The Holy Trinity
When did we split God up into three separate beings…and why?
All contents copyright
© 2014 by M.L. Wilson. All rights reserved. No part of this document or the
related files may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, by any means (electronic,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of
the publisher.
*
* *
I
suppose it was only a matter of time before this subject was raised. Readers of
my previous commentaries have already seen hints as to my beliefs regarding the
Trinity, but I haven’t as yet done a commentary specific to the topic until now.
The reasons are many, but foremost are that this particular doctrine is
regarded as the bedrock of Christianity and one must tread carefully and make
certain of their facts. Those who have dared question the Trinity are usually dismissed
as not being Christian by those who do hold to the orthodox doctrinal belief. This
is a shame because to always tag those who question the rudiments of the
Christian faith as not being Christian is to remain ignorant. God is big enough
to undergo even the most rigorous scrutiny even if His “defenders” are not. However
before I continue, I suppose I should explain just what the Trinity is and why
it has been so eagerly embraced by Christians.
I’ll begin this
commentary by explaining that it is not meant to answer every question with
respect to the Trinity. The amount of work necessary to follow every lead and
compile all of the evidence is better suited to a Doctoral dissertation. While
this commentary could be an adequate partial framework for just that purpose,
in its present incarnation it is but a faint overview of the information
regarding this doctrine. My main point presently is to bring awareness to
people of the doctrine’s origins and why I believe that rather than being a
construct of God Almighty, it is really a means by which the enemy divides us
so as to make it easier to conquer. Heretical? Read and then you can be the
judge.
The Trinity put very
simply is a doctrine which explains that there is one God who eternally exists
as three distinct persons—God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
Each are regarded as God, each is regarded as existing eternally and each is
regarded as equal to the other. This consortium is referred to as the Trinity
or the Triune Godhead. This definition is the one which the Council at Nicaea
agreed upon in 325 AD:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the
essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God,
begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made [both
in heaven and on earth]; Who
for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made
man; He suffered, and
the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to
judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.
(emphasis mine)
By the time of the Second
Ecumenical Council fifty-six years later, some revisions had to be made based
upon changing needs. The Council of Constantinople in 381 AD expanded upon the
creed, making it more specific and giving broader identity to the Holy Spirit,
which was less clearly understood as part of the over-all Triune Godhead at the
time of the first council. This ambiguity regarding the church’s position on
the Holy Spirit led to the Macedonian or Pneumatomachian “heresy,” which denied
the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The latter revision is the one which was
disseminated most widely throughout the church. Called the "Niceno-Constantinopolitan
Creed" or the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed”, it was later simply
referred to as the “Nicene Creed” completely overshadowing its former
incarnation. The revised creed reads thus:
We
believe in one God, the Father,
the Almighty,
maker
of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We
believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,
eternally
begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light,
true
God from true God, begotten, not made, of the same substance as the Father.
Through
him all things were made.
For
us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven:
by
the power of the Holy Spirit
he
was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For
our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he
suffered, died, and was buried.
On
the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;
he
ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He
will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and
his kingdom will have no end.
We
believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who
proceeds from the Father (and the Son).
With
the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He
has spoken through the Prophets.
We
believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We
acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We
look for the resurrection of the dead,
and
the life of the world to come. Amen.
(emphasis
mine)
The question which may
come to mind respecting this configuration is: “If there are three distinct
persons, how can there be one God?”
This is a question which has vexed just as many within the faith as it has to
those outside of the faith. To assert the position of worshipping only one God,
but then introducing a grouping of three is confusing to even the most pious
Christian. This is perfectly understandable as it stands as an absolute
incongruity.
The question then is
asked: “Is the Trinity just God showing
three different aspects of Himself?” The answer by orthodoxy is a
resounding NO. The rationale is that the Bible shows that the Father, the Son
and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons. Advocates of this rationale
point first to passages such as John 3:16, John 16:10, John 14:26 and Acts
2:33.
No one has ever
gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as
Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,
that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life.
For
God so loved the world that he gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes
in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son
into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever
believes Him is not condemned,
-
John 3:13-18
That passage is
pregnant with so much that orthodoxy either misses or ignores that I am almost
inclined to write on that instead, but as it is necessary for this present
topic, I will continue. When one considers the wording in that passage as well
as the passage near the end of the Gospel of Matthew, it is easy to come away
with the impression that we’re dealing with three distinct persons.
“Therefore
go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
- Matthew 28:19
The words used in the
Greek to denote Father, Son and Holy Spirit are thus:
Father: Pater πατήρ Strong’s #3962 ("father") is
used of our heavenly Father. He imparts life, from physical birth to the gift
of eternal life through the second birth (regeneration, being born again).
Through ongoing sanctification, the believer more and more resembles their
heavenly Father – i.e. each time they receive faith from Him and obey it, which
results in their unique glorification.
Son:
Huios υἱός Strong’s #5207
properly, a son (by birth or adoption); (figuratively) anyone sharing the same
nature as their Father. For the believer, becoming a son of God begins with
being reborn (adopted) by the heavenly Father – through Christ (the work of the
eternal Son). In the NT, 5207 /hyiós ("son") equally refers to female
believers (Gal 3:28).
Holy
Spirit: Pneuma
πνεῦμα
Strong’s #4151 properly, spirit (Spirit), wind, or breath. The most frequent
meaning (translation) of 4151 (pneúma) in the NT is "spirit"
("Spirit"). Only the context however determines which sense(s) is
meant.
[Any
of the above renderings (spirit-Spirit, wind, breath) of 4151 (pneúma) is
always theoretically possible (spirit, Spirit, wind, breath). But when the
attributive adjective ("holy") is used, it always refers to the Holy
Spirit. "Spirit" ("spirit") is by far the most common
translation (application) of 4151 (pneúma).
In the 21st Century, we
have the benefit of two thousand years of rumination and contemplation over
just what the application of these terms mean respecting God Almighty. For the
most part, the Trinity as it stands today was molded by the time of the Arian
Controversy during the formative years right after the convening of the first
of the Ecumenical Councils convened by Constantine the Great between 325 – 381
AD. This controversy was sparked by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius ( 256–336)
that a critical mass of bishops rallied around what eventually became standard
language about the Trinity. This from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
This
controversy was complex, and has been much illuminated by recent historians
(Ayres 2004; Freeman 2008; Hanson 1988; Pelikan 1971; Rubenstein 1999; Williams
2001). It can be briefly summarized as follows. Arius taught, in accordance
with an earlier subordinationist theological tradition, that the Son of God was
a creature, made by God from nothing a finite time ago. Sometime around
318–21AD a controversy broke out, with Arius' teaching opposed initially by his
bishop Alexander of Alexandria (d. 326). Alexander examined and excommunicated
Arius. Numerous churchmen, adhering to subordinationist traditions about the
Son rallied to Arius' side, while others, favoring theologies holding to the
eternal existence of the Son and his (in some sense) ontological equality with
the Father, joined his opponents. The dispute threatened to split the church,
and a series of councils ensued, variously excommunicating and vindicating
Arius and his defenders, or their opponents. Each side successively tried to
win the favor of the then-current emperor, trying to manipulate imperial power
to crush its opposition.
Unified thought on just
what was the Trinity, was difficult to achieve at best. The reasons for this
are actually quite simple: No Trinitarian doctrine is
explicitly taught in the scriptures. That may seem like a provocative
assertion, but it is never-the-less a fact. Scripture is used to buttress a
presumption of a Trinity, but no such structure explicitly exists within
scripture, rather we interpret based upon presumption. Needless to say for a
host of reasons, this is dangerous to do.
What may be unknown to
a great number of Christians, who hold to a Trinitarian view of God, is that
the concept is not unique within religion world-wide. The concept of hypostasis as the shared existence of
spiritual or corporal entities has been used in a number of religious and
intellectual settings. The word hypostasis means underlying state or underlying
substance, and is the fundamental reality that supports all else. This from
Wikipedia:
In Christian
usage, the Greek word hypostasis (ὑπόστᾰσις) means beneath-standing or
underpinning and, by extension, the existence of something. It can also mean
manifestation.
In Early
Christian writings it is used to denote "being" or "substantive
reality" and is not always distinguished in meaning from ousia 'essence'
or 'substance'; it was used in this way by Tatian and Origen, and also in the
anathemas appended to the Nicene Creed of 325. See also: Hypostatic union,
where the term is used to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity.
The term has also been used and is still used in modern Greek (not just Koine
Greek or common ancient Greek) to mean "existence" along with the
Greek word hýparxis (ὕπαρξις)
and tropos hypárxeos (τρόπος ὑπάρξεως),
which is individual existence.
It was mainly
under the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers that the terminology was
clarified and standardized, so that the formula "Three Hypostases in one
Ousia" came to be accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the
Holy Trinity. Specifically, Basil of Caesarea argues that the two terms are not
synonymous and that they therefore are not to be used indistinctly in referring
to the Godhead. He writes, "The distinction between ousia and hypostases'
is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance,
between the animal and the particular man. Wherefore, in the in the case of the
Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give variant
definition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that
our conception of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and
clear."This consensus, however, was not achieved without some confusion at
first in the minds of "Western" theologians, who had translated
hypo-stasis as "sub-stantia" (substance. See also Consubstantiality)
and understood the "Eastern" Christians, when speaking of three
"Hypostases" in the Godhead, to mean three "Substances,"
i.e. they suspected them of Tritheism. From the middle of the fourth century
onwards the word came to be contrasted with ousia and used to mean
"individual reality," especially in the Trinitarian and
Christological contexts. The Christian view of the Trinity is often described
as a view of one God existing in three distinct hypostases/personae/persons.The
Latin "persona" is not the same as the English "person" but
is a broader term that includes the meaning of the English "persona."
The
early church was a group of very courageous people who were literally on the
run for their very lives. The persecutions of Nero were only the first volley
of terrors which were to be visited upon these people as they sought only to
follow through with Christ’s command for them to, “Go and make disciples of all nations…”
Beyond
having to dodge the overt persecutions from their government (Rome), they soon
found themselves having to battle against deliberate error being disseminated
in their name which began to twist and pervert the very nature of Christ. The
authors of these works remained largely anonymous, but variously ascribed their
works to the known Apostles to assure validity. For too many people, these
works were read and believed. The situation became so dire that an early church
father named Irenaeus, Bishop of Smyrna, wrote a five volume work titled, “Adversus Haereses” or “Against Hereies” to answer these
errors. Irenaeus was a student of an early church father named Polycarp of
Smyrna. Polycarp, in turn, was a student of the Apostle John. This pedigree
lends considerable weight to Irenaeus’ writings. In fact no less that of a later
church father under Constantine named Eusebius of Caesarea regarded Irenaeus’
work so important that he used them as a framework for his own writings to lend
validity to the Universal Church.
Irenaeus
wrote his work approximately 180 – 186 AD. In his work, he describes several
schools of Gnosticism and contrasts their beliefs with that of the purity of
Christianity. The influx of the Gnostics into true Christianity was confusing for
too many people. As the populous was largely illiterate, none had the knowledge
and skill to refute the errant writings. Part of what the Gnostics postulated
was the concept of a muti-person Aion (Αἰών) into sets of fours or eights (Irenaeus, Against Hereisies, 1.1.1–3;
1.8.5; 1.11.1; 1.12.3; 1.15.1–2.) (Aions were Hellenistic deities)
The
most well known of these early Gnostics was Valentinus (100 – 160 AD) According
to a later Church father critical of the Gnostic’s works Named Tertullian,
Valentinus was initially a candidate for the position as Bishop of Rome, but he
started his own group when he was passed over. (As a point of edification,
prior to the time of Constantine and the legitimizing of Christianity, church
leaders in specific areas were referred to as bishops. Bishop, ἐπίσκοπος, epískopos in
Greek, simply means “overseer” or “guardian.”)
There
is much about Valentinus which is lost to history, but a Coptic version of his
work, “Gospel of Truth” which was mentioned
by both Irenaeus and Tertullian, was discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945 lending
credence to the veracity of the claims against him.
Consider
the differing points of view the early church fathers prior to the first of the
Ecumenical Councils held with respect to the Trinity. When one sees the gross
error introduced by these councils, how is it that like a cafeteria, we Christians continue to “pick and choose” that which
we like or dislike when it come to “truth?” I can only imagine the talks
Irenaeus must have had with Polycarp regarding points of theology. One would
think that if the Apostle John believed in three distinct persons as the makeup
of the Triune Godhead, he would have passed that information on to his student,
regarding it as an important fundamental. Further, it would be logical to
assume that Polycarp would have passed that teaching onto Irenaeus. However,
the written record does not reflect this belief.
Polycarp,
Bishop of Smyrna (69 – 155 AD) recognized no Trinitarian
concept of God. Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. Based upon this
excerpt, it could best be said that Polycarp regarded the Trinity as aspects of
God rather than three distinct persons:
Now may the God and Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High-priest Himself, the [Son of] God Jesus
Christ, build you up in faith and truth, and in all gentleness and in all
avoidance of wrath and in forbearance and long suffering and in patient
endurance and in purity; and may He grant unto you a lot and portion among His
saints, and to us with you, and to all that are under heaven, who shall believe
on our Lord and God Jesus Christ and on His Father (The Epistle of Polycarp to
the Philippians in APOSTOLIC FATHERS (as translated by J.B. LIGHTFOOT) 12:6,7).
Irenaeus,
Bishop of Smyrna (130 – 202 AD) was not as clear
respecting the Triune Godhead as is orthodoxy. He acknowledges the divine
incarnation of the Son and the Spirit, but does not expressly designate them
God. Rather he takes a position that both are aspects of God.
Justin
Martyr (100 -165 AD) takes a subordinationist approach
where God and Christ are concerned. (No mention of the Spirit appears) To
explain, the subordinationist believes that Jesus is subordinate to that of God
the Father, thus there is no equality of any sort of Duality or Trinity.
Origen
of Alexandria (184 – 153) Conceptualized a
quasi-triune Godhead, but was also subordinationist in his eventual belief,
conceding that the Father alone was God.
When
Constantine legitimized the Christian faith, he did not allow for the freedom
in Christ which was the central point of Christianity. One will recall
Galatians 5:22:
But
the fruits of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things, there is no law.
I
believe it is reasonable to ask why Constantine, if he was truly sincere about
being a Christian, needed to convene a council at all, let alone six others
over the course of following centuries between 325 AD and 787 AD. Could one not
regard the scriptures as they stood as adequate enough? When we regard the
Bible as inerrant, is that not what we’re essentially stating? This is where
orthodoxy hides much of its origins. The true thought they all share is that
the Bible does not stand alone; the Bible must be supported by doctrine and
dogma. Orthodoxy asserts that NO ONE
can simply pick up a Bible, read it and glean the truth. If orthodoxy truly supported
such a notion, the plethora of doctrines and dogmas unique to a multitude of
Christian faiths would be wholly unnecessary.
But
such doctrine was necessary from the standpoint of the Roman Emperor.
Constantine had a larger problem to face than his eternal destination; he had an empire to knit together—and to keep together. A necessity of order must
exist in a proper structure. Structure avoids chaos. Whether for good or for ill,
a single thought avoids confusion. Constantine was intelligent enough to see
that adhering to the strict teachings of Jesus Christ would necessitate his
removal as the Roman Emperor. The world as Christ envisioned it within the
Gospels—as the Apostles wrote in their epistles—was not mirrored in the
structure of the Roman Empire, or in Constantine’s goals.
Creating
“heaven on Earth” was not what Constantine had in mind; ensuring the survival
of the Empire under one leader was. As stated before, this necessitated control
thus, the Ecumenical Councils. It was within those councils in which rules were
written for application to the Christian “religion” to ensure the continuation
of the Roman Empire. It was in these rules the concept of the Holy Trinity
became a useful tool. Just as there was a “Heavenly hierarchy” manifest in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,
so too could there be an earthly hierarchy manifest in the Emperor, the Pope and Holy Doctrine. Nothing would proceed from the mouth of the Pope and be
set forth in Holy Doctrine which had not first been approved by the Emperor,
thus the Pope did the Emperor’s will in much the same fashion as the Son did the
Father’s will. This was a mindset which was emphasized most stridently
throughout the new church. The writings of Augustine, Tertullian, Eusebius, and
John Chrysostom buttressed and set down in the minds of the people this new
view of the teachings of Christ. The strict flow of information mitigated the
possibility of error. Since the Empire had control of most all the known
original writings, there was little defense for those who saw the gross
usurpation of the truth. As time went on, most simply forgot and no longer knew
the truth from the carefully constructed and now ubiquitous lie.
The
fall of the Roman Empire in approximately 480 AD further complicated matters by
putting what few works there were out of the hands of most the populous. The
early church had no structure as did the Jews, so without the direction of the
Emperor, the people were left with nothing. Centuries passed with most people
adopting various prevailing beliefs which came about through their conquerors,
or beliefs simply made up. What was left of the Catholic Church was bunkered in
various monasteries sprinkled about the former empire. This was the condition
until Frankish King Charlemagne was crowned as Emperor in the year 800 AD by
Pope Leo III.
The
revived empires existed on uneven ground until 962 AD when Otto I was crowned
Emperor. It was to him the true founding of the Holy Roman Empire is ascribed
during his reign as the German King from 936 AD
until his death in 973 AD. In between the dissolution of the Roman
Empire in 480 and Otto I in 962 (and later, William the Conqueror in 1066),
most of Europe was ruled by growing feudal kingdoms. People who could take and
hold land, defending it from marauders, soon found others willing to trade
their services for protection upon that land. From these tiny feudal kingdoms
came the Charlemagne’s, the Otto’s and the William the Conqueror’s.
Otto
I followed the same essential path as had Constantine over five hundred years
before him, using the church as a means to solidify rule over the people.
Otto’s victory over the Asiatic people to the East called the Magyars in 955 AD
(most likely people displaced after the fall of the Roman Empire in 480 AD who
mixed with the Huns, Goths and Vandals) helped to create an aura about him as
the “Savior of Christianity. The Magyars were regarded as pagans, respecting
nothing of the rules and regulations known to the Catholic Church.
So
if the Holy Trinity is not three distinct persons, then just what is it? The
question remains: How can God be talking to Jesus? How can Jesus talk about the
Holy Spirit as something separate from Himself? These are all legitimate
questions and their answer lies not in creating rules and regulations which
have come out of our dearth of human understanding, but from the very Spirit we
struggle to know.
God
is not human. I realize that should be axiomatic, but even a cursory look at
the voluminous theological history we have shows it is not. From portrayals of
God as a grizzled old, stern-faced man with a white beard and long white hair,
to modern imagery where a faceless God is seated on a huge throne with the much
smaller Christ seated (or standing) beside Him, we have this image of a “human-like”
God fixed in our consciousness. This anthropomorphism of God Almighty creates
finite limitations not a part of God Almighty’s essential makeup.
Here
is a surprisingly uncomfortable truth of which most Christians are ignorant: No
one has ever seen God Almighty except for the Christ. Not Adam and Eve, not
Enoch, not Noah, not Abraham, not Elijah … not even Moses. None of these great
people of the Old Testament had ever laid eyes upon Almighty God in the flesh—ever. Why do I assert such a claim? To
be fair, it is not my claim, but rather Christ’s. Consider:
For
the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the
One and only who was at the Father’s side has made Him known
-
John 1:17-18 (emphasis mine)
Paul speaks on this
same situation in his letter to Timothy:
I
charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of
our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in His own time—God, the
blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and the Lord of lords, who alone is
immortal and who lives in an unapproachable light whom no one has seen or can see.
-
1st Timothy 6:14-16 (emphasis mine)
As
does the Apostle John in his epistle:
Dear
friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God, but if we
love one another, God lives in us and His love is made complete in us
-
1st John 4:11-12 (emphasis mine)
So
why is it that so many of these great people of the New Testament including
Jesus Christ claim no one has ever seen God if in fact many people of the Old
Testament have not only seen God, but actually sat down and had lunch with him.
Consider this passage from Genesis:
The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre
while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day.
Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he
hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.
He
said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my Lord, do not pass your servant
by. Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest
under this tree. Let me get you
something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your
way—now that you have come to your servant.”
“Very
well,” they answered, “do as you say.”
So
Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. “Quick,” he said, “get three seahs of
the finest flour and knead it and bake some bread.”
Then
he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant,
who hurried to prepare it. He then brought some curds and milk and the calf
that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree.
– Genesis 18:1-8 (emphasis mine)
– Genesis 18:1-8 (emphasis mine)
Despite
the blatant anthropomorphism here, it is a situation which makes either Moses
(or his father-in-law, Jethro who taught him these stories) out to be a liar. Or
perhaps Jesus Christ is the liar. What is clear is that both assertions cannot
be truth. Yet this is but one instance of a face to face meeting between God
and His people. Moses also met face to face with God on numerous occasions in
the Tent of Meeting. Consider this passage from Exodus:
The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his
friend. - Exodus 33:11(emphasis mine)
Theologians
who have struggled with this clear dichotomy came up with the novel approach of
a “Pre-incarnate Christ” who is the “God” we see so often throughout the Old
Testament. This is more formally, but generically called a Theophany (Greek θεοφάνεια), a spiritual manifestation of a
deity. Despite the assertion from the author of Hebrews who claims that Christ
had never been to earth prior to His earthly incarnation ( Hebrews 9:26), the
Theophany presumption remains because in orthodoxy, there no other explanation
as to who is representing God in these Old Testament instances. I’ll further
add that the God of the Old Testament cannot be the Christ because that entity—especially
if thought a pre-incarnate Christ—acts NOTHING like Jesus Christ. When people
focus so much on Doctrine and Dogma that they cannot separate error from truth,
we are in serious trouble. As a Christian, we are supposed to be able to see
the Character of Christ clearly. It is a character of love and forgiveness and
gentleness. Without belaboring this point (I’ve outlined my position on this
particular argument many times in previous commentaries), I will simply say
that the presupposition created by the Councils predominates any thinking on
the part of orthodox theology. So certain are these adherents of orthodox
theology of the belief that these men who were called together by the Emperor
of the Roman Empire would allow nothing but absolute truth to be codified in
their orthodox belief, they will stake their academic integrity on it. I’ll
hasten to had that everything which
was codified in the first council had to be approved by this same Roman Emperor,
a believer in the pagan sun god, Amun Ra.
There
are a couple of issues I would like to highlight before I continue, the first
of which deals with the legitimacy of the position that the Old Testament god
is in fact God Almighty. Christian theologians take much of their information
(if not all) from the position held by the Jews. Little of the Jewish
traditions are challenged by Christian theology, perhaps because of such
earlier actions by leaders such as Otto I—I really do not know.
The
Hebrew people denoted their god by the usage of the word, “EL” or possibly “ELOAH.”
This rendered in the Hebrew as: אֵל. This is an interesting word pregnant with
much tradition, but not much in the way of specifics. Many ancient Semitic
tribes used EL as a generic word to denote a deity. This from Wikipedia:
Cognate
forms are found throughout the Semitic languages. They include Ugaritic ʾil, pl. ʾlm; Phoenician ʾl pl. ʾlm; Hebrew ʾēl, pl. ʾēlîm; Aramaic ʾl; Akkadian ilu, pl. ilānu.
In
Northwest Semitic usage El was both a generic word for any "god" and
the special name or title of a particular God who was distinguished from other
gods as being "the god", or in the monotheistic sense, God. El is
listed at the head of many pantheons. El is the Father God among the
Canaanites.
However,
because the word sometimes refers to a god other than the great god Ēl, it is
frequently ambiguous as to whether Ēl followed by another name means the great
god Ēl with a particular epithet applied or refers to another god entirely. For
example, in the Ugaritic texts ʾil
mlk is understood to mean "Ēl the King" but ʾil hd as "the god Hadad".
The
Semitic root ʾlh
(Arabic ʾilāh,
Aramaic ʾAlāh,
ʾElāh, Hebrew ʾelōah) may be ʾl with a parasitic h, and ʾl may be an abbreviated form of ʾlh. In Ugaritic the plural form
meaning "Gods" is ʾilhm,
equivalent to Hebrew ʾelōhîm
"Gods". But in Hebrew this word is also regularly used for
semantically singular "god" or "God".
The
stem ʾl
is found prominently in the earliest strata of east Semitic, northwest Semitic,
and south Semitic groups. Personal names including the stem ʾl are found with similar patterns
both in Amorite and South Arabic which indicates that probably already in
Proto-Semitic ʾl
was both a generic term for "god" and the common name or title of a
single particular "god" or "God".
In
our English language, we can denote a proper pronoun by capitalization of the
word. “God” would be capitalized to
denote God Almighty, indicating a particular singular entity as opposed to a
general entity. This would give the reader the clear understanding we talking
about a particular God as opposed to just a god in the general sense. In
Hebrew, there is no capitalization, thus context and usage is the only means by
which to convey intent.
The
Greek Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Bible (Torah) and some related
texts into the Koine Greek which took place under the direction of Greek King
of Egypt, Ptolemy II Philadelphus approximately 325 – 350 BC for its inclusion
in the Library of Alexandria. The name “Septuagint takes its name from the
seventy Jewish scholars who completed the translation.
Jerome
was later commissioned to translate the old Greek texts into Latin as Greek was
no longer the recognized state language. Jerome utilized copies of the Septuagint
which had been revised earlier by Origen Adamantius, an early church father. Jerome
also found and used certain ancient Hebrew texts to augment his translation
much later on.
It
should be noted that we have no extant copies of any of the original texts. We
have copies of copies of copies. Through every translation and incarnation,
cultural idioms have seeped in along with adherence to principles native to the
translated language. (e.g. Hebrew has no capital letters, but English does. Thus,
a presumption has to be made as to what would be regarded as a proper pronoun.)
Given the circuitous route taken to get the ancient Hebrew scriptures penned by
Moses in a Semitic language older than ancient Hebrew script into English, it
is a fact that changes were made. This doesn’t dilute the essential story, but
it could do much to change the intended meaning. “el” or “EL” אֵל simply means god. A presumption and a
belief have to be attached to this term in order to make it mean, “Creator God Almighty.” Again if one
holds that these various mentions in the Old Testament were in reference to God
Almighty, one has declared Jesus Christ a liar because He directly refutes that
assertion. (John 1:18) The indication is that the ancient Hebrews certainly regarded
EL as Creator God Almighty, but those
same Hebrews also did not recognize the deity of the Christ. Their position may
be seen as in error by Christians, but at least it is congruent.
I
would challenge scholars and others who desire to be true to the meaning of
these texts to exercise their God-given intellect and reason and take a fresh
look at the naked evidence of the scriptures, divested of any presupposition. I
would venture to guess that God would begin to reveal much heretofore hidden
from them by virtue of their own pride.
So
again, the question is asked: What is the Trinity if not three distinct persons
working in perfect harmony and consort with one another? This is my conclusion
based upon my studies. This conclusion represents roughly thirty years of
study, research, contemplation and prayer. One is certainly free to dismiss my conclusions;
I only ask that they be given consideration.
I
began by explaining that God is not a human being. I reiterate that here
because it is vitally important the nature of God be kept forefront in one’s
mind. What God is in His original construct is so vast, so encompassing, that a
human mind cannot begin to conceptualize Him. In short, God is everything.
There is nothing you can see, touch, taste, hear or smell which is not God. I
like the image which Paul used in describing God as living in an unapproachable
light as white light is a combination of all colors within the spectrum. Refraction
gives us an image of these different colors, but under normal conditions one
sees only white light. I regard God in His “normal” state as just such white
light. Evidently, so does the Apostle Paul.
How
does such a being present Himself to His creation, especially a creation so
limited as are human beings existing in a temporal realm in a corporeal state?
Initially, He utilized spiritual entities specifically designed to traverse the
two states of being as His special ambassadors. These spiritual entities could
interact with God on a level that I do not completely understand and then
interact with humanity on basic, relatable level. Through this exchange, God
Almighty could direct His spiritual ambassadors to take charge of human agency.
He didn’t specifically tell them how to go about administering over us, but
rather allowed them to administer as they saw fit. In this way, God Almighty was
able to teach His spiritual ambassadors more about Him while teaching human
beings more about Him. It is akin to a classroom filled with two groups of students
learning the same subject in two different ways.
To
directly interface with the human creation without violating the covenant He
had with His spiritual ambassadors, God Almighty could do only one thing: Come
to earth as a man. This is what He did in the personage of the Christ. I will
reiterate: God Almighty is NOT a
human being in His “normal” construct. Do not get sidetracked from that
thought. God Almighty CAN be in two
places at the same time given that one of those locations is a temporal “bubble”
created within Him.
In
this way, two parts of the Holy Trinity are realized; the essential “God” which
is all about us, and His personage amongst us in the guise of the Christ. That
leaves us with the last part of the Trinity which is the Holy Spirit. The Holy
Spirit is that power which is imparted to believers as a result of relationship.
One cannot possess (or harness, if you will) the power of the Spirit absent a
relationship with God.
Here
is a simplistic way that I have conceived to explain the Holy Spirit. If one
has family member to whom they are close, a spouse or even a close friend, one
develops a relationship with that person. This relationship can be extraordinarily
powerful. Through such a relationship, much can be conveyed. You will learn
skills and glean information either directly or indirectly as a result of the
power of that relationship. We all have relationships with others to a greater
or lesser degree. Think of a teacher or some mentor who was prominent in your life
and the power that relationship has had in your life. That (in a very small way)
is akin to the Holy Spirit in a Christ-centered relationship. I call it “Relational Causality.”
When
Christ gave believers the “Great Commission” related to us at the end of the
Gospel of Matthew, he told us to baptize others giving special note of the meaning
by which Creator God wishes us to know Him; His “normal” or “Essential Construct,” His “Empathetic Humanity” and the incredibly
strong and everlasting “Relational
Causality.” In understanding the breadth and totality of His being, we
would come to better understand our own. Consider that human beings are
essentially spirit in construct. While we exist here in this temporal realm, we
are encased in a finite human body. I’ve already used the analogy of the power
of relationship. So in this way, God has given us an example of the true
construct of the “Trinity” just by looking at ourselves: Spirit, flesh and
relationship.
Orthodoxy
is essentially tradition. Traditions come about for a number of reasons as I
have hopefully been able to illustrate adequately enough in this commentary. In
the 21st Century, we have access to information on a scale not ever seen
in the history of humanity. In the face of this information (which is not new,
just rediscovered), it is incumbent upon our teachers, leaders and pastors to
break from the traditions which have been proven to be false and look once
again towards God for the truth. This means that many of them will lose all
their worldly goods because their world was built upon the sand to begin with.
While from an earthly perspective this seems like too much to ask of any one
person, the reality is that if one were to win the whole world, it would not be
a fair exchange for one’s soul. The choice as to which to follow is up to the
individual. Truth or tradition? It will take courage to decide, especially to those
seduced already by the world.
I
will leave with this prescient quote from Joshua:
“Now
fear the Lord and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your
ancestors worshiped beyond the Euphrates River and in Egypt, and serve the
Lord. But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you
will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or
the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my
household, we will serve the Lord.”
- Joshua 24:14-15 (emphasis mine)
No comments:
Post a Comment