Do Messianics Believe in the Trinity?

Many do, yes, Bulldog. Many see it more as a TriUnity, and not exactly in the exact form/formula as traditional christian understanding has painted it. Some see the issue in other ways as well. There are quite a few very interesting threads on this forum discussing the doctrine of trinity/triUnity, the deity or divinity of Messiah, etc.

Well, these are just MY thoughts and "TriUnity" is merely a term *I* have used to describe some of the views I see others expressing... but I would answer you thusly:

Whereas christians are overly focused on the TRI (how the Creator G-d exists and interacts with His creation as three distinct and separate individuals -- persons) I would say that many Messianics focus more on the UNITY of the Creator G-d Who is plural in nature. And I am sure some do not see Him as plural whatsoever.

Some thoughts:
I believe that gentilized christianity's constant focus on the separation/differences/distinct persons of G-d to nearly the exclusion (or forgetting) of the fact that YHVH Elohim is ONE Creator G-d, has lead to christianity's insistance upon separating many things that I don't think were ever intended by G-d to BE separated, and are not in reality: such as many of christianity's understanding of the things of faith... we gentiles have throughout "christian" history told (and some still tell, even now) Jews that they must leave behind their Jewish faith when they embrace Yeshua; gentilized christianity separated Jewish practice (handed down from G-d Himself to His people for all who come to Him to follow -- see my siggy line) out from our forms of worship and our calendar and ritals etc.; gentilized christianity separates the Word of G-d into "Old" and "New" testaments and "Old" and "New" covenants; dispensationalism (a widespread belief in some parts of the church) divides the Word of G-d into stages/degrees of revelation, stating that parts of the Word had/have relevance only for a certain time and then claims that most of the Word is no longer relevant to the church today; some christians in times past have believed and openly declared that the G-d of the "Old" testament was a harsh G-d of Law and the G-d of the "New" testament is a G-d of love... as though they are not One in the same; a good number of the denominations of christians claim that other christians of other denominations, etc., aren't christians because of their differences in beliefs (whereas, as I understand it, for much of Judaism a difference in belief and interpretation doesn't make one no longer a Jew... although this is a much deeper issue than I appear to be making it, deeper than I can get into on this thread... I am just mentioning it because my point is to focus on the fairly extreme amount of "division" I see, and how it manifests in the chrch and the faith of believers due in part, I think, to christinity's insistence and focus on the concept of Trinity almost to the exclusion of the fact of UNITY of our G-d)...

Anyway... we've separated the "persons" of G-d into such different and distinct individuals, and focused so extremely on that aspect, that many christians in reality and practice cannot see/grasp the eternal unity of G-d (even while vehemently declaring that they do... ). YHVH Elohim: the Abba, Father, does all things THROUGH Yeshua ("Jesus") BY the Power of the Ruach Elohim (Spirit of G-d).

I suppose that I am not able to give you a terribly helpful answer, I apologize. Nor can I speak for those who have so eloquently posted their thoughts here on other threads... I think it would be a very good idea if you were to look for the threads on this forum which discuss the nature of G-d, the concept of Trinity, where various people have posted their valuable insights, etc. If you'd like, I will try to find some of them and bump them... they should be easy to spot, by the thread titles.

Shalom B'Yeshua

This may help:

This next clip is from Tim Heggs book the Letter writer, (Which I would recommend to anyone who would really like to understand Paul)


Chapter 3
In fact, the promise of Messiah, beginning with Genesis 3:15, becomes the primary thread that unifies the whole of the Tanach, from the micro through the macro structures. Kaiser380 and Sailhamer,381 among others, have shown how the central theme of the Messianic promise not only unifies the Tanach, but also was a core idea that helped mold the very shape of the Hebrew canon. Far from being a peripheral belief held by a few fringe groups, the promise and hope of a coming Messiah lay at the very heart of post-exilic Israel and of God’s revelation to her via His prophets.

In classical treatments of the doctrine of Messiah (usually called “Christology”) the material may be broadly divided into two categories: the person of Messiah and the work of Messiah. Once again, as we read the epistles of Paul with an eye to these categories, we discover that he has formulated his understanding of Messiah from the pages of the Tanach.

The Person of Messiah

Paul did not walk with Yeshua as the Twelve did, even though he certainly knew of Yeshua before his Damascus Road experience. Yet all that Paul knew of Him from a societal perspective was negative, since he learned of Him as an antagonist. In fact, Paul plainly states that he could no longer consider Yeshua “according to the flesh,”382 but was apparently given over entirely to understanding Him from the testimony of others, and directly from the Scriptures of the Tanach. He accredits to oral testimony (“that which I also received”) what he knew about Yeshua’s final Passover, including His newly inserted word in the seder regarding His broken body and shed blood. He further learned through the testimony of others that the Pesach seder would, from that time on, also be a memorial of the deliverance He had won for His people as the Savior of the world.383
Paul knew that Yeshua was born of a woman,384 and that He was from the family of David,385 statements fully affirming His humanity. He knew that Yeshua had died, that He had risen three days later as He had said, that He had appeared to His disciples as well as to others (including Paul), and that He had ascended to the Father.386 Paul also affirms Yeshua’s eternality, His equality with the Father, His status as the Son of God (a label well recognized as messianic),387 and that He was worthy to be worshiped.388 Paul taught the present intercessory activity of Yeshua at the Father’s right hand389 and His future return to retrieve His own.390 In all of these affirmations, Paul never writes as though needing to defend something by way of debate. It was only in the later, creedal activity of the 3rd and 4th Century Christian Church that the linear logic of the Greek and
Latin fathers found some of these categories inconsistent. In attempting to unravel the “mystery of godliness,”391 they forced an “either-or” into categories which, in Hebrew thought, were “both-and.”
For instance, Paul has no problem affirming the humanity of Yeshua, but he can also, without explanation, tell the elders of Ephesus that God purchased the congregation of believers “with His own blood.”392 Does God have blood? Here Paul unveils his working presupposition, namely, that Yeshua is God. Yet even recognizing this open declaration of Yeshua as “God,” Paul can state in another place that God is the “King eternal, immortal, invisible….”393 and not concern himself with what appears to the Western mind as an open contradiction. He can do this because within the thinking process of the Semitic mind there is no need for a comprehensive linear logic across all aspects of life’s experiences and thoughts.394 Within the sphere of the Divine, God is invisible. But when He desires to appear to His creation, He can do so without compromising His essential nature. In the same way, Paul has no difficulty affirming the full eternality of Yeshua (no beginning or end) while at the same time acknowledging His full humanity. Holding these apparent opposites in tension only heightens the nature of the mystery and majesty of God, Who is both above and beyond us, yet dwells with us.
The same phenomenon occurs in the Tanach, where the descriptions of God appear to be contradictory. For instance, in Exodus 33:20 God explicitly states, “You cannot see My face,395 for no man can see Me and live!” Yet in the same book (Exodus 24:10), after Moses and Aaron and the elders of Israel ascend Mt. Sinai, the text states:
Exodus 24:10: and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.
It is obvious that the narrative contains what to the Western mind would be a blatant contradiction, yet neither Moses nor the scribes who copied these texts throughout the millennia felt the need to reconcile them. Why? Because the Semitic mind of the ancient world expected the tension of competing concepts to be the norm within the thinking process. Often our need to reconcile these tensions leads us down a path the original authors never intended.
Thus Paul, the Hebrew of Hebrews, fully affirms the eternality of Yeshua and at the same time confesses Him to be “born of a woman,” a descendant of David “according to the flesh.” Paul believes that Yeshua had no beginning when he describes Him as the Creator, as well as “before all things” (Colossians 1:15-18):
Colossians 1:15-18: And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything.


If we look at Paul’s words from a Hebrew perspective we avoid the misinterpretations so easily attached to this text by Western thinking. First, the structure is obvious in the Greek, and discernible in the translation. It is made up of three stanzas, each in chiastic396 arrangement, with the first and third stanzas also parallel. In the overall arrangement of the stanzas, the first one is parallel to the third, utilizing the same key words for each respective line. Thus, line 1 begins “He is the image…” and line 7 begins “He is the beginning….” Likewise, line 2 begins with “first-born” as does line 8. Line 3 begins with the Greek preposition έν (en, “in” or “by”) as does line 9. This kind of arrangement is not uncommon in ancient writing, and particularly in the Semitic languages. Since Paul is writing as a Hebrew, it is not strange to find these kinds of structures in his Greek epistles. Here is how the text might be arranged:
Line Text
1 He is the Image of the invisible God
2 first-born of all creation
3 By Him all things were created; through Him and for Him
4 And He is before all things
5 in Him all things hold together
6 And He is the head of the body, the ekklesia
7 He is the beginning
8 first-born from the dead
9 In all things He is first place
What does this arrangement397 tell us? It emphasizes the preeminence of Yeshua as Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. In the opening line He is the image of the invisible God, which is paralleled by line 7, “He is the beginning.” This word “beginning” corresponds to the typical Rabbinic use of the term to denote the work of creation (תיִשאֵרְב הֶשֲעַמ/רֵצוֹי yozer/ma’aseh b’reshit).398 As “first-born” of the creation, parallel with “first-born” from the dead (lines 2 & 8), He is proclaimed to be the One who rightfully inherits both the fruits of creation as well as resurrection. Line 3 reiterates the proclamation of Yeshua as Creator, and its parallel, line 9, emphasizes His preeminence in this position.
The first and third stanzas act as “bookends” to hold the central stanza. Here, Yeshua is once again proclaimed as the preeminent One, but now in relation to His people, the ekklesia. And the middle sentence of the whole, which apparently Paul intends to emphasize the most, proclaims Yeshua as the One by whom all things maintain their current viability, including (and perhaps especially) the ekklesia. Such language corresponds to the Rabbinic teaching that God is constantly in the process of creating and maintaining the creation, for the same phrase “work of creation” is found in the liturgical affirmation that God “renews every day, continually, the work of creation.”399 This means that without His continual work of creation all would cease to exist.

Continued on next post

Continuing Tim Hegg from The letter writer

So what does Paul affirm about Yeshua in this text? That He is the Sovereign, the Creator, the Preeminent One, and the One by whom the whole universe is constantly maintained. Any reading of this text which puts Yeshua in a secondary place, or a position diminished from God, has not read it with integrity. Paul is using clear, Hebraic and even Rabbinic language to describe Yeshua as the Creator, and such an affirmation ascribes to Yeshua an absolute oneness with Adonai (הוה&#1497, a unity which goes beyond our ability to explain.
But this is not some innovation on the part of Paul. Even the Rabbinic literature alludes to the fact that the Messiah and HaShem share the same Name:
What is the name of King Messiah? R. Abba Kahana said: His name is “the LORD” (הוהי as it is stated, And this is the name whereby he shall be called, the LORD (הוה&#1497 is our righteousness (Jeremiah 23:6).400
In like manner, the Name was vested in the Angel of the Lord Who led Israel on her journey to the Promised Land,401 meaning that His word was to be accepted as having the same authority as the very word of God. This same Angel of the Lord is described by Isaiah as the “Angel of the Face,” that is, the very Presence of God, Who wrought salvation for the people of Israel.402
Thus, Paul affirmed the eternal nature of Yeshua, His sovereignty as Creator and Sustainer of the universe, His humanity as the son of David, Messiah, and His unity with the Father as possessing all the divine attributes associated with the Name. Paul never attempts to unravel this mystery, but affirms and teaches it as the core reality of the Messiah he served.
Paul goes one step further in this remarkable opening chapter of Colossians. Following the “hymn” of 1:15-18 he concludes in verses 19-20:
Colossians 1:19-20: For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
We should pay close attention to Paul’s affirmation that it was the “father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him.” This is paralleled in the next chapter (2:9) by the words:
For in Him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form….
Here, the additional word “deity” (θεοτήτος, theotetos) denotes “the nature or essence of deity, that which constitutes deity.”403 The mystery of the incarnation is captured in this term for Paul. He does not say the fullness of “God” dwells in bodily form, but he adopts a term which contains the attributes of deity while maintaining a clear distinction between God the Father and the Son of God as Immanuel.404
What exactly is Paul teaching here? The word “fullness” (πλήρωµα, pleroma) means “completeness.” While its meaning in this text has attracted considerable debate, the growing consensus is that in the Lxx and other places it “expresses the conviction that
Chapter 3 God’s power and presence fill the universe.”405 This concept is found in early Jewish works,406 and the idea of the divine presence indwelling human beings is also present in Jewish writings.407
The point is obvious: Paul affirms the mystery of the incarnation. He felt no need to give a philosophical explanation on the level of Latin persona408 or Greek philosophy of ontology (basis of reality). As a Hebrew, his way was to accept the mystery of the unexplained and hold in tension two truths which would appear to be self-contradictory but which were both surely true: God is One, invisible, eternal, unchanging; Yeshua is One with the Father, visible, human, yet eternal and divine. While the eternal wonder of the incarnation no doubt remained a supreme mystery in the heart of the Apostle, he felt no compulsion to attempt an explanation which would satisfy human reason.
Unfortunately, this need would exist in the Western, Greek mind, whose understanding of truth was necessarily built upon the Greek definitions of reality. Yeshua could not be known or understood (or trusted in) unless His “person” could be analyzed and His “parts” defined. Was He fifty percent man and fifty percent God? Did His humanity and deity blend to form a new, unique “substance?”409 Such questions would never have occurred to Paul, which is why the answers eventually formulated by the Church Fathers are based upon philosophy and dogmatics, but not on Paul’s letters nor any other Scriptures. Unfortunately, the dogmatic creeds adopted by the Church in the 4th and 5th Centuries to satisfy the Western mind went further to fuel the heretic fires than they did to explain Paul. If we are to listen to Paul’s teaching on the person of Messiah, we must do our best to read his letters apart from the later dogmatic theology manufactured to explain him. Indeed, nothing is more important for a clear understanding of Paul’s theology than to read him “with both hands,” and not with Luther’s theology in one hand, and Paul’s epistles in the other.
Summary – The Person of Messiah
In summary, what can we say that Paul affirms about the person of Yeshua? He is the promised Messiah, the King and Priest of Israel, of the tribe of Judah and the house of David. He is the very presence of God with us (Immanuel), and in Him the fullness of deity dwells. He is the only Savior, the One who died as a sacrifice for sins and who rose from the dead as proof that the Father accepted the atonement He made. He ascended to the Father where He intercedes for His people, and will return to gather His own to Himself and to rule as the rightful King of Israel. He is the One of whom the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings speak, and He is worthy to be worshiped because He is our Savior and God.410




I hope that this helps some. Sorry that I have not brought over the foot notes, and some of the Hebrew characters convert to mood faces in the Forum software.
CIF

References for above Tim Hegg

Footnotes 365 C. A. Evans, “Messianism” in Evans and Stanley, eds., Dictionary of the New Testament Background (IVP, 200), 700.
366 Ibid., 701.
367 4Q285 has been labeled the “Pierced Messiah” text, primarily on the basis of early interpretations by scholars such as Robert Eisenman of California State University who claimed that it spoke of the Messianic Leader being killed. Subsequent investigations by scholars have reinterpreted the text to indicate that the Messianic Leader is the one who does the killing, not who is killed. Eisenman later agreed that this was a possibility. Cp. Robert H. Eisenman and Michael Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (Element, 1992), 24ff; Hartman Stegemann, The Library of Qumran (Brill / Eerdmans, 1998), 102ff.
368 Stegemann, The Library of Qumran, 103.
369 It is true, of course, that the early midrashim, along with the Mishnah and the Apostolic writings, give us much evidence of the character of early Judaisms. However, the extant manuscripts of these writings are later, and detractors often presume that they have been tampered with to accommodate the later, emerging Christian Church (Apostolic Writings) or the post-70 CE Rabbinic Judaism (midrashim and Mishnah). Thus, the Dead Sea Scrolls occupy a unique position as the only extant manuscript evidence that dates from the 1st Centuries BCE and CE.
370 cf. 17:32, “Lord Messiah” (as in the Greek and Syriac manuscripts). The character of the Messiah in the Psalms of Solomon is that he will appear on the appointed day (18:5), drive out the wicked (17:27), purge Jerusalem of sinners (17:30, 32, 36; 18:5) and will lead Israel, judging the tribes of the people (17:26) and distributing the land according to their tribes (17:28). See the comments of C. A. Evans, “Messianism” in The Dictionary of New Testament Backgrounds, 701.
371 The Targumim are expanded translations of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic. The dates of the codified Targumim are disputed, but there seems to be clear evidence of the existence of recognized Aramaic translations of the Tanach in the 1st Century CE and earlier. Fragments of Aramaic translations have been found at Qumran (4QTgLev, 4QTgJob, 11QTgJob), and the emerging rabbinical regulations of the Targumim would indicate that they were gaining popularity and use in the pre-rabbinic era.
372 The Qumran scrolls likewise interpret the Genesis 49:10-12 text messianically, 4Q252.
373 b.Sanhedrin 98b. cf. also Mid. Rab. Ruth on 2:14; Yalqut ii.571, ii.620.
374 See the comments of Rashi, Eben Ezra, and Kimchi on Zechariah 6:12f in תולודג תוארקמ (םילשורי, 1924), 7.345-46.
375 For further resources on the Rabbinic view of Messiah, see Paphael Patai, The Messiah Texts (Wayne State Univ. Press, 1979); Rachmiel Frydland, What the Rabbis Know About the Messiah (Messianic Pub. Co., 1993).
376 b.Sukkah 52a.
377 Acts 13:32-33.
378 תיִרְבּ, berit, in the Hebrew, διαθήκη, diatheke in the Lxx and Apostolic Scriptures.
379 For information on the Royal Grant Treaty / Covenant see M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970); T. Hegg, “Covenant of Grant and the Abrahamic Covenant,” Masters Thesis: Northwest Baptist Seminary (Tacoma, 1980).
380 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Toward an Old Testament Theology (Zondervan, 1978), 20-69; “The Eschatological Hermeneutics of ‘Epangelicalism’: Promise Theology” JETS 14 (1972), 91-99.
381 John Sailhamer, Introduction to the Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Zondervan, 1995); “The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible” JETS 44.1 (2001), 5-23.
382 2Corinthians 5:16.
383 1Corinthians 11:13ff.
384 Galatians 4:4.
385 Romans 1:3; 2Timothy 2:8.
386 1Corinthians 13:3ff; Romans 8:34.
Footnotes 387 Philippians 2:1-5. The older scholarship which relegated the title “Son of God” to the later, Greco-Roman influence, has currently come under heavy attack by the appearance of the “Son of God” text (4Q246) at Qumran. That the parallels in this text closely align with the verbiage of the Lukan infancy narrative cannot be denied, and is further proof that the “Son of God” terminology was not only extant in the early centuries, but was used to denote Messiah figures. On the terminology “son of Man” as Messianic, see C. F. D. Moule, “The Son of Man: Some of the Facts” NTS 41 (1995), 277-279; John J. Collins, “The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism” NTS 28 (1992), 448-466; Thomas B. Slater, “One Like the Son of Man in First-Century Judaism” NTS 41, 183-198; William O. Walker, “The Origin of the Son of Man Concept as Applied to Jesus” in John Maier and Vincent Tollers, eds. The Bible in its Literary Milieu (Eerdmans, 1979), 156-165.
388 Philippians 2:10.
389 Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1.
390 1Thessalonians 4:16-18.
391 1Timothy 3:16, a recognized confession of faith of the early followers of Yeshua.
392 Acts 20:28. The manuscript data for the two readings κύριος and θέος is as follows: θέος - א B, 056, 0142, 104, 614, 629, 1505, 1877*, 2412, 2495, lectionaries, itar,c vg, syrp.h copboms κύριος – P74 A, C, D, E 33, 181, 436, 451, 630, 945, 1739, a few lectionaries, itd,e,gig,p syrh-mg copsa,bo arm. Furthermore, the easier reading is “Lord,” since the text as read with “God” is a blatant affirmation of the deity of Yeshua. See the comments in Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, 1971), 481-81.
393 1Timothy 1:17, cf. Colossians 1:15.
394 Marvin Wilson calls this “block logic.” Marvin Wilson, Our Father Abraham (Eerdmans, 1989), 150ff.
395 It should be remembered that the Hebrew word “fact” (םיִנָפּ, panim) is often translated “presence” in our English translations. The phrase in question could therefore just as well be translated “You cannot see my presence and live.”
396 “Chiastic” means a structure in which elements are parallel from the outer to the inner (a-b-c-b-a), thus forming an “X,” the letter “Chi” in Greek.
397 ǒς έστιν είκών τοΰ θεοΰ τοΰ άοράτου
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
έν αύτώ έκτίσθη τά πάντα τά πάντα δι’ αύτοΰ καί είς αύτόν έκτισται’
καί αύτός έστιν πρό πάντων
τά πάντα έν αύτώ συνέστηκεν,
καί αύτός έστιν ή κεφαλή τοΰ σώµατος της έκκλησιας
ός έστιν άρχή,
πρωτότοκος έκ τών νεκρών,
έν πάσιν αύτός πρωτεύων.
398 b.Sotah 40a; b.B’rachot 58a; b.Rosh HaShanah 11a, etc. The phrase אֶשֲׂעַמ תיִשאֵרְבּ involved the “mysteries of creation,” which were forbidden by the Rabbis to be taught in public, cf. b.Chagigah 11b. The Greek άρχη, the word for “beginning” in the Colossians text, regularly translates the Hebrew תישאר of the Tanach. Furthermore, this same Greek word (άρχ&#951 can mean “government” and is so used in the Lxx of Isaiah 9:6-7 [Hebrew text 9:5-6] to translate the Hebrew הָרְשִׂמַּה.
Footnotes 399 תישארב השעמ דימת םוי לכב שדחמ, in the Morning Service, cf. Joseph H. Hertz, The Authorized Daily Prayer Book (Bloch, 1975), 114-115. The concept is based upon the use of the participle הֶשׂוֹע, ‘oseh, “making” is Psalms 115:15; 121:2, 124:8; 134:3; 136:5, 146:6, indicating a present and ongoing work.
400 Mid. Rab. Lamentations 1:51; cf. b.Bava Batra 75a.
401 Exodus 23:21.
402 Isaiah 63:9.
403 BAG, θεοτητος.
404 That the Kabbalists tried to find a way to explain the obvious multiplicity within the self-revelations of God as the conflation of sepharot is in itself an attempt to explain the unexplainable, not unlike the explanations derived by the later, Constantinian Church. But any manufactured attempts at explaining the divine mystery of God’s self-revelation rather detract from the glory of the mystery than explain it. That God is both invisible and visible, that He is both “wholly other” while at the same time “Immanuel” is the essence of the mystery, and the strength of the tension which by faith we accept but cannot (and perhaps should not) try to simplify in order to render a satisfactory explanation.
405 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Eerdmans, 1998), 204.
406 cf. Jeremiah 23:24; Ben Sira 1:6-7; Epistle of Aristeas 132; Philo, Legum Allegoriae 3.4; De Gigantibus 47; De Confusione Linguarum 136; De Vita Mosis 2.238. One should also note the Synagogue Liturgy, in the two blessings before the Shema, the first (called רוא רצוי, “Who creates light”) includes the שודק שודק שודק prayer of Isaiah 6:3, which contains the words “the whole earth is full of His glory (וֹדוֹבכּ ץראה־לכ אל&#1502. Fearing that the biblical concept of the glory of God filling the earth might be misinterpreted, the Sages ordained that Ezekiel 3:12, “Blessed is the glory of the Lord from His place,” be inserted next. While God’s glory or presence may fill the universe, He is still distinct from the universe and still maintains His rule of the world from His exalted throne.
407 Testimony of Zebulun 8:2; Testimony of Benjamin 6:4; 1Enoch 49:3; Wisdom 1.4.
408 The Latin word persona has a root meaning of “mask,” and was used in the Roman theater to denote the carious “persons” a given actor would portray. It has no equivalent in Hebrew or Greek.
409 The very fact that the later Church Creeds (such as the Athanasian Creed) required the use of the term “substance” when speaking of the nature of God, shows beyond doubt that a Greek model of reality was the basic framework out of which the Creed was conceived. But to consider the God of Hebrew Scripture from the Framework of Greek philosophical categories is to invite sure disaster. The eternal Almighty of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not encompassed by Greek philosophical explanations, notwithstanding Augustine’s valiant attempts to so explain Him.
410 Romans 9:5, though disputed as to the exact syntax and structure, is best understood as affirming the deity of Yeshua (cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans 2 vols in International Critical Commentary (T & T Clark, 1979), 2.464f; cf. Titus 2:13, noting the application of Granville Sharp’s rule, see note 495 below.
411 Galatians 1:14.
412 Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2; 26:18.
413 Isaiah 6:10; 43:8.
414 y.Chagigah II, 4.
415 b.Sanhedrin 97a.
416 Mekilta Bahodesh 7 (249-251 in the Lauterback edition); cf. b.Yoma 86a.
417 m.Yoma 8:6, Gemara b.Yoma 85b.
418 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 161.
419 Ezekiel 18:30.
420 Matthew 3:8.
Footnotes 421 I use the word “tradition” here in the sense in which it is found is Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8, 9, 13, that is, the teachings of men which effectively set aside the truth of God. Those traditions which encourage and promote true faithfulness to God and His Torah should not be despised but utilized according to one’s freedom in Messiah.
422 Romans 2:16; 16:25; 2Timothy 2:8.
423 2Corinthians 4:6.
424 1Corinthians 15:3-4; Romans 8:34; 1Thessalonians 4:16-18; 1Corinthians 15:25; 2Timothy 2:12.
425 This figure is based upon the text of the UBS 3rd edition of the Greek New Testament and does not consider the few times where textual variants exist.
426 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Eerdmans, 1998), 197-8.
427 ό.Χρίστος (nominative article) is found 14 times in the Pauline letters. Χρίστος with the article (in whatever case) is found 82 times, but a majority of these are in constructions using Χρίστος as an attributive manner.
428 Romans 3:25.
429 1Corinthians 5:7.
430 Exodus 25:17, 18, 19, 20(x2), 21, 22, 31:7; 35:12; 37:6, 8(x2), 9; Leviticus 16:2(x2), 13, 14(x2), 15(x2); Numbers 7:89.
431 Ephesians 5:2.
432 Exodus 29:18, 25; Leviticus 1:9, 13, 17, etc.
433 John 1:26, 29.
434 Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20.
435 E.g., Leviticus 4:12, 8:15; 9:9.
436 E.g., Exodus 29:40, 41; Numbers 15:5, 7, 10, 24.
437 E.g., Leviticus 1:3, 10; 3:1, 6; 4:3, etc.; 1Peter 1:18-19.
438 1Corinthians 15:45.
439 The idea that “atonement” (from the Hebrew רפ&#1499 was only a temporary covering for sin until Yeshua came to make a full washing away of sins is neither borne out by Scripture nor by sound thinking. When the term םיִרוּפִּכּ, kippurim, “atonement,” was used, it was envisioned within the realm of the Tabernacle/Temple. Since the blood was placed on the mercy seat in the sigh of the One who is “enthroned upon the cherubim” (1Samuel 4:4; Isaiah 37:16; Psalms 80:1; 99:1) it accomplished its purpose of being a substitute life for the sinner. The holiness of God, symbolically guarded by the Cherubim, was satisfied by the substitute’s life, and thus the life of the sinner was spared. The faithful thus had their sins forgiven, completely, not partially or in some way “lay-away” fashion. Their sins were removed as far as the east is from the west because God, Who exists in the all eternal present, as much accredited Yeshua’s work to them as He does to us.
440 Hebrew 10:4.
441 Walter Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology, 117; cf. Exodus 21:30; 30:12; Numbers 35:31-32; Psalms 49:8; Isaiah 43:3-4. Note also the contributions of Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Eerdmans, 1995), 160-78; J. Herman, “רפכ” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 3:303-10.
442 On the idea that the Yom Kippur sacrifice was for intentional sins while the guilt and trespass offerings were for unintentional sins, see below p. 197ff.
443 Acts 2:29-31.
444 1Peter 1:10-11. The translation here departs from the NAS95 and the NIV, both of which miss the nuance of the Greek: έραυνώντες είς τίνα ή ποΐον καιρόν, which does not mean “what person” but “what and what manner of time.” The KJV has it right.
445 Luke 24:25-27. Note that the Greek word translated “explained” is διερµεινύω, diermeinuo, which means “to translate, explain” and involves a text-based explanation, thus “exegesis.”
446 Romans 4:1ff; note especially 4:12ff; Galatians 3:8ff.
140

WOW CIF