No Trinity In The Bible
Some Bible students who have ideas to prove will look for evidence, and supposedly find it, even where there is no evidence to be found. Isaiah 6:1-3 is a good example of that. I then saw the Lord sitting on a throne, ... Above it stood the seraphs; ... And one cried to another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah of Hosts.
It is claimed that because the seraphs sang holy, three times, it means that God is a triune being. One holy for the Father, one holy for the Son and the third holy for the Holy Spirit.
Can we even imagine that Isaiah, a staunch Jew, and follower of the One God of Israel would have written that his God was a Trinity?
Holy, holy, holy - The “repetition” of a name, or of an expression, three times, was quite common among the Jews.
Notice that in Jer.7:4, the Jews are represented by the prophet as saying, ‘the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, are these. This does not mean that there were three temples.
Again note Jer.22: 29: ‘O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord;’ Again, Eze. 21: 27: ‘I will overturn, overturn, overturn;’
see also 1Sam. 18: 23: ‘O my son Absalom! my son, my son;’ Did King David really claim that he had three sons.
And last see also the repetition of the form of benediction among the Jews, Num. 6:24-26: Jehovah bless thee and keep thee; Jehovah make his face to shine upon thee, And be gracious unto thee; Jehovah lift up his countenance upon thee, And give thee peace.
No “argument” can be drawn directly from this in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity, for the repetition of such phrases thrice in other places, is merely “emphatic,” denoting the superlative degree. ... The Chaldee has rendered this, ‘Holy in the highest heavens, the house of his majesty; holy upon the earth, the work of his power; holy forever, and ever, and ever, is the Lord of hosts.’ The whole expression is a most sublime ascription of praise to the living God, and should teach us in what manner to approach him. Barnes Commentary.
No “argument” can be drawn directly from this in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity, for the repetition of such phrases thrice in other places, is merely “emphatic,” denoting the superlative degree. ... The Chaldee has rendered this, ‘Holy in the highest heavens, the house of his majesty; holy upon the earth, the work of his power; holy forever, and ever, and ever, is the Lord of hosts.’ The whole expression is a most sublime ascription of praise to the living God, and should teach us in what manner to approach him. Barnes Commentary.
So we see that repeating the word holy, was not for the purpose of speaking of three persons but, in this case, it was to emphasize the holiness of Jehovah.
Isaiah said, my eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of Hosts. 6:5. Notice here how Bible teachers contradict themselves just to foster their own false teachings. Commenting on Isaiah 6:1+5 Lord, — here Adonai, (6:1) means Jehovah. Jamieson, Fausett and Brown commentary.
In spite of the fact that they have just told us that the word, Adonai, means Jehovah, they proceed to say, Jesus Christ is meant. Even Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is Jehovah! To foster their point that Isaiah did not see Jehovah they use John 12:41 which says, Isaiah said these things when he saw His (Jehovah's) glory and spoke of Him. Isaiah could only have “seen” the Son (before He was even born), not the divine essence. They make this statement even though they just agreed that Isaiah said that he had seen Adonai, Jehovah.
In spite of the fact that they have just told us that the word, Adonai, means Jehovah, they proceed to say, Jesus Christ is meant. Even Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is Jehovah! To foster their point that Isaiah did not see Jehovah they use John 12:41 which says, Isaiah said these things when he saw His (Jehovah's) glory and spoke of Him. Isaiah could only have “seen” the Son (before He was even born), not the divine essence. They make this statement even though they just agreed that Isaiah said that he had seen Adonai, Jehovah.
Even here their statement does not stand careful scrutiny. Trinitarians say that Jesus is God of very God. Surely that must mean that Jesus is divine; how can the commentators then say that Isaiah saw the Son, not the divine essence. Trinitarians agree that Jesus is not Jehovah, but that He is still God. Then the question is if He is God is He not the divine essence?
Speaking of looking for evidence where it cannot be found, notice what Bible teachers have done to Isaiah 7:14: So, the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive. That Isaiah was not speaking of the birth of Christ becomes obvious when one reads these words in the Hebrew language: The damsel, (the) pregnant one. http://www.scripture4all.org/.
Isaiah's Wife Was Pregnant
Speaking of looking for evidence where it cannot be found, notice what Bible teachers have done to Isaiah 7:14: So, the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive. That Isaiah was not speaking of the birth of Christ becomes obvious when one reads these words in the Hebrew language: The damsel, (the) pregnant one. http://www.scripture4all.org/.
At the time Isaiah wrote this, the damsel was already pregnant. The same picture is given in The Jerusalem Bible, with these words, The maiden is with child and will soon give birth. The CEV writes A virgin is pregnant. When one considers the present tense of the situation in Isaiah's day, it is obvious that he was not referring to the birth of a future Christ.
It is also noteworthy that neither TJB or the Hebrew text uses the word, virgin, as the KJV does. The reason for this is that the words, damsel, maiden and virgin are interchangeable in the Hebrew language. Most newer translations use the word, maiden, as, of course, they should, because Isaiah was speaking of his own wife who was pregnant at the time.
In this context, the difficult Hebrew word did not imply a virgin birth. However, in the Greek translation made about 200 B.C. and used by early Christians, the word parthenos (virgin) had a double meaning. While the translator took it to mean "young woman", Matthew understood it to mean virgin and quoted the passage (Matthew 1:23) because it was the appropriate description of Mary, the mother of Jesus. A footnote in the CEV.
It is also noteworthy that neither TJB or the Hebrew text uses the word, virgin, as the KJV does. The reason for this is that the words, damsel, maiden and virgin are interchangeable in the Hebrew language. Most newer translations use the word, maiden, as, of course, they should, because Isaiah was speaking of his own wife who was pregnant at the time.
In this context, the difficult Hebrew word did not imply a virgin birth. However, in the Greek translation made about 200 B.C. and used by early Christians, the word parthenos (virgin) had a double meaning. While the translator took it to mean "young woman", Matthew understood it to mean virgin and quoted the passage (Matthew 1:23) because it was the appropriate description of Mary, the mother of Jesus. A footnote in the CEV.
Most of us who are familiar with the Christmas story, as it is recited annually in most churches, are so biased by the word, virgin, that our minds refuse to allow the various meanings of the word, maiden, to seep into our petrified minds.
The fact that Isaiah's wife was not a virgin is made very clear in Isaiah 8:2, Then I slept with my wife, and she became pregnant and had a son. New Living Translation. Isaiah did not mean, virgin, when he said, maiden. However, to use the word maiden in place of virgin when speaking of Mary is theologically wrong. Matthew, speaking of Mary, the mother of Jesus, was absolutely right in using the word, virgin, as we understand that word in our own time. However, we must not, because of our theological beliefs, make the Old Testament say something that is not written there.
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” Mat. 1:22-23.
The fact that Christ was called Immanuel does not at all mean that he was/is God. At the time Christ was born, Israel was downtrodden by the Roman government and the Jews were desperately looking for some encouragement and liberation. That is why the angel said, call His name Immanuel because Jehovah has not forsaken His people, He is still present with the descendants of Abraham; calling Christ, Immanuel, was simply a reminder to the Israelites that God is still with us!
The fact that Isaiah's wife was not a virgin is made very clear in Isaiah 8:2, Then I slept with my wife, and she became pregnant and had a son. New Living Translation. Isaiah did not mean, virgin, when he said, maiden. However, to use the word maiden in place of virgin when speaking of Mary is theologically wrong. Matthew, speaking of Mary, the mother of Jesus, was absolutely right in using the word, virgin, as we understand that word in our own time. However, we must not, because of our theological beliefs, make the Old Testament say something that is not written there.
“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” Mat. 1:22-23.
The fact that Christ was called Immanuel does not at all mean that he was/is God. At the time Christ was born, Israel was downtrodden by the Roman government and the Jews were desperately looking for some encouragement and liberation. That is why the angel said, call His name Immanuel because Jehovah has not forsaken His people, He is still present with the descendants of Abraham; calling Christ, Immanuel, was simply a reminder to the Israelites that God is still with us!
No comments:
Post a Comment