Doctrine of Trinity, Free Online Course, Lesson 1B
Doctrine of Trinity, Free Online Course, Lesson 1B
One God, Three Persons
The Bible tells us that there is only one God. We read, “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah”[Deut: 6: 4]; “I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God”[Isaiah. 45: 5]; “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.”[1.Timothy.1:17]; “Thou believest that God is one, thou doest well.”[James 2: 19]
We have to note that in the very first sentence of the Bible this one and only God of the Holy Book reveals Himself as One Who is more than one Person. We read, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” [Genesis.1: 1]. In this sentence, the Hebrew word ‘Elohim’ translated ‘God’ in English is a common plural noun [Singular: ‘El’ or ‘Eloh’; Dual plural: ‘Elohayim’] indicating grammatically that it refers to three or more persons. But the verb translated ‘created’ is singular, indicating that its subject ‘Elohim’ is singular; but the fact is that it is plural. Thus in the first sentence of the Holy Bible there is something that looks like a ‘grammatical error’ when we view it in the context of English grammar. The real reason for this apparent error is that the one God of the Bible has the unique characteristic of being more than one Person and yet remaining only one in essence.
If it is argued that the plural ‘Elohim’ is used in order to convey the idea of respect, that argument will be valid only if we find that this practice is followed wherever this Hebrew word for ‘God’ is used. But we see that this is not done. When Jesus on the Cross cried to God the Father, the word He used was ‘Eli’ [Elohi] the singular of ‘Elohim’ in Aramaic, meaning ‘my God’ [Matt:27:46; Mark 15:34]. The writer of Genesis also could have used this noun in the singular as Jesus did. But we find that he chose to use the noun in the plural and the verb in the singular. There must be sufficient reason for this writer to use a uniplural noun to speak about God in the first sentence of this divinely inspired book. The subsequent writings in the Old Testament and the revelations in the New Testament explain what was the need of this uniplural noun in the first sentence of the Holy Book.
In Gen: 1: 26 we read, “And God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness …”In this sentence, the words ‘us’ and ‘our’ indicate that the God they refer to, is One Who is more than one Person; otherwise ‘me’ and ‘my’ would be used. It has been argued that God said these words to someone whom He had created before starting the creation of the universe. Let us assume that this argument is right. Then we have to say that since God said to His first creation “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, it was in their images and after their likenesses that God and His first creation made man. And this should be the statement in the verse that follows; but Gen: 1: 27 is:
“And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;” This means, if our assumption is right, God after creating man with the help of His first creation in the images and likenesses of both of them, ‘lied’ that it was only in His own likeness and image that man was made. Not only that, hiding the role of His first creation in the task of creating man, and grabbing for Himself all the credit for this great accomplishment, God said it was He {not He and His first creation} who made man.
Thus God refused to give any recognition to His ‘first creation’s contribution’ to the creation of man. This leads us to the conclusion that God is ‘unjust and untruthful.’ After receiving ‘invaluable help’ from His first creation in making man, and after making man in the image and likeness of this first creation also, this God ‘claimed’ man was made in His image and after His likeness only! Isn’t this a very ‘ignoble behaviour’on the part of God? Is he really ‘Almighty’? If He were, would He need the help of His first creation to perform the task of creating man? It is to these conclusions and questions that we are driven by the assumption we have made. No sensible person can agree with them; then how can we say that the assumption leading to them is right? We cannot but say that it is absolutely unreasonable to argue that it was to some already created being that God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:”
If there were an iota of truth in this idea, Gen: 1:1 should be, “In the beginning God created the one who was to help Him in His creative work and then, with his help created the heavens and the earth.” Since this is not what we read in the Word of God, there is no room for imagining that God sought the help of some already created being in the work of creating man. We ought to be truthful enough to understand that it was to Himself that God said the words, “Let us make man in our image” and accordingly He created man in His own image. Since God said ‘us’ referring to Himself, it is evident that this one God is more than one Person.
The verse, “And Jehovah God said, ‘Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil”[Gen: 3: 22] makes it abundantly clear that Jehovah God is a God in Whom there is more than one Person, because it is impossible to say “one of us” if “us” does not mean more than one. [If it is argued that God said these words to a certain creation of His, that argument cannot be considered reasonable because it is not mentioned to which created being God said these words. If there had been a created being to whom God had spoken these words, the name of that being would have been mentioned here, as in the Word of God it is always the practice to state who speaks, who is spoken to and what is spoken. Nowhere in the account of creation, or anywhere in the whole Bible do we come across the creation of a being with which God discusses his dealings with humanity. So it would be totally baseless to say that it might be to some created being in heaven that God said these words].
“Come, let us go down, and there confound their language” [Gen: 11: 7] is an exhortation that somebody makes to somebody else; it cannot be made where there is only one person. Answers to the questions, “Who said, ‘Come’? and ‘To whom was it said’? make it clear that there was one or more to say ‘Come’ and there was one or more to hear ‘Come.’ Thus the presence of more than one Person is unquestionably evident here. There is nothing in this verse, which suggests that God said these words to someone created by Him; the One or Ones Who hears these words do have the status and abilities of God; otherwise They would not be involved jointly in the work mentioned here. From
the context of this verse [Jehovah said these words when He saw men building the City and Tower of Babel and thereby preventing the scattering of population] it is clear that God made this exhortation to Himself, indicating that He is not a single Person. Since ‘Elohim’ is the common plural and not the dual plural, the number of persons it refers to cannot be less than three. Thus we come to the conclusion that there are at least three Persons in the one God revealed in the opening chapters of the book of Genesis.
The opponents of Trinity argue that the word ‘Elohim’ is used in the Old Testament for speaking about false gods and even of men and therefore it is not reasonable to consider the grammatical structure of a sentence in which this word is used, as a proof of Trinity. This argument raises the question: Is it the real Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent and only God or some false god who is spoken of in Gen: 1: 1? If the answer of the opponents of Trinity is that it is some false god like Baal who is spoken of in Gen: 1: 1, that answer amounts to saying that the Bible is not the Word of God and that there is no reference in this book to the true God Who is the creator of the universe. If the true Almighty God is someone other than the creator of the universe who is spoken of in Gen: 1: 1, that ‘God’ is nowhere spoken of in the Bible and we have to conclude it is only false gods who are spoken of in this book. Not even those who disbelieve the Bible will come to this conclusion. Everyone admits that it is the true God of the Bible Who is spoken of in Gen: 1: 1. As long as this fact is admitted, the argument in support of Trinity based on the grammatical structure of Gen: 1: 1 cannot be disputed.
However, it is desirable to find out what has prompted the opponents of Trinity to argue that it is unreasonable to put forward an argument in support of Trinity on the basis of the grammatical structure of Gen: 1: 1. Those who raise this objection ignore the fact that most words in any language have not only their normal meanings but also their particular meanings in particular contexts: For example we know what is the normal meaning of the word ‘devil’; but in the sentence, “I know him; he is a devil” the context shows that it is not a real devil but a human being who is spoken of.
Similarly we know what the word ‘beast’ means; and we also know that it is not in this normal sense, but in the sense of ‘Antichrist, the man of sin’ that this word is used in Revelation 19: 19—20. Words convey their normal sense when they are used without reference to particular contexts; whenever they are used in particular contexts, they convey particular meanings. Particular contexts and figures of speech can ascribe particular meanings to most words; but this does not in any manner affect the normal meanings of words: For example, the normal meanings of ‘heart’ and ‘stone’ do not undergo any change as a result of our using them in a particular context and saying, “He has a heart of stone.” It is a linguistic fact that whenever the normal sense of a word is modified by a particular context or a figure of speech, both the normal sense of the word and the modification effected are easily noticed and understood.
It is in accordance with this linguistic fact that we find Elijah referring to the false god ‘Baal’ by the word ‘Elohim.’ We read in 1. Kings 18: 27, “And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud; for he is a god [Elohim]; either he is musing, or he is gone aside, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth and must be awaked.” The context makes it evident that it is in an ironical sense that Elijah refers to Baal by the word ‘Elohim.’ Though for the prophets of Baal, he was ‘Elohim,’ for Elijah he was only a false god. [If he had considered him Elohim in the true sense, he would not have killed those prophets]. The use of ‘Elohim’ by Elijah in an ironical sense in a particular context cannot mean that the word has lost its normal sense or that it is impossible to understand where and when it is used in its normal sense.
In this manner it can be shown that all the verses cited as examples of ‘Elohim’ having ‘various meanings’ do not prove anything other than the fact that the normal sense of this word, like most other words in language, can be modified by particular contexts and that in the absence of any particular modification of meaning by any particular context the word conveys its normal sense. Since in Gen: 1: 1, there is neither any particular context as we find in 1. Kings 18: 27 or 11: 33 nor the use of any figure of speech, it is clear that ‘Elohim’ is used there in its normal sense. Whatever is the sense in which a word is used in a sentence, the grammatical structure of that sentence and the sense of that word are in harmony with each other; this is a basic linguistic fact.
The true meanings of a sentence and the words used in it are to be understood in the light of the grammatical structure of that sentence; it is most unreasonable to think that the meanings of a word and the sentence it belongs to are to be understood in the light of the grammatical structure of some other sentence in which that word is used in a different context. No sensible person will argue that this is how meanings of words and sentences are to be understood. So it is most unreasonable to argue that the meaning of ‘Elohim’ in Gen: 1: 1 should not be examined in the light of the grammatical structure of that sentence and we should not use the finding as an argument in support of Trinity. If this ‘objection’ is to be considered reasonable, it has to be proved that the meaning of a word is to be understood, not by examining its context and structure of the sentence it belongs to, but by examining its use in a different context in a different sentence having a different grammatical structure. As it is impossible to do this, it is impossible to find fault with the examination of the grammatical structure of Gen: 1: 1 and the meaning of the word ‘Elohim’ and the argument in support of ‘Trinity’ put forward on the basis of that examination.
Doctrine of Trinity, Free Online Course, Lesson 1B
One God, Three Persons
comments
Leave a Reply
Powered by FireStats