Q & A – Questions about Genesis 1:26 & how to refute the Trinity

Q & A – Questions about Genesis 1:26 & how to refute the Trinity

Hello Craig & Dave,

I enjoy your articles immensely and find much benefit from your lessons.

I recently mentioned to a Trinitarian that the doctrine of trinity is not found/substantiated in both the Old and New Testaments. His response to why the doctrine of trinity is not in the Old Testament is because God progressively via revelation revealed himself gradually to be a triune God of which hints of his tri-unity is found in Genesis 1:26. It has also been argued that the reason why the trinity doctrine was not fully disclosed during Old Testament times is because God was revealing himself gradually in order to prepare people to experience/acknowledge/accept the doctrine through revelation and the holy spirit supported in the New testament. In the New Testament, Matthew 28:19-20 was presented as evidence, "In the name of the father, son and Holy spirit." His argument was that "NAME" is singular indicating one name for Father, Son and Holy Spirit implies they share the same essence of divinity, hence the reason all three persons are called/invoked upon for worship and supplications. If time permits, can you please kindly address/refute these issues in detail. May God aid you to refute the Trinitarian myths.

In summary, please address the following:

(a) God progressively/gradually revealing himself via revelation to prepare his people to accept that his is multi-personal or a triune God.

(b) Detailed explanation/refutation of the apparent trinity doctrine in Genesis 1:26.What is your interpretation of the plural pronouns? To whom does "Us" and "We" refer to?

He quoted/mention the following:

"Probably the best example of progressive revelation in the Bible is the doctrine of the trinity. The Old Testament only alluded to this truth, but the New Testament explains it more fully. In Genesis when God said "Let us make man in our image", He doesn't go on to explain why He would speak as if to Himself in this way, but it is evident that He is speaking with Himself as if there were more than one person there. We know that He wasn't speaking with angels or any pre-existent beings, as some would say, because Genesis goes on to say in 1:27 "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." He went out of His way to tell the reader that man was created specifically in the image of God, and not God and someone else. After all, no being is equal with God, and therefore could not share in God's statement."

Thank-you kindly for your time and patience. You make a major difference.

Looking forward to your great response

Wishing you all the best.

Cheers,

Phil

Dave’s Reply to Phil’s Questions

Dear Phil,

Craig asked me to reply to you as I've spent some time on these passages in past years.

Regarding, (a) God's progressive revelation, it is true that God has revealed more about himself and his ways to his people over the centuries. The Mosaic Law provided Israel with a fuller revelation than Israel or any other people had previously possessed. The gospel of Jesus Christ is represented by the N.T. as God's full and final revelation, at least on this side of the return of Jesus, and God's ultimate disclosure of his real nature is to be found in Christ crucified, who is God's power and God's wisdom. However, the O.T. clearly teaches that God is a singular being, not a multi-personal god. This was Israel's understanding and was one of its most fundamental tenets. Logically one or the other proposition can be true but not both. The issue is that the concept of the Trinity contradicts what is said of God in the O.T. If God claimed to be genuinely one to the people of Israel, an understanding for which many in Israel were prepared to or even did die, then we must conclude that God deceived them.

But herein lies a problem with the doctrine of the Trinity. If the N.T. is God' final revelation then why are we so reliant on the creeds, documents, debates, concepts and terms from a much later period of time for understanding it? Nowhere in scripture is a doctrine of the Trinity clearly laid out for all to see. To come up with that interpretation we must fuse together implicit arguments from scripture with the terminology and ideas of a much later period. Virtually none of the terms used to define the Trinity occur in scripture (e.g., God the Son, Tri-unity, Three persons in one, etc.). For that matter, it took the church centuries to come up with the doctrine of the Trinity (even the word "Trinity" was not brought into Christian use until the late 2nd or early third century by Tertullian), and even today there is not 100% agreement on all aspects of the Trinity among the various denominations (e.g., did Jesus have one will or two? Did he have a personal or impersonal human nature?). The reason for its long and convoluted development is precisely because the doctrine is not spelled out in scripture. It has to be created and read back into scripture.

The lack of explicit N.T. passages clearly defining the Trinity is quite critical. The concept of the Trinity is one that defies logic, human reason and experience. The human mind simply cannot comprehend the idea of a God who is one yet is three. This contention is borne out by the constant questions raised about the Trinity by Trinitarian believers who wish to understand it. It is true that God's ways are higher than man's and there are many things in the universe that the human mind can never truly comprehend, such as the concept of infinity (but note well that though I never can truly grasp that infinity I can explain it mathematically and it is not contrary to logic). However, that being said, it is unreasonable for God or anyone else to require us to believe in a doctrine that defies human reason and logic when that doctrine has not been clearly and explicity spelled out or at least stated in scripture. Put another way, if God clearly stated something like, "hey, I'm a Trinity, three persons in one, whether you understand it or not," then it would be reasonable to require Christians to accept it.

Regarding, (b) an explanation/refutation of Genesis 1:26, in the first place the Hebrew verb used for "God said" in the first clause, 'amar,' is singular. The natural way to read the syntax of, "let us make man.," is that God is referring to himself and someone else (or himself and others). Unfortunately the text does not say to whom God was speaking or to how many. Second, the preceding sentence raises a key problem with the Trinitarian interpretation. The text does not say to whom God was speaking, let alone to how many "persons," therefore Trinitarians are anachronistically reading their much later doctrine into the passage. Where does the text provide justification for doing so? Jewish scholars have speculated on this verse over the centuries, both before and after the time of Christ. Probably the most common interpretation among them was that God was speaking to angels or at least to a particular group of angels. However, never did they see in this any hint of a multi-personal god. If God had hidden the truth about his Trinitarian nature in the passage he hid it well.

In the third place, in the first clause the Hebrew noun used for "God" is 'elohim' which, as Trinitarians are constantly reminding us, is plural in form (Hebrew is not English and many Hebrew words are always plural in form even when being used as singular in meaning such as the words for "heaven," "face" and "water"). Trinitarians commonly argue that the plural form of the noun is further evidence that God is a multi-personal god. However, that only proves my first point since this would mean that 'elohim' refers to God in his entirety, to the entire Trinity, so to speak, which again means that God was referring to himself and some one(s) else in Gen. 1:26.

Again, because the text does not tell us to whom God was referring any option we propose must be considered speculation. It is always dangerous to base a doctrine or interpretation on an enigmatic passage.

Regarding, (c) Matthew 28:19-20, it is possible that this passage as we have it today contains an ancient corruption of the original text. The early church historian, Eusebius, refers to this scripture in at least two places where he quotes it as saying "in MY name" (i.e., Jesus' name) rather than in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Since Eusebius was involved with the 4th century debates about the Trinity it is somewhat surprising that he refers to this passage in such a form unless he was unfamiliar with the form we have represented in our English versions today. It is true our existing Greek manuscripts support the traditional reading, though we should note that the vast majority of those manuscripts postdate Eusebius.

Note also that the Greek syntax with the singular noun "name" is clumsy since with the mention of three things the plural would be expected, especially since each of the three is preceded by the definite article (compare Matt. 10:2, "Now the NAMES of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; etc.") Elsewhere in Matthew's gospel the emphasis is on things transpiring "in the name" of Jesus (e.g., Matt. 7:22; 10:22; 12:21; 18:5, 20; 19:29; 24:5, 9), not in the names of the "father, son and holy spirit." Then there is the issue of the actual practice of water baptism by the early church since our existing evidence consistently shows baptism being done in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor. 1:13; Gal. 3:27. Compare also John 3:18; Acts 3:6; 9:27; 16:18; 1 Cor. 5:4; 6:11; Eph. 5:20; Col. 3:17; 2 Thess. 3:6;). How are we to reconcile that with what is apparently a clear command in Matt. 28:19-20 to do otherwise? It is my opinion that we are here dealing with an early Trinitarian corruption of the text.

Even if Matt. 28:19 originally read, "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit," it does not automatically follow from this that Matthew is here teaching the equality of Father and Son or that they share the same essence. This is contradicted by verse 18 where Jesus claims he has been "given" all authority in heaven and on the earth (compare Matt. 11:27), thus he cannot by nature be equal to the Father since he received something which he did not previously have. The authority Jesus now has is not an intrinsic characteristic of his nature or "essence," but rather something he has been given by someone else. Further, in Matthew the Father is consistently treated as the one who is God, he is the one to whom Jesus prays, the one upon whom Jesus is dependent, the one whom Jesus obeys, and, unlike the Father, Jesus has limited knowledge (Matt. 24:36).

What should be of far more concern to Trinitarians are the many passages that portray the Father as God (e.g., John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6) and the Father as the "God and Father" of Jesus Christ (e.g., John 20:17; 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3). Such passages are clear, explicit and cannot be reconciled with the Trinitarian interpretation.

I hope my arguments are clear and help. If you have any questions or if I have created any confusion, please do not hesitate to write me.

God Bless and best regards,

Dave Maas - The Bible Answer Stand Ministry (www.bibleanswerstand.org)

1 Peter 3:15 Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully.