bring aid] them that are tempted. (Heb 2:18, KJV)
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (Heb 4:15, KJV)
Do you see the problem? Deity cannot be tempted to evil, as we can be. But Jesus was tempted in every way. Something doesn't balance out here.
The fact is that there is an inherent incompatibility with the nature Deity and that of man. That is to say that the nature of Deity and the nature of man are two totally opposite things. Because of that, we must ask ourselves if God can really become man. Can he who fills the universe be clothed in flesh, as the oneness doctrine states, or actually become flesh, as the trinitarian understanding of John 1:14 says. Actually, in the point the trinitarians are consistent. They believe the Word, or the Son, is God according to their understanding of John 1:1. And John plainly says that that Word became flesh. That is not the same as saying that he put on flesh like a superficial outer garment. The Word, the Son, God, became flesh. It wasn't in the flesh. It was the flesh. So God was flesh, limited, mortal. But we hit this problem again, as stated that the beginning of this section and paragraph. Think of the qualities of Deity and compare them with man, e.g. incorruptible and corruptible, eternal (having no beginning or end) and having a beginning. But all those descriptions counter themselves out of existence.
Some may run to Phillipians 2, looking for solace, since it supposedly states that Jesus emptied himself. But this is only to run into more trouble. Why? Because if he really emptied himself of his Deity, that means he wasn't Deity. He wasn't fully man and fully God. He was only fully man. But that runs counter to the doctrine that he had to be more than a man to accomplish all that he accomplished. It runs counter to the notion that he was fully God and fully man, unless you just take God as an empty title, i.e. when we was man he was only God by title alone, but not by nature, since that nature was emptied out of him, gone. Again, if you look closely at their doctrine, and compare it with what their bible states, they just keep on tripping themselves up.
Now trinitarians have a habit of sometimes hopping from the God-part of Jesus and the man-part of Jesus. When it comes to the Son not knowing something, or having some limitation, it is taken as the flesh talking and not the God. But inevitable, that means there is a separation, where you have two distinct nature (i.e., the 200%) which flies in the face of the possibility of being fully God and fully man as they claim. The only proper way to understand them if they hold that there is a time where the flesh is showing a limitation but the God is not is to say that there are two separate natures, where the flesh is only working under the power of the Other nature, but is not the Other nature.
This fact brings horrible problems for other parts of christian doctrine. What about the sacrifice that was meant to atone for all our sins? Christians hold that a man cannot atone for another, even a righteous man, according to Ezekiel 18:20. So Jesus had to be more than just a man to accomplish atonement for the whole world. But if there is a separation between flesh and Deity, where the flesh died but the Deity didn't, then only a man died, and a man, no matter how joined he is to Deity, cannot atone for another.
The trinity doctrine also affects other beliefs. What about the christian belief that Jesus was meant to be our example? Let's think about this honestly. We, as normal humans, are only flesh. We can enjoy a relationship with Deity and we can somewhat have his spirit teach us. The prophets of old had a more intense relationship with Deity and his spirit. But we are still just flesh. But if Jesus was something more than man, something more that flesh, how can any one of us realistically follow his example? This would be the case whether Jesus was "fully man and fully God", or whether there was some separation but there was still a wholly unique bond between the 100% flesh and the 100% Deity, making him more than just a normal man. There would be no realistic way of properly following the example of such a hybrid or unique creature. How can it truly be said that Jesus was tempted as we are, yet it would have been impossible for him, due to his divine nature, to actually be tempted? At least that makes for some problems in this doctrine.
The essential point is that trinitarians cannot justifiably hop between the both natures as they will and still claim that Jesus was fully God and fully man. If they do hop, then they show that the natures were somehow separate and other important doctrines of their christianity start cracking at the foundations.
No, I haven't finished just yet.
Think about the definition of omnipresent. Now that means being everywhere. But we also have the trinity which has three distinct persons who are all omnipresent. Remember that according to the trinity doctrine, they are not the same person. One calls himself "I" and the other "You", so they are not the same person. As said before, it doesn't matter about the substance if you are claiming some distinction in person, and it is contradictory to do so, to claim some distinction, and then claim that there is no separation in substance (if you can really call Deity a substance). If there is no separation in substance, then you are simply saying that they are the same person (i.e., oneness doctrine). Trinitarians cannot stomach that whatsoever.
So we are stuck with three distinct persons who are all everywhere. But if they are distinct from each other, then there must be a "place" where there is one and not the other. I re-iterate again, if you are saying that they are all everywhere at the same time, then you simply have one person. But if there are three distinct persons, you have a contradiction, since you are saying that one member is not the other member, so that implies that there is a place where one is where the other isn't. But then the trinitarian is saying that that can't happen. We are left in an impossibility.
Also think of the definition of omnipotence. One implication of this quality is that of having power over everything else. There is a strong possibility, if not an inevitability, that the trinity doctrine may even transgress this. How? Well, if there was a singular Deity, having no plurality of person within Himself, then it would be understandable that He have power over everything else. But if Deity comprises of three persons, each having the quality of supposed omnipotence, then a problem occurs. Because they are of the same power level, each person would have two other divine persons that they have no power over. So they wouldn't really be all-powerful, since there is something they have no power over.
So as a group, they may possess the quality of omnipotence, but it cannot be said that each member has that quality. But the trinity doctrine states that each member has all the qualities of Deity, which has to include omnipotence. So again, we are left in a contradiction.
Almost there.
A biblical question to ask is who does Deity fear or revere? To revere means to regard with awe and honour, and is synonymous with fear. Can Deity truly call someone his Deity, which means someone who is over him, who he worships? The fact is that there is no-one above the true Deity. Logically, he can never call anyone his Deity. And because you can only revere someone above you, He cannot revere anyone. You cannot revere your equal, or someone lower than you. You can only revere someone over you. And Deity has no-one over him.
Yet the messiah was supposed to "delight in the fear of YHWH" (Isaiah 11:3) and have the spirit of the fear of Yahweh upon him (Isaiah 11:2). And we have the new testament having Jesus saying that his Father is his "God" both on earth and in heaven.
Jesus on earth: Jesus said to her, "Don't touch me, for I haven't yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" (John 20:17, KJV)
Jesus in heaven: (2) Wake up, and keep the things that remain, which you were about to throw away, for I have found no works of yours perfected before my God. (12) He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and my own new name. (Revelation 3:2,12, KJV)
This is also a problem with the trinitarian understanding of Psalm 45:7-8, since the "god" there has a "God" over him. Yet the true Deity has no-one over him. It's not as if the trinity doctrine tells us that each member of the trinity is the God of the others. In fact, they don't say this at all. So this is another problem with the Trinity.
All these things just goes to show that this Trinity doctrine starts and ends with contradictions when you actually take the time to look into what it is saying. I don't think my points are exhaustive. I doubt I've written down all the problems. But there is enough here to make a person who thinks think a little more.
The Bible itself, even the Christian Bible, doesn't say as much about the doctrine as the volumes of books, written discussions and debates spent trying to link together all the axioms the trinitarian has "derived" from his bible. All this stuff about oneness of essence and division of persons in order to twist together such a convoluted hypothesis goes beyond trying to simply explain a biblical concept. The question becomes, has the trinitarian put together such a doctrine because of erroneous interpretations or teachings which contradict themselves but he forces himself to accept?
Now I've listened to a good number of sermons, both about the Trinity as a whole, and about Jesus being "God". And I've noticed the way they portray the way people "pre-new-testament" (living before the new testament times - that is their word, not mine) would look at the proof passages they cite. The preachers or teachers would say that a Jew living at that time would have trouble with the verse that says "let us make man", or the "fact" that echad meant a composite unity, or that Elohim was supposedly a plural noun, or the way the angel of Yahweh would sometimes appear to be Yahweh in the way he, that is the angel, speaks. In the minds of these trinitarian preachers and teachers, these people would be in the dark concerning these "obscure" passages.
"But", they say, "the new testament is like a light that comes into a darkened treasure room, which shows things that could not be seen clearly or couldn't be seen at all". Yes, the new testament helps us see that the trinity is true after all, and that all those obscure passages that seems to show a plurality in Deity were just pointing to the Trinity. What enlightenment! To quote their phrase "the old testament is the new testament concealed, and the new testament is the old revealed"!
But lets just go along with that logic. Lets say that the "old testament" was, in fact, obscure, and that all the passages in the old testament that dealt with plurality were obscure. Lets say that even the children of Israel, the Hebrews, the Jews who were custodians of the old testament could not and possibly even would not have come to the conclusion about the trinity because they wouldn't have seen it because the passages were just too dark to see the trinity clearly. There may have been hints here and there, but all the "pre-new-testament" Jew could see was the oneness of deity. Let's go with that logic and see where it goes.
The worst thing about hints, allusions, and obscure passages is that they are dark or dim. They may show outlines or general impressions, but they lack the detail to tell us something specifically. I have a question. How easy is it to deceive using an obscure text? Imagine that in a dimly lit room, you see a vase with a certain shape, but you cannot make out the detail of the vase. Then you go out into the world. Now you leave the room and you've walked about 100 metres, and, from somewhere behind you, from the direction of the room you just left, someone calls out to you saying that you've forgotten something. You turn to see a stranger running towards you with a vase with apparently the same shape as the vase you saw in the room. Question: was that the vase that was in that dimly lit room? But wait! The stranger is now saying to you that it is the vase that was in the room. Question: how would you know? Oh yes, you can see the shape, that it resembles the vase you saw. But how can you know that this was the vase? You can say that the stranger was running from the direction of the room. Great! But what does that really prove? Simply that he was running from that direction, since you don't know if he came from the room, or had anything good to do with it. For all you know, he could have seen that vase before you, desired it, copied its shape out of some cheap material, and given the fake to you in order to get the real one for himself. You see, if you have no or scanty details, then it is easy for someone else to come in and fill in the blanks with a lie, a deception.
What can really be proved by hints and allusions? To be honest, if you have hint after hint after hint after hint, the one certain thing you are left with is a lot of hints. But how exactly do those hints come together? Once again, it appears that you need help.
And here comes the helpful trinitarian to help you fill in the blanks, to help you piece those allusions and hints together to make what? A coherent whole? A doctrine that must be true even though it appear to contradict itself? You have "the father" and you put him here. And you have "the angel" and you put him there. And you have the "holy spirit" and you put it here, and voila, the truth? He has his interpretation of an additional "revelation", called the "new testament", and his interpretation of that "revelation" will clear it all up. How helpful!
But if it is true that Deity spoke to Moses, revealed himself to the prophets, who both gave their revelation to the Israelites, and it happens that the Israelites end up with no conception of the trinity after that time, but rather a strict singular monotheism with no plurality, shouldn't it strike you as strange that the gentile church should then come up to you and tell you that which the Israelites had never heard of? Please realise the importance of this. Moses warned the Israelites adamantly about worshipping gods whom their fathers didn't know (Deut 13:7 [v.6 in christian versions], 32:17). Moses warned them not to. And here we see a trinity that their fathers didn't know, and trinitarians even admit it, saying that you need the new testament to reveal it to you. And since it is a trinity, and therefore a "god" or even a "God", their fathers never knew, surely this must say something rather negative about this trinity. Oh, the trinity may use the same names, such as YHWH and angel and holy spirit, but in essence, this trinitarian conception was unknown to the Jewish fathers, the Israelite forefathers.
That says something unsettling about this "new" truth about the trinity, by "new" I mean "new" to the Jews living over a thousand years after Moses.
Do not misunderstand me! The idea of the trinity and the fact that it wasn't known to the Jews shouldn't be mixed up with prophecies about what would happen to them. The ancestors of Israel may not of have known the things that would happen to Israel, and the two temples, and Babylon, Greece and Rome. But these things have nothing to do with the warning from Deity through Moses to beware and stay away from gods that your fathers didn't know. And, believe me, the trinity, no matter what Jewish or Hebrew name they choose to apply to it, such as YHWH or Adonai, is not a god that the fathers knew!
When it comes to these "obscurities" of scriptures that trinitarians and, in other cases, christians impute to the Jews, saying that the Jews would have had difficulty in understanding these things, these obscurities are, what I would call, selfish obscurities. It is the kind of "obscurity" which would occur when you are so sure of your own conclusions and interpretations that you would conclude that there is no other way to see it, and therefore other people would simply scratch their heads and not know what to do with it. Let me give you an example.
People who believe in Darwinian evolution, the idea that all living organisms are descended from one simple single celled life form over billions of years, are normally quite convinced of that belief. Here's an example of their thinking. "Look, we know that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and then went extinct. This is shown by the fact that their bones are buried in a certain layer of rock which is 65 million years old, and no younger rock. Creationists who believe the world is only 6000 years old must scratch their heads and not know what to do with this." Or, "we know that light travels at a certain speed. We can use those speeds and a special shifting of light or the way that certain stars flicker at certain rates to see that stars are billions of light-years away. That means it must have taken billions of years for the light to reach us. So creationists who believe that the world is only 6000 years old must scratch their heads and wonder what to do with this". In other words, "this must be obscure to them".
Now, I'm not going to go into whether people who believe this world is 6000 years old have actually dealt with these problems. But I just want to focus on the thinking of the people making these claims. What they've done is taken their conclusion as fact, as absolute truth. (There's no point in trying to argue that they don't do this, since the fact that it is taught as the truth as opposed to a theoretical paradigm with evidences consistent with that paradigm rules out any notion that this is just "tentative truth".) Now because they are so convinced that they are right, they cannot think like their opponents. They do not accept the logic their opponents would use when faced with such arguments and evidences. So because they don't accept the logic, they assume that there is no logic, or that there is no other rational way of dealing with these evidences. Understand, that it is not the fact that the opponents or other philosophies do not have the logic. It is that the person thinking like this doesn't know, or cannot see any other logic but his own. Thus he comes up with phrases like "oh, they must have scratched their heads in confusion and not been able to see what all this stuff means". This sort of thinking is not limited to evolution. Because of the technological and medical marvels we see in our day, with heart transplants and aeroplanes, we wonder how the ancients could have lived. We look at the stability and structure of our great buildings and wonder how the ancients would have lived in caves. When you get locked into one sort of thinking, it is easy to fall into this trap of "selfish obscurity".
The same thing has happened to trinitarians who think that certain verses were obscure to the ancient Israelites and Jews. Because the ancient Israelite and Jew hadn't come to their conclusion about Messiah, Deity and Trinity, then "they couldn't possibly have known what to do with such scriptures". Of course, such thinking and logic is blind, selfish, and ultimately irrational. And it can lead one to an over-exaggerated view of themselves and their religion or philosophy (and I include evolutionists in that).
It is important to remember that the Hebrew Scriptures, the books that make up the christian "old testament" was the holy scriptures of the people in the "new testament" period. That "old testament" forms the basis of the doctrine about Deity, and it is clear enough. Although trinitarians try to make out as if Jews struggled with certain passages and verses, such a notion is untrue. So the "clarifications" of the new testament should be understood in terms of the basis, and not the other way around. The concept that says that the old testament should be understood or interpreted in the light of the new testament is not a biblical one, even for a christian.
There are different ways to answer this question. I could base it on the opinion of others, or my own opinion. To be fair, I'll give both.
Within all sects of Judaism, there is a strong opinion that the trinity doctrine is idolatry. The notion that Deity would become or put on flesh is considered idolatry. To say that there is a threeness to Deity also is considered idolatry as well [30], and a contradiction to true monotheism [32]. The vast majority of historical Jewish leaders and teachers, such as RaMBaM, wrote teachings that condemns the trinity. But there is a minority opinion that says that the trinity is not the same as idolatry [31]. So a lot of Jews see christians as idolators, and others do not.
But what about my opinion? The scripture speaks of one Deity who alone created everything. The trinity doctrine and the evidence it uses implicitly says that there is more than one Deity, since they must emphasize the plurality (more than one) aspect. They say that Yahweh had help to create the universe in Jesus, which contradicts scripture. They say that there was a time when Deity was a man, which conflicts with what Yahweh says about Himself. They make the holy spirit into a totally distinct person, the Hebrew Scriptures don't give that impression at all. In essence, when they worship their deity, they worship a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit. Yet no scripture whatsoever speaks of worshipping the spirit of Deity. All in all they worship a god that has a different description to the One of the Scriptures.
Thus my conclusion is obvious. The worship of the trinity is idolatry. It deviates from the plain teaching of scripture, and uses proofs that only lead to polytheism when brought to their natural conclusion, whereas the natural and universal voice of the Jewish Bible says otherwise.
Actually, speaking of the natural voice of the Jewish Bible, let me quote verses that help us to see what this natural voice says. It would help us see why the righteous Israelites before and after the new testament never conceived of any trinity, since it was a god their fathers never knew.
Exodus 20:2-3 I am YHWH your Deity, who brought you out of Egypt, and of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me. (see also Deuteronomy 5:7)
Numbers 23:19 Deity is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent:
Deuteronomy 4:11-12 (11)You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain and it blazed with fire to the heart of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and deep darkness. (12) Then YHWH spoke to you from amidst the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form, only a voice.
Deuteronomy 4:15-16 And be careful of yourselves - for you saw no manner of form on the day that YHWH spoke to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire - (16) so that you don't deal corruptly, and make you a graven image, even the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female...
Deuteronomy 4:35 You yourselves were caused to see for you to know that YHWH, He is the Deity, and there is none other besides Him!
Deuteronomy 4:39 Therefore you have known today, and rehearse it to your heart, that YHWH, He is the Deity in the heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other!
Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel, YHWH [is] our Deity, YHWH is one.
Deuteronomy 6:14 You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you!
Deuteronomy 32:39-40 See, now, that I, I am He -- and no deity is with Me. I kill, and I make alive; I have wounded, and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of My hand. For I lift up My hand to heaven, and say: As I live for ever
I Samuel 2:2 There is none holy as YHWH, for there is none except You; neither is there any Rock like our Deity.
I Kings 8:27 For will Deity indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee, how much less this house that I have built?
I Kings 8:60 So that all the peoples of the earth may know that YHWH is the Deity: no one else!
II Kings 19:19 Now, O YHWH our Deity, please deliver us from his hand, so that all kingdoms on earth may know that You alone, O YHWH, are Deity.
Isaiah 40:18,25,28 (18) To whom then will you liken Deity? To what likeness will you compare Him? (25) To whom then will you liken Me, that I should be equal? says the Holy One. (28) Didn't you know? Haven't you heard? The everlasting Deity, YHWH, the Creator of the ends of the earth, doesn't become tired, nor weary? There is no fathoming His intelligence.
Isaiah 42:8 I am YHWH! That is My name; and My glory will I not give to another. Neither My praise to graven images!
Isaiah 43:10-11 You are My witnesses, declares YHWH, and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and be certain of Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no deity was formed, nor will there be one after Me. I, even I, am YHWH, and besides Me there is no saviour."
Isaiah 44:6-8 This is what YHWH says, Israel's King and his Redeemer, YHWH of hosts, "I am the first and I am the last; apart from Me there is no deity! Who then is like Me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before Me ... Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are My witnesses. Is there any deity besides Me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."
Isaiah 44:24 Thus said YHWH, your Redeemer, the One who formed you from the womb, "I am YHWH Who makes everything, Who stretched forth the heavens alone, Who spread out the earth by Myself."
Isaiah 45:5-6 I am YHWH, and there is no other; except Me there is no deity; I will gird you . . . . In order that they know from the shining of the sun and from the west that there is no one besides Me; I am YHWH and there is no other!
Isaiah 45:21-22 . . . Who announced this from before, who declared it from the distant past? Is it not I, YHWH, and there is no deity apart from Me, a righteous Deity and a Saviour; there is none but Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am Deity, and there is no other!
Isaiah 46:5 To whom shall you liken Me and make Me equal and compare Me that we may be alike?
Isaiah 46:9 Remember the first things of old, that I am Deity and there is no other; I am Deity and there is none like Me.
Isaiah 48:11 . . . My honor I will not give to another.
Jeremiah 10:6, Forasmuch as there is none like You, O YHWH. You are great, and Your name is great in power.
Hosea 11:9 I will not execute the fierceness of My anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim; for I am Deity, and not man, the Holy One in the midst of you...
Hosea 13:4 I am YHWH your Deity, Who brought you out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no god but Me, no savior except Me!
Joel 2:27 You shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and I am YHWH your Deity, there is no other; and My people shall never be ashamed.
Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one Father? Has not one Deity created us? Why should we betray, each one his brother, to profane the covenant of our forefathers?
Psalm 73:25 Whom have I in heaven but You? Earth has nothing I desire besides You.
Psalm 81:8-9 Hear, O My people, and I will admonish you; O Israel, if you would listen to Me! Let there be no strange god among you; nor shall you worship any foreign god.
Psalm 86:10 For You are great and doing miracles; You are Deity alone.
Nehemiah 9:6 You are He, YHWH, You alone; You made the heavens, the heaven of the heavens and all their host, the earth and all that is upon it, the seas and all that is in them, and You give life to all, and the heavenly host bow down before You.
I Chronicles 17:20 O YHWH, there is none like You, neither is there any deity beside You, according to all that we have heard with our ears!
I've said a lot in this article that can be construed as being harsh or sharp, maybe even sarcastic. But in some ways, I gain no pleasure from writing or thinking like this. Why not? Believe me, searching for truth is ultimately a wonderful thing. With the Almighty with you, it can be like a gentle breeze that fills one's sails, taking one onwards to a fulfilling destination, feeling hope and purpose. And yet you cannot forget the ones who hold to these essentially destructive notions. You can never really rejoice over an opponent because he is a human too, someone created with such potential because the breath of Deity is within them, created in His image. If you love others as yourself, then just as you would feel bad for yourself in such a miry position, you would feel bad for others in such a position who don't know it. If that comes across as arrogant, too bad! Life is about coming to conclusions and living by those conclusions, and they will affect how you view the state of things and people.
The fact is that people who hold to the trinity are more governed by the church doctrine than the bible, and because of that doctrine they are lead astray to accepting a fundamentally polytheistic belief at worst, a distorted view of Deity at best. Unfortunately that distortion causes them to worship a different deity from that of scripture.
Has this article utterly refuted the doctrine? Experience has taught me that there will always be someone who will argue the point. One person claims to have refuted a point, and then another person comes and claims to have refuted the one person. That's the sort of world we live in. But when someone actually takes the time to read the scriptures in the right order, i.e., from the beginning, and build a framework from there, it will soon become obvious that the trinity doctrine does not reflect truth. It is something formed with the hands and minds of man, much like a crafted image. And the worship of such a thing can only lead to a bad end.
I just want to point out an interesting fact here. Along my travels in christian argument and logic, I often meet with evidences that come from an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures called the Septuagint. Especially when it comes to proving that Jesus is the messiah, some christians like to point to that ancient translation when it appears to prove their point. For example, they will say that a version of this Septuagint has Psalm 22:16 saying "they pierced my hands and feet", in line with how their supposed messiah died. They will point to that translation and say that Isaiah 7:14 must mean a sexually intact virgin because that ancient Greek translation uses a word that appears to only mean that sort of virgin. Some people go so far as to say that the Septuagint is a more trustworthy version than the Hebrew version we have. Some of those people think the Hebrew version must have been corrupted by the Jewish rabbis and the Septuagint, which some believe to be older than the oldest Hebrew version we have, should be used to correct the corruptions. You can see the reverence a lot of christians have for this Greek text.
That is until they meet with passages that don't agree with their doctrine. Throughout this endeavour of mine, I've often consulted that Greek version to see what it says about these trinitarian proof-texts, as well as looking at some of the messianic ones as well. And a significant amount of them disagree with the trinitarian or christian position. And what is done with that revered Greek text then? It is seen as mistaken, heretical, mistranslated, or it is simply ignored.
Again, I see such inconsistency in the way they attempt to prove themselves and it only causes more suspicion and distrust about their cause. I find myself almost compelled to do an article on the Septuagint just to show how it doesn't help the christian or trinitarian a lot of the time whether you look at its history or what it says.
I had held back from putting any points concerning the Septuagint in the main part of the essay that deals with the scriptures that trinitarians misuse. Why? The article is strong enough without it, and because of its tainted history, it is a questionable source. But I'm gonna give some examples to show what I mean in this context of the Trinity debate.
Remember that Proverbs 8 was given as evidence of some eternal being existing with Yahweh at the beginning. Here's how some of the verses were translated in the Septuagint.
(23) The Lord created me [as] the beginning of his ways for his works. (24) Before the age, he established me in the beginning, (25) Before he made the earth, and before he made the deep, before the coming forth of the fountains of water, before the mountains were settled, and before all hills, he begot me. (Proverbs 8:23-25, LXX)
As you can see, it doesn't agree so well with the trinity doctrine which has an uncreated Son when it says "the Lord created me". It also doesn't help when the word reflects a possible definition of the Hebrew it is supposed to translate. The Hebrew word "qanah" used in the Hebrew version can also mean "created" (see Strongs no 7069 in Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Dictionary or Strong's dictionary or Holladay's Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon), and it is translated that way in numerous ancient versions like the Targum (an old Hebrew-Aramaic paraphrase/translation), and the Syriac version. It is also translated thus by some more modern Jewish translations such as Leeser's translation from the 19th century and Artscroll Stone Edition Tanach. The fact that this wisdom is begotten (fathered, born) according to verse 25 is acknowledged in almost all translations, Jewish and christian.
The essential point is that trinitarians don't like this translation because it disagrees with their trinity doctrine.
Here's another one.
Who has ascended into the heaven and descended? Who has gathered [the] winds in [his] bosom? Who has wrapped the waters in a garment? Who has taken hold of all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is the name of his children so that you should know? (Proverbs 30:4, LXX)
This verse doesn't end how a trinitarian would expect it. Instead of preaching one son, this version, going with trinitarian logic, would be telling us that Jesus isn't the only son of Deity. That is not what they would want to teach.
This next example is taken from Isaiah 9:5 [6 in christian versions].
For a child was born to us, and a son was given to us, whose government was upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the rulers, and health to him. (Isaiah 9:5, LXX)
Now there are apparently two Septuagint versions of this verse. There is another version that apparently says "Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty One, Potentate, Prince of Peace, Father of the age to come". But notice that none of these versions seem to force us into the position that trinitarians try to. The version which I quoted first has no deity implied whatsoever. In fact, neither version implies that this child is deity.
Needless to say, I don't need to quote every single passage in the Septuagint that renders the Hebrew word "elohim" as the singular Greek word "theos", which means a singular "deity". Neither do I need to mention that the greek version renders all the places that have plural adjectives or verbs as purely singular adjectives and verbs. All those places show no signs of this plurality understanding proclaimed by trinitarians but use just singular words.
Now I didn't give all these examples to lift up the Septuagint and say that we have a totally holy or perfect translation of the scriptures. It has some obvious mistakes in it (such as letting Methuselah live 14 years after the flood, even though scripture plainly says only Noah, his wife, his sons and their wives survived). But when trinitarians try to tell us that you can trust the Septuagint when it proves their point, but that it is wrong when it doesn't makes one stop and think.
All this goes to show that for too many christians, the Bible is not their standard of truth. If it were they could either prove their case from the Hebrew Bible, or just let go of the doctrine. They would not have to constantly hop between the Hebrew and an ancient translation. But the scriptures are not their standard for truth; their doctrine or tradition is. At least, the Catholics are more honest in this respect, since they make known the fact that they elevate their traditions so highly. But the vast majority of Protestant or non-Catholic christians seem to delude themselves somewhat into believing they are "sola scriptura", using only the written scripture.
1. JEWISHNESS AND THE TRINITY by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum from the Association of Messianic Congregations, at www.messianicassociation.org.
2. What is the Trinity? from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry at www.carm.org
3. The Blessed Trinity from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia at www.newadvent.org
4. Trinity and How can one God be three persons? from the Bible Encyclopedia at www.christiananswers.net
5. What Is The Trinity? Is The Trinity Biblical? from Apologetics for Christians Ministry at www.afcministry.com
6. In actual fact, "elohim" is not the plural of "el". It is the plural of "eloah". But a significant amount of people say that elohim is the plural of "el", so I'll just ignore their mistake for now, since the focus is not so much on "el" or "eloah", but the idea of the "plural".
7. Beware of trinitarians who take this argument too literally and say that the use of "we" and "us" in a formal sense is in writing alone and not speaking. What they fail to do is understand is two things. The first thing they fail to understand that it is used in a formal sense in writing alone today, in our times now, and in our culture. Leading on from that, the second thing they fail to understand is that the analogy is being applied to another culture, so there is a big chance [which turns out to be a reality] that the analogy will not fit exactly. The analogy is used only to make a point concerning the use of "we" and "us", not that it can only be used in writing.
8. The Hebrew word סוד "sode" (Strongs #5475) comes from the verb סוד "s-w/v-d" which means "to deliberate secretly", according to Hirsch's Hebrew Dictionary (which literally has the meaning as "secret information"). Strongs and Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon has the word coming from the verb יסד "y-s-d", which means "to found, fix, establish, lay foundation" or "to seat themselves close together" in order to consult together. But all sources has the word "sode" meaning "council, assembly, intimate circle" and derived from that, the secrets or secret counsel they talk about.
9. Some translations translate the word "sode" as "counsel" meaning advice, which doesn't make much sense in the sentences in which the word appears. The verses (Jeremiah 23:18,22) are literally translated as follows:
Who has stood in the ["sode"] of YHWH and seen and heard his word? (Jeremiah 23:18)
And if they have stood in my ["sode"], they would have caused my people to hear my word...(ibid. v22)
The scripture is properly understood as someone standing "in the council of the Lord", i.e. his intimate circle to hear his decrees and messages in order to share it with the people, rather than the rather strange concept of "standing in counsel of YHWH" i.e., his "advice". For further clarification, see the context of Jeremiah 23.
10. Actually, in the next 2 verses, we see that angels were in existence at the time of creation, since Yahweh sends a class of angel, called cherubim, to protect the garden of Eden after man's expulsion (Gen 3:24).
11. The fact that Yahweh is talking about himself is no help to the trinitarian. Remember that, in the trinitarian conception of their trinity, one member refers to the other as "you", i.e. not "myself" or "me". The other member is someone else. Since Yahweh is clearly referring to himself, there is no evidence or hint that someone else, namely another member of their group of gods/Gods, is being mentioned in the slightest, or talked to.
12. This list was taken from Isaiah 48:16: Did Yahweh Send Himself? from http://reslight.net/
13. The Hebrew word is מַלְאָך malakh. Its root verb isn't used in the Hebrew Bible, but a closely related word which appears to be its feminine form is used. It is מְלָאכָה melakhah which means task, work, business, or handiwork. The root word לאך is said to contain implications of "to serve; work which completes goal" (Hirsch), "to despatch [meaning, send away towards a designated goal]" (Strongs, BDB), "to send, dispatch" (Complete Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for English speakers, taken from a secondary source). Thus the root idea of the Hebrew word "malakh" is "a person/agent who is sent to accomplish a task".
14. This would include visions and dreams which would contain non-literal depictions of Deity such as Jacob's dream in Genesis 28:12,13 or the vision of the elders of Israel in Exodus 24:10, and Isaiah's vision in Isaiah 6.
15. Normal translation: "God is not man that he should lie, or the son of man that he should repent." There is a faulty refution by some trinitarians saying that to simply take "God is not a man" and make a point on it is to take it out of context because the contextual message is that the Lord's word is firm and he won't go back on it. But there is a problem with this attempted refutation. The question one should ask when looking at this verse is, Why doesn't Deity lie? The answer according to this verse is because he is not a human. So the main point stands. Deity is not a man. One of the implications of this is that he doesn't lie.
16. There are those that say that Deity can do anything and nothing is impossible. But the fact is that He cannot do anything, although He is still perfect. An analogy of this point is a judge who always judges righteously, and cannot give a wrong judgment. This is not an imperfection, although it is a limitation. In the same way, the Almighty is righteous and cannot be unrighteous. He is infinite so he cannot die. And, as the scriptures I've quoted state, He can't lie, so is true in how He describes Himself. So He has never been a man.
17. The english word "god" is normally used by christians to The Creator, the Supreme Being. Thus, there can never be anything else in creation that can justifiably be called that. But the Hebrew word "elohim", although used to refer to the One True Deity, is also a title that can be applied to other creatures, since it is not a exact translation of our understanding of the word "God". See Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Dictionary under Strongs number 430 to see the ways it is used in scripture.
18. There are those that try to say that Exodus 7:1 should be understood as Moses being like an "elohim". The word "like" is absent from this verse. To say it means "in the place of God" adds foreign concepts and words to a simple rendering of the Hebrew. It also betrays a faulty preconception that since the english word "god" can only be justifiably used for the Creator of heaven and earth, therefore the Hebrew word "elohim" must have that same limitation.
19. When God caused me to wander [The verb הִתְעו is] in the plural. But do not wonder at this because in many places, words denoting Godliness and words denoting authority are expressed in the plural, (e.g.), (II Sam. 7:23):“whom God went (הָלְכו) (to redeem)” ; (Deut. 5:23):“the living (חַיִים) God” ; (Josh. 24:19):“a holy (קְדושִים) God.” And all references to Godliness or to authority are in the plural, as for example (below 39: 20):“And Joseph’s master (אֲדונֵי) took” ; (Deut. 10:17):“the Lord of (אֲדונֵי) lords” ; (below 42:33):“the lord of (אֲדונֵי) the land,” and so (Exod. 22:14);“if its master (בְעָלָיו) is with it” ; (ibid 21:29):“and if its master was warned (בִבְעָלָיו).”
20. Rashi's commentary on Genesis 20:13, which can be seen at Judaica Press Complete Tanach - Bereishit Chapter 20 from http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=8215&showrashi=true
21. From an essay called Subject Complement–Verb Concord in English by Jamal Ardehali from http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/SESLl/STELLA/COMET/glasgrev/issue4/jamal.htm
22. Attraction from Wikipedia.org
23. Beware of the teaching that states that between verses 14 and 15, there is a change. They say that verse 14 is about Immanuel but verse 15 is about another boy, Shear-Jashub, mentioned in verse 3. There's a reason for this and it is not because there is a compelling textual reason. It is not because that is the natural flow of the chapter. But rather it is because they don't want verse 15 and 16 applying to Immanuel, even though that is what the passage clearly does. Why? Because it interferes with a doctrine they hold. I would ask you, the reader, to please read the chapter how it is written, not simply how we want it to be written.
For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace." (Judaica Press Complete Tanach with Rashi)
For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; (Jewish Publication Society Version 1917)
For a child has been born to us, and a son has been given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. (one version of the Septuagint, the ancient Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures [the prophets were translated by unknown hands])
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (King James [Authorised] Version) [Christian translations and a few Jewish translations agree somewhat this version]
25. Faith Strengthened - Chapter 21 by Isaac Troki, a 16th century Karaite countermissionary from http://faithstrengthened.org/
26. See also Isaiah 9:5-6 - What's in a name? from www.virtualyeshiva.com, or http://www.messiahtruth.com/isa9.html
28. The exact form it appears as in Micah 5 is "miyyamei 'olam", but the first letters, "miy", are an inseparable preposition meaning "from".
29. The Oneness doctrine asserts that Deity is only one Person, but that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are different ways that that Deity can manifest Himself. So whereas the trinitarians say that there is a distinction between the persons of their Godhead, the oneness camp would say that there is no distinction and there are not three persons, just three primary ways that Deity manifests Himself. Logically this would have Jesus praying to himself or to his own divine nature. And the fact that Jesus is the Heavenly Father, according to their belief, causes problems for the fact that Jesus died. But their belief that each manifestation is Deity is covered by this article, since they would also use the same passages and logic to say that Jesus is God. The bi-unity doctrine just has the Father and the Son being distinct persons in the Godhead, God the Father and God the Son. The holy spirit is recognised as the power, mind, or influence of Deity. A lot of their arguments are that Jesus is Deity, so that is covered in this article as well.
The Unitarian is one that believes that the Father alone is Deity. Jesus had his beginning in the womb of Mary.
30. Question 17.3: Countering the Question: Why Don't Jews Believe in Jesus as the Messiah? at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/09-Antisemitism/section-14.html
31. The Noahide Laws at http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/Jews_NonJews/NJ_Legal_TO/NJ_Noahide_Jeff.htm
32. What is idol worship? at http://www.askmoses.com/article.html?h=180&o=105 from http://www.askmoses.com
33. This is the historical rendition of the Trinity doctrine by it formulators. It is called the Athanasian creed (probably 361CE).
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.
God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved. (From Catholic Encyclopedia at www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html)
And this is the Nicene Creed finalised in 381CE:
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen." (From Catholic Encyclopedia at www.newadvent.org/cathen/index.html)
34. Elohim: Plural or Singular? by Nehemiah Gordon. You can either find it at http://karaites-usa.org/Studies_On/elohim_plural_or_singular_1.htm with Part 2 and Part 3 (dealing with "attraction"), or it can be found at http://www.israelofgod.org/elohim1.htm with Part 2 and Part 3.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.