THE PROBLEM: some say, THREE PERSONSSBUT NOT THREE GODS ! ?! *
* Webster’s: !?! --in·ter·ro·bang; “a punctuation mark (since 1960) designed for use especially at the end of an exclamatory rhetorical question”
|
According to a Roman Catholic theological definition (which is accepted by many--even by some that claim they do not believe in human religious creeds), “the persons of the Blessed Trinity are truly distinct relationally, but not “as a matter of essence, or nature.” Each of the three persons in the godhead is said by them to possess the same eternal and infinite divine nature; but, they are the one, true God in essence or nature, but not “three Gods.” Yet, they are truly distinct in their relations to each other. i Now this is accepted as a mystery. But remember that this is a viewpoint decided upon by a vote of men. No where is even the word "trinity" mentioned in the Bible; much less such a definition found from the Holy Spirit.
WHY would the Plural word “GODS” THEREFORE be considered “HERESY”? No wonder an elderly man at a congregation that I visited accentuated assertively that he considered my illustrated book on the Trinity "GODS" was false. He wrote in big letters throughout the book, “ONE GOD.” He was apparently espousing the Catholic theology with an judgmental accent. I don’t know his actual thinking because he wouldn’t talk to me. I had illustrated in my book, When the Gods Walked Among Us, how the Bible points out that there are multiple persons in the Godhead throughout the Old Testament. This includes the "voice" (or "sound") of God (Elohim) walked in Eden and later a form of the feet of God (Elohim) was seen in the mountain with Moses and the nobles (Exodus 24:9-11). More than one person in the deity; i.e., three individuals. Therefore, a plural. But acting with absolute singular action. The disagreement expressed probably was not that the Bible speaks of three persons as deity but probably that my conclusion did not match the man’s conception of the matter.
THE CATHOLIC DEFINITION IS THE ACCEPTED ONE. Even among Protestants! The Catholic Council’s definition of trinity defines the “one God.” This may be why a well versed and exegetical Protestant denomination preacher also concluded that the trinity being "one" is but a mystery and we cannot understand it.ii He was satisfied that it was a mystery because he believed that an omnipotent God of three persons should be a mystery to us mortals. He quotes, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness” (1 Timothy 3:16). However, not meaning any disrespect to him, I understand the passage quoted actually discloses the mystery as being Jesus' ministry on earth.
THEREFORE, they say, THERE ARE NOT “THREE” GODS but “one God.” The definitions of the “Trinity” at the Council of Florence, AD 1338-1445, was quote, “as easy as one, two, three… four.”iii It taught there is one nature in God, and that there are two processions, three persons, and four relations that constitute the Blessed Trinity. The Son “proceeds” from the Father, and the Holy Spirit “proceeds from both the Father and the Son.” These are the two processions in God. And these are foundational to the four relations that constitute the three persons in God. Yet, one must not conclude that there are three gods. iv This is the decisive ruling from a council of humans.
THE COUNCIL’S
ATTEMPT AT
UNDERSTANDING “ONE
GOD.”
If there are three
persons, how can there be “one God”? It
is obviously to theologians that it is anathema to have three gods! The
currentv
Roman Catholic
stance
is that God
“generates the Son
which constitutes Him
as the Father.
The Son is generated by the Father. They in turn spiratea
the
Holy Spirit.”
Now this had to
have satisfied the council while protecting against anyone accusing
Catholics as being Polytheists. After all. even though there are
three persons in the Godhead there can
be only
one God. This
dilemma had been resolved!
Catholics and hence, Christians can
now be
called monotheists.
So, that must be the
end game: "How to be monotheistic in translation"(?)
MONOTHEISM IS “THE SACRED COW."b Monotheism is obviously the guiding principle for the council and others defining the trinity of the Bible. Merriam-Webster online defines "monotheism" strictly as "the doctrine or belief that there is but one God." Apparently, the definition of the trinity must not violate an understanding of the principle of monotheism. Monotheism is supposed to characterize “the traditions of Zoroastrianism, Bábism, the Bahá'í Faith, Christianity, Deism, Druzism, Eckankar, Sikhism, Manichaeism, Islam, Judaism, Samaritanism, Mandaeism, Rastafari, Seicho-no-Ie, Tenrikyo, Yazidism, and Atenism.” Elements of monotheistic thought are found even in early religions such as ancient Chinese religion, Tengrism, and Yahwism. vi Hence, it is “taboo” to suggest that Christianity or Judaism is not “monotheistic” and therefore, we must not and cannot use the plural ending -s with God! b https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_cow_(idiom) "A sacred cow is a figure of speech for something considered immune from question or criticism, especially unreasonably so."
MONOTHEISM AND THE BIBLE. Trinity as a word does not appear in the Bible. Now, it should be admitted also that the word “monotheism” does not appear in the Bible either. Webster points out that actually the word monotheism appears the first time in history during 1660 AD with the definition as “the doctrine or belief that there is but one God” with the comment, “historically related forms of monotheism [are] as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—B. R. Barber.” vii
BUT MEANWHILE THE BIBLE USES THE PLURAL! The crucial question is: Can one be wrong if he uses strictly the Bible terms? Now one cannot truly deny that the plural is used in the Bible itself. If one studies the Torah or the Old Testament in its original language of Hebrew, one must concede that the Bible uses the plural for God. Genesis 1:1 states in the original Hebrew “In the beginning Gods…” The Hebrew equivalency of our plural ending of “s” was “im”; i.e., using a readable script for us. The singular word for God was “El.” The word “God” in the first Hebrew verse is actually an “im” word: “Elohim.” Plural.viii When properly translated this word is “Gods.” That means that to a reader of the original Old Testament, God is plural. Now the English translators apparently felt obligated not to use the plural form. But why?
SUBJECT AND VERBS MUST AGREE IN NUMBER. One admitted problem the translators had was that the Hebrew verb “created” [The subject's action word] is singular in Genesis 1:1. Like in English grammar, a subject and its verb in the Hebrew language must agree in number. Consequently, the apparemt reasoning in translating is that the subject “Gods” must be singular. Their translation then is “In the beginning God created [both subject and verb singular].” Although this may have made sense for a solution to the problem for the translators, the ancient Hebrews still used the plural for their Creator. For example, in Exodus 32 Aaron and the disobedient Israelites used the plural referring to the God who had delivered them and was now leading them in the wilderness. In this passage the English is properly translated in the plural by our English translators.
DID THE ANCIENT PEOPLE THINK OF THE PLURAL GOD AS SINGULAR? Let's look in Exodus 32:1 where Elohim is properly translated in the plural “gods.” Israel (the people) gathered together before Aaron and said “Make us gods [Elohim], which shall go before us because we don’t know what happened to Moses.” The request from the people is in the plural. But in response Aaron, the high priest, had a single molten calf engraved while they (Israel) still said, “These ['e^lleh, plural] be thy gods [Elohim] that brought thee up from Egypt” (32:4). So it should be obvious that Aaron and the people understood that their indivisible singular Creator was called by the plural name Elohim.
THE CONCEPT OF A PLURAL DEITY CONTINUED AT LEAST UNTIL THE THIRD CENTURY B.C. It must have caused confusion among the uninspired seventy Jewish Greek scholars who would not understand why the prophet Moses had used the plural in chapter one for the Creator. And for that matter, why the prophets had used the plural throughout the Old Testament. According to the English King James Concordance the Hebrew Elohim is translated as a singular "God" into English 2366 times! The word seems to be translated singular by the translators only if the context is supposed as speaking of the God of Israel by the prophet. Pagan gods or what appears to refer to such do not warrant that privilege. The word is translated at least 216 times as “gods” when the translators interpret the word referring to idols. However, they make a mistake with Exodus 32.
The translation of Exodus 32 belies their ploy. Why did the translators in the text in Exodus 32, use the plural for Jehovah? Verse 23, "For they said unto me, Make us gods, which shall go before us: for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him." Someone might argue that the word is plural (in English, for example) because they were making an idol. I must disagree. There is no indication that they knew anything except that Aaron was to make a representation of the deity that had delivered them from Egypt. The people obviously understood that the plural word gods [Elohim] was still applicable although Aaron represented “their gods” as a single entity, a golden calf. All this proves is that the people were accustomed from Moses and Aaron to using the plural word Gods with a singular verb for their deliverer from Egyptian slavery.
THERE are RULES in grammar THAT ALLOW PLURAL NOUNS TO BE USED IN A SINGULAR SENSE. The plural noun still refers to multiple entities but has singular verbs. Notional plural nouns. Certain plural nouns, compounds and noun phrases are commonly treated as notionally singular; e.g., quantified or measured and expressed as a unit. Example A. Six hundred dollars was the price quoted. ... The verb "was" is singular while the subject is plural. Example B. Three days isn’t long enough to do it. ... The verb "is" is singular. Example C. Fewer cars in cities results in reduced pollution. ... The verb "is" is singular. Example D. Noun phrases using “and”, can be treated as singular; e.g., fish and chips is my favorite. Example E. Mathematical additions expressed in words; e.g., seven and three is ten. Example F. Collective nouns can take singular verbs. xi Team, Congress, army, etc. An example is illustrated. "Collective nouns may be singular or plural, depending on meaning and preference. The government has/have ordered a complete lockdown." PLURAL GOD BUT SINGLE ACTION. If our Deity wanted the Godhead to emphasize unity from the very first text, then a singular verb could be expected in English and obviously in the Hebrew. Hence, unified Gods together and singularly created the world. But this should underscore the obvious: The Gods are one in the action of creating. Gods created. Therefore, we should not argue that it is a sin to say GodS as long as it is in this sense.
WHAT ABOUT GENESIS 1:2? It is interesting though that in verse 2, the translators went ahead and identified the [Holy] Spirit, who is the second member of the Deity: “And the Spirit [singular] of God [plural, ElohimH430 ] moved [singular] upon the face of the waters.” The Hebrew word for Spirit is ru..ach which is used for a concept of “wind, breath, mind, or spirit” (Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Definitions). Even the Alexandrian 70 Jewish Greek scholars understood it to mean here as God’s Spirit and translated it as Pneuma (Greek,"Spirit") of God. Verse 2 is consistent with the plural Gods of verse 1. It is the Spirit of God moving upon the waters. The psalmist makes this clear when writing: “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath [rûakh, Spirit] of his mouth” (Psalm 33:6, KJV): God, Word, Spirit, and Creation.
As a side note, Islam mistakenly teaches “that Christians worship three gods; God, Mary, and her son, Isa (Jesus)– but in their mention of a trinity, the Holy Spirit is not mentioned.” ix Even Jewish theology treats their word ruachH7307 as being just God’s wind or breath. But such passages as Psalm 104:30 treats Him as a renewer, a creator: “Thou sendest forth thy spirit,H7307 they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.” Genesis 1:2 is important then for the separate existence of the Holy Spirit that makes up the active Trinity in creation.
VERSES 26, 27. Moving on, later in the text, Genesis 1:26 is very important for our study. The statement of the Creator[s] of man is literally translated into English for us as “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” This is stated in connection with the original Hebrew’s plural; i.e., Elohim: Gods. According to the King James Concordance the plural of God Elohim is used over 2366 times plus as singular “god” in the Old Testament. x On the other hand, sometimes elohim is translated with the English plural form “s”; Genesis 3:5, “ye shall be as gods”; Genesis 31:30, 32; Genesis 35:2,4; etc. Elohim is correctly translated with the English plural ending “s” as gods in Psalm 8:6 which passage is quoted by Jesus in the Greek New Testament (John 10:34 and 35).
ONE GIVEN EXPLANATION FOR THE HEBREW USE OF THE PLURAL. One assumption for the Bible using the plural Elohim without meaning plural has been offered: "It was used in a plural way to emphasize a god having special added power." The Jews believed that God was so powerful that He is referred to in the plural. Their stock answer cannot be believed because the Hebrew plural is consistently used for other gods as well. MY CONCERN. But the “70” faithful Alexandrian Jews that translated the Torah Hebrew into Koine Greek, during post-Babylonian captivity, did not believe this for they translated the Scriptures’ Elohim into the singular Theos and not its plural Theoi. Why? If the plural is required for power what happened to the power? Why not still show that in the new Greek language?
The Jewish scholars were not impartial. It is obvious the Jewish translators have simply shown their teaching in the singular God. Also, it has been suggested they may have imitated the esteemed Classical Greek writer Homer. Homer would sometime use the singular form theos as an indefinite number. The Jewish translators may also have chosen the singular theos as an indefinite number. But it seems to me that if the Jews considered plural as meaning power, then why didn’t they just use the Greek plural as equivalent? Obviously, they did not interpret the plural use as using power since they used the singular the-os and not theoi, etc.
THE IMAGE OF THE PLURAL. In Genesis one, there is the use of singular word “man” used for the plural husband and wife (v. 27) which is likened to the image of Gods; i.e., “in our image.” This unified concept and oneness of God is depicted in the creation of man. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and … ” The text indicates that the Creator/s is/are speaking among themselves. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:28).
IN THE BEGINNING, CREATORS. PLURAL. Young Literal Translation translates for us in our English the truth of our creation. (Ecclesiastes) 12:1: (YLT) “Remember also thy Creators in days of thy youth, While that the evil days come not, Nor the years have arrived, that thou sayest, 'I have no pleasure in them.'” John 1:1-3 is telling the Truth. John 1:3,KJV, "All things were made by him (THE WORD: JESUS); and without him was not any thing made that was made." And Hebrews 1:2, KJV, "(God) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son (Jesus), whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds."
GOD IS PLURAL IN HIS DENOTATION BUT SINGULAR IN HIS CONNOTATION. . Likewise, Genesis 3:22 uses both husband and wife together for the singular word “man.” “And the LORD God [Jehovah Elohim, plural] said, ‘The man has now become like one of us. [plural] ’” Again, a thousand years later (from Moses), the voice of God to the prophet in Isaiah 6:8, “`Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.” The reference of God here is given as a plural: “the Lord”H136 (adonaiH136). This word "Lord" is plural just like the word Elohim. It literally means “my lords” and is a title for our God (s).
From the first chapter of the Bible it is logical to me then that the Jewish Hebrew Scriptures spoke of the true God in the plural [GODS] along with specific separate mention of the identification of the Spirit of God. The creation of man as both husband and wife is compared to the plural but image of the Gods.
God’s eternal plan of redemption and God’s plurality with singular actions are both mysteries in the Old Testament. But the New Testament revelation gives us the answer to the eternal mystery of who Elohim is along with His peculiar singleness and what His eternal plan has been. Perhaps there's a hint of the Biblical trinity unity in Alexandre Dumas' fiction story of three musketeers whose battle cry was "One for all; and all for one!" At any rate the unity is illustrated for us. MY CONCLUSION is that we, like the Hebrews of old, can emphasize the singleness of Jehovah. They are as one in union. This can perhaps be done in English with the singular word God but we must not forget that Gods, the Trinity, created both husband and wife (plural) in their image. Those of us that are married must appreciate the importance of our union in marriage if they are to honor the Creator/s union in spiri. We must be one flesh even as the plural God is one. For we are made in their image. This is why it should not be wrong to use the plural word "Gods." How could they work in unison if there was only one person? How could they be our example(s) in the New Testament for mankind to have unity (John 17:21; 1 Corinthians 1:10)? Let's proceed to the next lesson part. The link is at the top of this page and below.
______________ GAYLON WEST edited by Janie Ward and Mary West
i https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/explaining-the-trinity ii Adrian Rogers; YouTube.com iii Notice that this definition was not in the Bible, nor was it agreed upon until the Middle Ages. iv And I find this to be generally the case with folks who reject the Trinity. They either think Christians are claiming there are three Gods (which is what my Muslim friend actually believed to be so), or that we are teaching something that is a logical contradiction, e.g., 3=1, and 1=3. --https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/explaining-the-trinity v History of councils and trinitarianism. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html vi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism vii “Monotheism.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monotheism. Accessed 15 Apr. 2024. viii https://bib.irr.org/are-jehovah-and-elohim-different-gods ix https://calloflove.org/blog/islam-beliefs/islam-teaches-about-holy-spirit x https://www.onenesspentecostal.com/yegods.htm xi https://languagetool.org/insights/post/grammar-subject-verb-agreement/ |
