TRINITY

Jay P. Green’s Classic Bible Dictionary says about the word trinity, "This is not itself a Biblical term, but was a term coined by Tertullian to refer to this whole concept under one word" (p. 483). The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature says forthrightly, "Respecting the manner in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit make one G-d, the Scripture teaches nothing, since the subject is of such a nature as not to admit of its being explained to us" ("Trinity," p. 553).

The doctrine of the Trinity is often defined in the following terms: "The holy trinity is one supreme being existing in three persons, all equal in rank and in eternity and having the same substance, all united in one G-dhead." When pressed to explain it from Scripture, some will compare the trinity to an egg and clergymen usually respond with something like, "It is a great mystery, and no one can really understand it." This leads us to ask, would Yahweh give man a key teaching that could not be understood? How could He teach us a concept that is absent in the Scriptures?

Regardless of these facts, the belief in a co-equal and co-eternal Father, Son, and Set-apart Spirit is so pervasive and ingrained that few any longer question its origins and legitimacy. It has even become a test belief to determine whether one is of the belief system called “Christianity”.

An exhaustive review of Scripture and history reveals the simple fact that the Trinity teaching was unknown to the early New Covenant assembly. That the doctrine of the Trinity is a "revealed doctrine" foreign to the Scriptures is supported by many authorities, including the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Under the article Trinity we read, "The term ‘Trinity’ is not a biblical term…In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is a purely revealed doctrine…As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason" (vol. 5, p. 3012).

This authority is not alone in its insight. Another explains that the whole notion of a Trinity emerged from heated disagreement and dispute: "The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies… The council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the ‘Son is of the same substance…as the Father,’ even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit…By the end of the 4th century…the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since" (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Trinity).

Both secular historians and Bible scholars readily admit that the doctrine of the Trinity was not official church teaching until the council of Nicaea in the year 325 of our common era. The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, concedes, "The formulation ‘one G-d in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century… Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective."

Hislop’s statements are supported in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, "Although the notion of a divine triad or Trinity is characteristic of the Christian religion, it is by no means peculiar to it. In Indian religion we meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu; and in Egyptian religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, constituting a divine family, like the Father, Mother and Son in mediaeval Christian pictures" (Trinity, p. 458).

A question few ever stop to ask is, why is the Trinity a belief held firmly by most of Christendom, while it is completely lacking in the Scripture's teachings? The historian Will Durant offers this startling explanation, "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it…The Greek language, having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual; The Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery of the Mass. Other pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist result. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine Trinity" (The Story of Civilization, Vol. III).

This blending in of paganism, which was so characteristic of the early church, changed Christianity forever. Like the development of the Trinity, many practices and beliefs of today’s church developed over time, clearly not taught as precepts in the Scriptures.

The doctrine of the Trinity says that the Son is both co-equal to and co-eternal with the Father, while the Scriptures maintain quite the opposite.

Yahushua the Messiah Himself affirmed that he was not co-equal with the Father, but was in submission and subjection to the Father:
John 14:28 “You heard that I said to you, ‘I am going away and I am coming to you.’ If you did love Me, you would have rejoiced that I said, ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I.”

Yahushua again confirms his submission to his Father:
John 10:29 “My Father, which gave them to me, is greater than all; and no man is able to snatch them out of my Father's hand.”

In His own words Yahushua confirms that the Father is superior to everyone, including the Son Himself.

The Apostle Paul confirms Yahushua’s subordinate relationship to the Father:
1 Corinthians 11:3 “And I wish you to know that the head of every man is the Messiah, and the head of woman is the man, and the head of Messiah is Elohim.”

See also Mark 13:32, Matthew 20:20-23, John 5:19, and John 10:29.

John of Patmos wrote the Book of Revelation under the direction of Yahushua the Messiah. Yahushua inspired John to write that Yahushua the Messiah was the first ever creation of the Father:
Revelation 3:14  “And to the messenger of the assembly in Laodikeia write, ‘The Amĕn, the Trustworthy and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of Elohim...”

If Yahushua was created by His Father, how then can the Son and Father be co-eternal? Knowing that one existed prior to the other, reason alone would conclude that a co-eternal relationship between the Son and Father is illogical. Proverbs tells us:
Proverbs 8:22-25 “YHWH possessed me, The beginning of His way, As the first of His works of old. 23 “I was set up ages ago, at the first, Before the earth ever was. 24 “When there were no depths I was brought forth, When there were no springs heavy with water. 25 “Before mountains were sunk, Before the hills, I was brought forth...”

Scripture clearly states that only Yahweh, the Heavenly Father, has immortality and is the only one who ever possessed immortality within Himself:
1Timothy 6:16 “...who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or is able to see, to whom be respect and everlasting might. Amĕn.”

This statement can only apply to Yahweh, the Father. This is further proof that a co-eternal relationship between the Son and Father cannot be scripturally established.

Proof for the existence of more than one mighty one in the Heavenly Host can be found at the beginning:
Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning Elohim [mighty ones] created the heaven and the earth."
Many suppose that this is evidence for a triune deity. However, the term elohim simply means more than one, like family, school, or board. Each of these words describes a collective relationship, but does not designate a specific number. Although technically plural, it is sometimes used for the Father alone.

Also, the term elohim is not limited in reference to supreme or supernatural beings. Moses was compared to an elohim in Exodus 4:16.

The term "elohim" is even applied to pagan deities:
Deu 32:12 "YHWH alone led him, And there was no strange elohim with him."

Note the definition of the word ruach: "The basic meaning of ruach is both ‘wind’ or ‘breath,’ but neither is understood as essence; rather it is the power encountered in the breath and the wind, whose whence and whither remains mysterious…2. ruach as a designation for the wind is necessarily something found in motion with the power to set other things in motion…The divine designation also apparently has an intensifying function in a few passages: ruach elohim (Gen 1:2) and ruach yhwh (Isa 59:19)" (Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, "Ruach").

This lexicon also states that ruach implies a power that is within the breath and wind, which is connected to the Name YHWH or Yahweh. The Set-apart Spirit is the power emanating from Yahweh, the Heavenly Father. It is Yahweh’s power that puts all things into motion. It is Yahweh’s power through His Ruach ha qodesh that breathes life into His creation and makes living things live.

The Greek word for Spirit is pneuma, which shares a mirror definition with the word ruach. "Pneuma; to breathe, blow, primarily denotes the wind. Breath; the spirit which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial, and powerful" (The Complete Word Study New Testament, "Pneuma").

It can be further demonstrated through Scriptures that the Set-apart Spirit is not a separate being, but an inanimate power that proceeds from the Father. In Isaiah 32:15, 44:3, and Acts 2:17 the Set-apart Spirit is described as being poured. How can a being be poured into another? Titus 3:5-6 and Acts 2:33 testify that the spirit is shed. How can a being shed itself onto another? The Spirit is also described as something that can be stirred up: 2 Timothy 1:6; quenched: 1 Thes. 5:19, and renewed: 2 Cor. 4:16. These attributes are far more fitting for a power than a person.

In addition, there are several key facts that must be acknowledged when discussing the Set-apart Spirit that show that the Spirit is not a person:

• There is no evidence in Old or New Covenants that the Father or Son communicate with the Set-apart Spirit. Paul never addressed the Set-apart Spirit in the salutations of any of his letters, as he did the Father and Son.

• There is no instance where anyone prayed to the Set-apart Spirit.

• Nowhere in the scripture is the Set-apart Spirit called the "third person." If the Set-apart Spirit were a separate being, as are the Father and Son, then it should at least have a personal name as do Yahweh the Father and Yahushua the Son! Yet, it remains nameless.

• We know that Yahushua was conceived by the Set-apart Spirit (Matt. 1:20), therefore if the Set-apart Spirit were a person then Yahushua prayed to the wrong "father" in John 17 and other places.

Alvan Lamson, author of The Church of the First Three Centuries, offers a summation as to the legitimacy of the Set-apart Spirit in composing part of a Trinity. "…we must look, not to Jewish Scriptures, nor to the teachings of [Yahushua] and his apostles, but to Philo and the Alexandrine Platonists. In consistency with this view, we maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the Platonizing Fathers…"

Before delving into the next discussion, we must first understand the origin of the New Covenant and why certain words were translated as they were, leading some to infer that the Spirit is a sentient, individual being.

There are also other indications that most, if not all, of the New Covenant was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Consider some key facts: the twelve apostles whom Yahushua appointed were common men. Some were fishermen, others tax collectors, but none were considered scholars.

It is documented from the well-known Hebrew historian Josephus that the Greek language was largely foreign to the Hebrew people in and around Galilee where Yahushua spent His life and ministered. This first-century priest said of himself, "I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness" (Antiquities, Book XX, Chapter XI).

Josephus was one of the most educated Hebrews of his time, yet he was mostly unfamiliar with the Greek language. Now if a learned man like Josephus hardly knew the Greek language, how could the uneducated apostles know the Greek tongue, and even know it well enough to write fluently on many difficult subjects? These were not Greeks but Hebrews from rural Israel, therefore they spoke their native tongue, Hebrew or Aramaic. If they spoke Hebrew or Aramaic then they obviously wrote their New Covenant books and letters in that language as well.

Why is this fact important?

The Hebrew and Aramaic languages have no "it" or neuter gender; therefore all nouns are either masculine or feminine. e.g.
Exodus 37:16  "And he made the vessels which were upon the table, his dishes, and his spoons, and his bowls, and his covers to cover withal, of pure gold." (KJV)
This text describing the utensils of the table in the Tabernacle ought to read:
Exodus 37:16  "And he made the utensils which were on the table, its dishes, and its cups, and its bowls, and its jars for pouring, of clean gold." (The Scriptures 1998)

One reason Biblical scholars question the originality of this passage is that it conflicts with the other formulas given for baptism in the New Covenant. In all other instances baptism is done into the singular name of Yahushua (see Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27). The Companion Bible makes special note of this: "To some, perplexity, and even distress, is caused by the apparent neglect of the disciples to carry out the [Master’s] command in Matthew 28:19-20, with regard to the formula for baptism. …Turning to Acts and onwards, they find no single instance of, or reference to, baptism in which the Triune name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is employed. On the contrary, from the very first, only ten days after the injunction had been given, Peter is found (Acts 2:38) commanding all his hearers including those of the dispersion to be baptized in the name of [Yahushua the Messiah]" (p. 206, Appendix 185).

A second reason why biblical scholars are skeptical of Matthew 28:19 is because of conflicting historical documents. Eusebius of Caesarea is known as one of the greatest Greek teachers and historians of the early church. He lived approximately between the years of 270 CE and 340 CE. In citing Matthew, Eusebius omitted the Trinitarian formula found in Matthew 28:19. "The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19-21 times, either omitting everything between ‘nations’ and ‘teaching,’ or in the form ‘make disciples of all nations in my name,’ the latter form being the more frequent" (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).

The Jewish New Testament Commentary says, "Although nearly all ancient manuscripts have the trinitarian formula, Eusebius, the Church historian, who may have been a non-trinitarian, in his writings preceding the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E., quotes the verse without it. Most scholars believe the formula is original, but papers by Hans Kosmala (‘The Conclusion of Matthew,’ Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, 4 (1965), (pp. 132-147) and David Flusser (‘The Conclusion of Matthew in a New Jewish Christian Source,’ ibid., 5 (1966-7), pp. 110-119) take the opposite view" (note on Matt. 28:19, p. 86).

Obviously, Eusebius did not recognize the current form of Matthew 28:19. Instead of quoting the phrase, "in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," he most often used the phrase, "in my name," which would agree with all other accounts of baptism in the New Covenant.

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, p. 380, further reveals that Justin Martyr, another church father, was also possibly ignorant of the present form of Matthew 28:19. "Justin Martyr quotes a saying of Messiah as a proof of the necessity of regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula. This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19."

The second passage in question is:
1 John 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (KJV)

Most biblical scholars will admit that 1 John 5:7 was a later addition to the New Covenant. In other words, this passage is not found in the oldest Greek New Covenant manuscripts.

Note the following on 1 John 5:7: "During the controversy of the 4th cent. over the doctrine of the Trinity the text was expanded - first in Spain ca. 380, and then taken in the Vulg. - by the insertion: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.’ A few late Greek manuscripts contain the addition. Hence it is passed into the KJV. But all modern critical editions and translations of the NT, including RSV, omit the interpolation, as it has no warrant in the best and most ancient manuscripts or in the early church fathers" (The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, note on 1 John 5:4-12).

The Jerusalem Bible note on 1 John 5:7-8 says, "Vulgate vv. 7-8 read as follows "There are three witnesses in heaven: the Father the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one; there are three witnesses on earth: the Spirit the water and the blood’. The words in italics (not in any of the early Greek MSS, or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulgate itself) are probably a gloss that has crept into the text."