Jesus and the Trinity

[Brennin]

I recommend this article on different Christologies by Mark Mattison.

 

[eksesar]

I recommend

this article on different Christologies by Mark Mattison.

Read GEN 1:26, GEN 3:22 and GEN 19:24, any comments?

 

[Brennin]

Read GEN 1:26, GEN 3:22 and GEN 19:24, any comments?

pluralis majestatis

 

[hybrid]

pluralis majestatis

the concept of pluralis majestatis cannot be used to disproved trinity .

"Let US make man in OUR image" (Gen 1:26) cannot be "Plural of Majesty" because this poetic device did not even exist in scripture until after the Old Testament was completed. The apostolic fathers had never heard of "plural of majesty", much less believe it. They unanimously interpreted Gen 1:26 as the Father speaking to the Son.

 

[Brennin]

"Let US make man in OUR image" (Gen 1:26) cannot be "Plural of Majesty" because this poetic device did not even exist in scripture until after the Old Testament was completed.

According to whom?

 

[hybrid]

According to whom?

The apostolic Fathers unanimously taught that the "we" in Gen 1:26, refers to the trinity:

1. 74 AD Epistle of Barnabas: "For the Scripture says concerning us, while He speaks to the Son, "Let Us make man after Our image, and after Our likeness" (Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter VI.—The Sufferings of Christ, and the New Covenant, Were Announced by the Prophets.)
2. 150 AD Justin Martyr: Speaking of Jewish theologians Justin calls the Jewish teaching that God spoke to angels a hersey: "In saying, therefore, ‘as one of us, ’[Moses] has declared that [there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two. For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy which is said to be among you (The Jews had their own heresies which supplied many things to the Christian heresies) is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that [God] spoke to angels, or that the human frame was the workmanship of angels. But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures." (Dialogue of Justin Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew: Chapter LXII.—The Words "Let Us Make Man")
3. 180 AD Irenaeus "It was not angels, therefore, who made us, nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor any one else, except the Word of the Lord, nor any Power remotely distant from the Father of all things. For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, "Let Us make man after Our image and likeness; " [Gen. 1:26]" (Against Heresies 4:20:1).
4. 200 AD Tertullian: "If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, "Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness; " whereas He ought to have said, "Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness," as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, "Behold the man is become as one of us," He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, "Let us make; "and, "in our image; "and, "become as one of us." (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter XII. Other Quotations from Holy Scripture Adduced in Proof of the Plurality of Persons in the Godhead.)
5. 200 AD Tertullian: Tertullian rejects the idea that God was speaking to Angels because our head is the creator, not a creature: "Since then he is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who was to become man, said, "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness"), how can I possibly have another head but Him whose image I am? For if I am the image of the Creator there is no room in me for another head" (Tertullian, Book V, Elucidations, Chapter VIII.—Man the Image of the Creator, and Christ the Head of the Man.)
6. 200 AD Tertullian: "In the first place, because all things were made by the Word of God, and without Him was nothing made. Now the flesh, too, had its existence from the Word of God, because of the principle, that here should be nothing without that Word. "Let us make man," said He, before He created him, and added, "with our hand," for the sake of his pre-eminence, that so he might not be compared with the rest of creation." (Tertullian: On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Elucidations, Chapter V.—Some Considerations in Reply Eulogistic of the Flesh. It Was Created by God.)
7. Origen: "it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness." (Origen Against Celsus, Book V, Chapter XXXVII)
8. Novatian: "For who does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he reads that it was said by the Father, consequently to the Son, "Let us make man in our image and our likeness; " and that after this it was related, "And God made man, in the image of God made He him? "Or when he holds in his hands: "The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord from heaven? " (A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, Chapter XXVI. Argument.—Moreover, Against the Sabellians He Proves that the Father is One, the Son Another.)

 

[hybrid]

According to whom?

What scholars say about "Plural of Majesty":

1. "Every one who is acquainted with the rudiments of the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, must know that God, in the holy Writings, very often spoke of Himself in the plural. The passages are numerous, in which, instead of a grammatical agreement between the subject and predicate, we meet with a construction, which some modern grammarians, who possess more of the so-called philosophical than of the real knowledge of the Oriental languages, call a pluralis excellentiae. This helps them out of every apparent difficulty. Such a pluralis excellentiae was, however, a thing unknown to Moses and the prophets. Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, David, and all the other kings, throughout TeNaKh (the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa) speak in the singular, and not as modern kings in the plural. They do not say we, but I, command; as in Gen. xli. 41; Dan. iii. 29; Ezra i. 2, etc." (Rabbi Tzvi Nassi, Oxford University professor, The Great Mystery, 1970, p6, )
2. "This first person plural can hardly be a mere editorial or royal plural that refers to the speaker alone, for no such usage is demonstrable anywhere else in biblical Hebrew. Therefore, we must face the question of who are included in this "us" and "our." It could hardly include the angels in consultation with God, for nowhere is it ever stated that man was created in the image of angels, only of God. Verse 27 then affirms: "and God [Elohim] created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them" (NASB). God--the same God who spoke of Himself in the plural--now states that He created man in His image. In other words, the plural equals the singular. This can only be understood in terms of the Trinitarian nature of God. The one true God subsists in three Persons, Persons who are able to confer with one another and carry their plans into action together--without ceasing to be one God." (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason Archer, p.359, commenting on whether Gen 1:26 is a "plural of majesty")
3. "The best answer that they [Old Hebrew lexicographers and grammarians] could give was that the plural form used for the name (or title) of God was the ‘pluralis majestatis,’ that is the plural of majesty…to say nothing of the fact that it is not at all certain that the ‘pluralis majestatis’ is ever found in the Old Testament, there is an explanation much nearer at hand and much simpler, and that is, that a plural name was used for the one God, in spite of the intense monotheism of the Jews, because there is a plurality of person in the one Godhead." (The God of the Bible, R. A.Torrey, 1923, p 64)
4. "Another very popular view in modem times is that God uses the plural, just as kings do, as a mark of dignity (the so-called "plural of majesty"), but it is only late in Jewish history that such a form of speech occurs, and then it is used by Persian and Greek rulers (Esdr. iv. 18; 1 Mace. x. 19). Nor can the plural be regarded as merely indicating the way in which God summons Himself to energy, for the use of the language is against this (Gen. ii. 18; Is. xxxiii. 10)." (Trinity, A Catholic Dictionary, William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold, 1960, p 822-830)

 

[Brennin]

What scholars say about "Plural of Majesty":

1. "Every one who is acquainted with the rudiments of the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, must know that God, in the holy Writings, very often spoke of Himself in the plural. The passages are numerous, in which, instead of a grammatical agreement between the subject and predicate, we meet with a construction, which some modern grammarians, who possess more of the so-called philosophical than of the real knowledge of the Oriental languages, call a pluralis excellentiae. This helps them out of every apparent difficulty. Such a pluralis excellentiae was, however, a thing unknown to Moses and the prophets. Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, David, and all the other kings, throughout TeNaKh (the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa) speak in the singular, and not as modern kings in the plural. They do not say we, but I, command; as in Gen. xli. 41; Dan. iii. 29; Ezra i. 2, etc." (Rabbi Tzvi Nassi, Oxford University professor, The Great Mystery, 1970, p6, )
2. "This first person plural can hardly be a mere editorial or royal plural that refers to the speaker alone, for no such usage is demonstrable anywhere else in biblical Hebrew. Therefore, we must face the question of who are included in this "us" and "our." It could hardly include the angels in consultation with God, for nowhere is it ever stated that man was created in the image of angels, only of God. Verse 27 then affirms: "and God [Elohim] created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them" (NASB). God--the same God who spoke of Himself in the plural--now states that He created man in His image. In other words, the plural equals the singular. This can only be understood in terms of the Trinitarian nature of God. The one true God subsists in three Persons, Persons who are able to confer with one another and carry their plans into action together--without ceasing to be one God." (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason Archer, p.359, commenting on whether Gen 1:26 is a "plural of majesty")
3. "The best answer that they [Old Hebrew lexicographers and grammarians] could give was that the plural form used for the name (or title) of God was the ‘pluralis majestatis,’ that is the plural of majesty…to say nothing of the fact that it is not at all certain that the ‘pluralis majestatis’ is ever found in the Old Testament, there is an explanation much nearer at hand and much simpler, and that is, that a plural name was used for the one God, in spite of the intense monotheism of the Jews, because there is a plurality of person in the one Godhead." (The God of the Bible, R. A.Torrey, 1923, p 64)
4. "Another very popular view in modem times is that God uses the plural, just as kings do, as a mark of dignity (the so-called "plural of majesty"), but it is only late in Jewish history that such a form of speech occurs, and then it is used by Persian and Greek rulers (Esdr. iv. 18; 1 Mace. x. 19). Nor can the plural be regarded as merely indicating the way in which God summons Himself to energy, for the use of the language is against this (Gen. ii. 18; Is. xxxiii. 10)." (Trinity, A Catholic Dictionary, William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold, 1960, p 822-830)

1.pluralis majestatis =! pluralis excellentiae
2., 3., 4. Do you have anything that is not dated and/or from a trinitarian apologist?

 

[hybrid]

1.pluralis majestatis =! pluralis excellentiae
2., 3., 4. Do you have anything that is not dated and/or from a trinitarian apologist?

1. the early fathers of the church i quoted are not trinitarian, during those
days,they are simply called christians. and they have no idea what pluralis majestasis is all about.

2. Do you have any proof that pluralis majestatis are used during the old testament times? can you show any scriptures that used this concept?

 

[Brennin]

1. the early fathers of the church i quoted are not trinitarian, during those
days,they are simply called christians. and they have no idea what pluralis majestasis is all about.

Tertullian was a(n) (Economic) Trinitarian. Novation was also a Trinitarian. In any event, I don't really have a problem with the idea that the Father is referring to the Son in Genesis; my problem is with the ideas a) this is the only possible interpretation and b) this is a trinitarian prooftext.

2. Do you have any proof that pluralis majestatis are used during the old testament times?

No.

can you show any scriptures that used this concept?

I would say the verse(s) under dispute are a possibility.

 

[Shalohm]

Hybrids website quote:

>>"God--the same God who spoke of Himself in the plural--now states that He created man in His image. In other words, the plural equals the singular. This can only be understood in terms of the Trinitarian nature of God." <<

But God did not speak of himself in the plural, He does not say this in the creation account at all. It is only that the Hebrew noun 'Elohim' at first glance seems to say that God is plural. Once the Hebrew grammar is applied, it gives the sense that God is a singular God.....

The plurality of God goes beyond the reasoning of pluralis majestatis......Far more importantly are Jehovah Gods own original words...Hebrew.....The Hebrew grammar makes it quite clear how the plurality works. This can be seen in the first chapter and verse of Genesis.

The term "Elohim" is, grammatically plural in form, shown both by the "im" suffix and by the fact that at various places in the bible it is used to designate plural entities, such as "mighty ones" or "gods" (false gods ). This is only grammatically plural, but not to mean multiplicity in the essence of God. Why ?...

The plurality of God is in reality singular.

Genesis 1:1 : 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'

In-beginning >(Brashith) HE created > (Bara) Elohim > (Aleim) the heavens >(ath- eshimim) and >(uath) the earth > (eartz)

The very important point to note here is that the verb Created (bara) is in the singular form. More specifically, it is in the third person, masculine, singular form. i.e HE (GOD) created, and NOT THEY created. This is why the designation "Elohim" used for God in this instance, (and others) is considered as referring to a singular entity even though "Elohim" is technically a plural form. The construction of the sentence gives the context, and 'created' in its singular form gives meaning to who did the creating...A singular entity. The Hebrew subject and verb in Genesis 1:1 would have been completely different had Genesis 1:1 been trying to describe some form of triune God creating the heavens and the earth.

Elohim appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the singular number.

Now compare the above context with Genesis 1.26 'Let US make'...... God is not alone in heaven (Ps 82:1; 89:5-7) and he was not alone during creation (Job 38:4-7; Prov 8:22-30). This conglomeration of pre-human existance is known as the divine court consisting of many spirit creatures. God, in Genesis 1:1 belies the concept of a multiple faceted God, so the 'US' and 'in OUR' image later in Genesis 1:26 is only stating facts about who was standing with Jehovah God at the time of the (He) the one and only true God when he was deciding upon the creating of man. More specifically he was talking to the pre-human Jesus.(Also compare Ezra 4: 17,18)

Quote:..."Christians have traditionally seen this verse [Gen 1:26] as adumbrating [foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author" (Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary, G.J. Wenham, 27).

"No higher authority on the Hebrew language can be found than the great Hebrew scholar, Gesenius. He wrote that the plural nature of Elohim was for intensification, and was related to the plural of majesty and used for amplification. Gesenius states, "That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute."

 

[2ducklow]

Elohim as a plural noun used singularly always with reference to god.

A plural noun governing a singular verb may be according to oldest usage. The gods form a heavenly assembly where they act as one. In this context, the Elohim may be a collective plural when the gods act in concert. Compare this to English headquarters, which is plural but governs a singular verb: there are many rooms or quarters, but they all serve one purpose. The meaning of Elohim therefore can mean one god, with many attributes………..





The meaning of Elohim is further complicated by the fact that it is used to describe the spirit of the dead prophet Samuel, raised by Saul in 1 Samuel 28:13. The witch of Endor tells Saul that she sees 'gods' (elohim) coming up out of the earth; this seems to indicate that the term was indeed used simply to mean something like 'divine beings' in ancient Israel.

http://www.answers.com/topic/elohim

Seems plausable to me. Makes more sense than 3 beings are one elohim.

 

[hybrid]

I don't really have a problem with the idea that the Father is referring to the Son in Genesis; my problem is with the ideas a) this is the only possible interpretation and b) this is a trinitarian prooftext.
.

well that would make you a no-trin rather than an anti trin.

or what would it make you at all? i read the article, i understand the advocacy. to a certain extent, i agree with him, that in the end Jesus will be the judge of all.

a) this is the only possible interpretation
if some say jesus is god, others angels and still others just a man, a prophet etc, this cant be all true. there is only one truth as to the nature of christ.

and b) this is a trinitarian prooftext.
but neither a disproof text, in the end, it adds support to the diety of Jesus christ.

 

[hybrid]

Now compare the above context with Genesis 1.26 'Let US make'...... God is not alone in heaven (Ps 82:1; 89:5-7) and he was not alone during creation (Job 38:4-7; Prov 8:22-30). This conglomeration of pre-human existance is known as the divine court consisting of many spirit creatures. God, in Genesis 1:1 belies the concept of a multiple faceted God, Let us make man inso the 'US' and 'in OUR' image later in Genesis 1:26 is only stating facts about who was standing with Jehovah God at the time of the (He) the one and only true God when he was deciding upon the creating of man. More specifically he was talking to the pre-human Jesus.(Also compare Ezra 4: 17,18)

Same website quotes the early fathers of the christian faith and their own understanding are the sme, the Father is talking to the Son.

If God is talking to many spirit creatures when he said let us make man, then those many spirit creatures will be co-creator of god in making man. the implication is unacceptable.

those many spirit creatures surrounded the throne of God, where Jesus was at the god's right hand.

JEsus is the son, not an angelic creature (heb 1), begotten, not made. a man can make a doll, but he can only begat a another human being. god can create a man, but can only begat god.

JEsus was the begotten god, just like His father God in every aspect, except for being a father.

if you imply in your post that Jesus is one of those many spirit creatures, then you have no use of the phrase "only begotten son". the word "only begotten" has no meaning to you as used by the scripture to refer to Jesus.

 

[hybrid]

Seems plausable to me. Makes more sense than 3 beings are one elohim.

2ducklow,

three persons in one divine essence would be the exact trinitarian view

 

[BourbonFromHeaven]

"Let US make man in OUR image" (Gen 1:26) cannot be "Plural of Majesty" because this poetic device did not even exist in scripture until after the Old Testament was completed.

Huh?

2nd Samuel 16:20
"And Absalom said to Ahithophel, "Give yourself counsel what we shall do."

 

[Cappadocian]

The Trinity has full support of reason. God would not be a God of love if he did not relate to himself as several persons. He could not relate to his creatures as a community if he didn't previously exist as a community. He could not have created creatures who relate to one another if he didn't also related to others with love.

Love could not have existed prior to creation if he wasn't a community of love.

 

[2ducklow]

2ducklow,

three persons in one divine essence would be the exact trinitarian view

Only difference I see is semantics.

 

[hybrid]

Huh?

2nd Samuel 16:20
"And Absalom said to Ahithophel, "Give yourself counsel what we shall do."

2 Sam 16:15,20
15 Meanwhile, Absalom and all the men of Israel came to Jerusalem, and Ahithophel was with him.

20 Absalom said to Ahithophel, "Give us your advice. What should we do?"
NIV

actually the scriptures you quoted supported the theory that God was not alone when he created man and not "singularity of intense."

 

[hybrid]

Only difference I see is semantics.

Precisely it is semantics that you should try to differentiate the meaning of the words. Failure to do so affect one’s understanding of what was said and therefore affects one’s beliefs and attitudes towards it.


Which concerns me that in this case may lead to ….

• not understanding the Trinitarian view at all or
• have a totally different understanding of the trinity from its orthodox traditional meaning.

But if you say it’s the same to you, then it’s the same to you.