15 The Trinity, Ethical Dilemmas, Biblical

Issue No. 15 March 1984

COMMENTARY

The Trinity

The Trinitarian belief that God is Unity, subsisting in three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost--all three are one God, equal in power and glory--represents one of the most incredible, albeit crucial conceptions in all of Christendom. Many observers throughout history have stressed the irrational involved.

•"One may say with one's lips: 'I believe that God is one, and also three'--but no one can believe it, because the words have no sense." (What is Religion by Leo Tolstoy).
•"When we shall have done away with the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three;...." (Jefferson's Works, Vol. 7, p. 210 by H.A. Washington).
•"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticism that three are one, and one is three; yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one;...." (Jefferson's Works, Vol. 6, p. 192 by H.A. Washington).

In discussions with biblicists I've often asked the question, "When Jesus said on the Cross, 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do' (Luke 23:34), to whom was he speaking?" To which they usually replied, "God." To this I responded, "But I thought he was God." To which they usually reply, "No, he is the son God." "In other words, we have two Gods," I said. "No," they replied, "just one God but three persons." Now let's pause and think, my friend, " I said, "we have one being, one source of intelligence--God--speaking to another being, another source of intelligence, which is also God; and yet, we are to believe there is only one God."

This simple dialogue highlights quite well the incongruity of the problem. Clearly, logic and reason have nothing to do with understanding the Trinity. There is little rhyme or reason involved and, indeed many apologists will admit as much, since any other approach would border on naivete. Many don't even attempt a rational defense. They merely assert that, although opposed to sensible thought, it's true, nevertheless. "It's a mystery." That's the common refrain.

Apologetic beliefs that violate the rules on logic and common sense are often described as mysteries, unfathonable by the human mind. Faith, which H.L. Mencken defined as "an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable", is mandatory. As one defender candidly stated, "The Trinity, that is three persons in one, is a mystery which is revealed by Bible, but cannot be understood by the human mind....this is one of those things which must be accepted by faith, even though it cannot be reasoned out. The Trinity cannot be explained but it must be believed." (508 Answers to Bible Questions, p. 168 by M. R. DeHaan).

Thomas Jefferson summarized the situation quite well by stating,

"No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity;.... The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousand and thousands of martyrs.... In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most montrous,... With such persons, gullability, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." (Jefferson's Works, Vol. 7, p. 269-70 by H.A. Washington).

NO doubt many apologists agreed with Ingersoll when he said, "In order to be saved it is necessary to believe this. What a blessing that we do not have to understand it. (Ingersoll's Works, Vol.1, p. 496) Or to quote Thomas Paine, "Where is the evidence that the person called Jesus Christ is the begotten Son of God? The case admits not of evidence either to our senses or our mental faculties; neither has God given to man any talent by which such a thing is comprehensible." (The Life and Works of Thomas Paine, Vol. 9, p. 294).

Opposition to the Trinity comes not only from outside the Bible but from within as well. One only need not rely upon external critics alone. The Bible is replete with statements to the effect that God is a Unity; he is one: there is none like him. The following are a few that could be mentioned:

"...the Lord he is God; there is none else beside him" (Deut. 4:35);
"...for there is none like thee, neither is there any god beside thee" (2 Sam. 7:22);
"I am God and there is none like me" (Isa. 46:9).

Apparently Jesus and the Holy Ghost are like him, since they are God also. (See also: Deut. 4:39, 6:4, Mark 12:29, Isa. 45:5-6, 1 Chron. 17:20, 1 Sam. 2:2 and Kings 8:60).

Despite these verses and many others, apologists continue to rely upon four major verses to justify their beliefs in the Trinity:

1 Peter 1:2, the forged 1 John 5:7(...for there are three that bear record in heaven), 2 Cor.13:14, and Matt. 28:19 (baptising them in the name of the Father, Son, and of the Holy Ghost).

If these four verses justify belief in the Trinity, then they contradict many other comments that do not. If they do not justify belief in the Trinity, then there is little else of real substance to rely upon, and the issue becomes moot. Incidentally, the word "Trinity" appears nowhere in the Bible.

Besides numerous statements asserting the unity, the indivisibility of God, the Bible also provides additional information in opposition to the Trinity.

First, Gen. 6:3 states God would never become flesh. Jews interpret the verse as saying, "My spirit shall never more abide in man, since he too is flesh." But, if Jesus was God and man simultaneously, then divinity would have rested in a man, i.e., flesh.
Second, 2 Chron. 6:18 and 1 Kings 8:27 state God (i.e. Jesus) would never dwell on earth.
Third, although called God by others, Jesus never directly said he was God. According to one Christian denomination called a cult, Satan, too, was called God (2 Cor. 4:4).
Fourth, if the Holy Ghost was a person, as Trinitarians allege, then how could he have filled 120 people simultaneously (acts 2)?
Fifth, how could the Son, who is God eternal, be equal in age to the Father who is God Eternal? By definition, a son must be younger than the father; in which case they can't be equal.
Sixth, how could Jesus be God, i.e. eternal, when several verses show he was created at a particular point in time: Rev. 3:14, Prov. 8:22-23 RSV, Col. 1:15 RSV.

And lastly, if Jesus and the Holy Ghost are God, if the Trinity is valid, then Jesus' relationship to Mary is utterly paradoxical:
•(1) If he was born of Mary, she was his mother;
•(2) She "being with child by the Holy Ghost," and Father, Son and Holy Ghost being one, she was his wife;
•(3) God, being the Father of all mankind, and God and Christ being one, she was his daughter;
•(4) She, being the daughter of God, and Jesus being the Son of God, she was his sister.
Ingersoll probably summarized the Trinitarian enigma as well as anyone when he said,
Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the Trinity, the Father being the first and the Holy Ghost third. Each of these persons is God. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both. The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten--just the same before as after. Christ is just as old as his father, and the father is just as young as his son. The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but was equal to the Father and Son before he proceeded, that is to say, before he existed, but he is of the same age as the other two. So it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son and the Holy Ghost God, and these three Gods make one God. According to the celestial multiplication table, once one is three, and three time one is one, and according to heavenly subtraction if we take two from three, three are left. The addition is equally peculiar: if we add two to one we have but one. Each one equal to himself and to the other two. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity." (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 4, p. 266-67).

Why do biblicists cling so stubbornly to a belief that is so irrational as to all but destroy their intellectual credibility? Why do they insist that Jesus is both fully man in every sense of the word and fully God in every sense of the word? Why? Because the alternative is even worse. They are trapped between a wall and a cliff: Jesus must be God and man simultaneously. To begin with the Bible repeatedly says that only God can be mankind's savior: "I, even I, am the Lord; and besides me there is no savior" (Isa. 43:11). (Also Hosea 3:4, Psalm 3:8, and Isa. 43:3).

Obviously Jesus must be God if he is to save mankind, since no mere mortal can fulfill that role. If Jesus is not God and man simultaneously, then he is no more divine than Mohammed or any other religious figure. His death could not be the stepping stone to salvation for everyone.

But even more importantly, the Trinity provides the only escape available for the tremendously large number of contradicting statements made by Jesus himself with respect to his nature and capabilities. The trinity is Christianity's "Great Backdoor". On several occasions Jesus equated himself with God, although he never directly said he was God:

•(a) "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30);
•(b) "...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 17:22);
•(c) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God" (John 1"1). (See also: John 10:38, 14:9-11, 17:11, 21-23, Col. 2:9)

Yet, a far larger number of statements clearly shows Jesus did not equate himself with God, in which case he couldn't be mankind's savior:

•(a) "Why callest me good? There is none good but one, that is God" Matt. 19:17);
•(b) "for my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28);
•(c) "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me" (John 7:16);
•(d) "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46);
•(e) "Who has gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God" (1 Peter 3:22); (See also: Mark 13:32, 1 cor. 11:3, John 5:19, 20:17, Matt. 26:39 and many others).

Biblical supporters use the escape mechanism rather freely by alleging the former comments were made by Jesus-the-God; while the latter were made by Jesus-the-man. So, depending on the dictates of expediency, the inconsistent comments by Jesus can be reconciled. Without the Trinity, Jesus would appear to be a hopelessly confused young man, more sick than savior. The Trinity also provides the only means of escape from such imbroglios as Ingersoll's earlier comment on celestial arithmetic and Mary's confusing relationship to Jesus.

But even if the Trinity existed, and even if it provided a satisfactory resolution to a myriad of dilemmas, there are several problems that lie beyond even its purview. First, the question would remain of who or what died on the cross. Was it Jesus-the-man or Jesus-the-God? If Jesus-the-man died, then no one was saved, since the death of a man could not rescue anyone. If, on the other hand, Jesus-the-God died, then we have an impossibility. God can't die. He is eternal, as many verses show. So the question remains: Who died on the cross? Who or What made the sacrifice? As One Christian group correctly stated, "If Jesus were God, then during Jesus' death God was dead in the grave." But it had to be God or Jesus God that died, since only God can save mankind. Second, "Orthodoxy has always held that Jesus Christ was fully God and perfect man, and that these two natures were united in one person...." (Answering Christianity's Most Puzzling Questions, Vol. 2, p. 14 by Richard Sisson).

How could Jesus-the-man be sinless, since all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23)? If Jesus is sinless, as many verses show (1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:3, 5, 7, 2 Cor. 5:12, Heb. 4:15, 7:26), then he wasn't human, for all have sinned; he was only God. And if he was only God, how could he say, "My Father is greater than I"? On the other hand, if these "sinless" verses only refer to Jesus-the-God, while Jesus-the-man did sin, then he needs salvation as much as anyone. Who died on the Cross to save him? And lastly, having an innocent individual suffer punishment on a cross in order to atone for acts of mankind makes no more sense than having all mankind suffer for the acts of one man--Adam.

To use a simple example: If I robbed a bank and my father volunteered to serve my sentence, justice would not exist, even though he agreed. Punishing the innocent for the deeds of the guilty or accepting punishment of the innocent as atonement for the guilty's behavior, has nothing to do with justice, regardless of who agrees. It isn't even revenge, since the guilty are unscathed. It's wanting blood merely for the sake of blood. It's as if someone took my wife's life during the night and I immediately went out and shot the first passer-by. "The absurdity of the doctrine known as 'The Fall of Man,' gave birth to that other absurdity known as 'The Atonement.' So that now it is insisted that, as we are rightfully charged with sin of someone else, we can rightfully be credited with the virtues of another." (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 2, p. 370)

REVIEWS

Apologists often use verses other than those already discussed to substantiate biblical support for the Trinity. They are much weaker, however, due to the imprecision of that which is being discussed. For instance, writers McDowell and Steward use God's statements in Gen. 1:26 (Let us make in our image) and Gen. 3:22 (Behold, the man has become like one of us) to prove the Trinity. On page 71 in Answers to Tough Questions they state, "God's plural nature is alluded to here, for He could not be talking to angels in these instances, because angels could not help God create. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ, not the angels, created all things (John 1:30, Col. 1:15)." Other apologists, however, reject this argument. For instance, in the Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties Gleason Archer states, "Who, then, constitutes the 'us' referred to in Gen. 3:22? Conceivably the three persons of the Trinity might be involved here, but more likely 'us' refers to the angels surrounding God's throne in heaven.... There are a few passages in the Old Testament where the angels are referred to as 'bene elohim' (sons of God), e.g. Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7...." The Bible relates numerous instances in which angels assisted God and carried out assignments. God could have done the "making" while the angels merely assisted. The words are too vague, too nebulous, as are the phrases "our images" and "like one of us" to provide definite confirmation of the Trinity. One can only speculate as to whom "us" and "our" refer. The Bible provides no definite answer.
Turning from the Trinity, this month's review of books will conclude with an analysis of some interesting rationalization with respect to ethical dilemmas in the Bible. In the classic apologetic defense, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, John Haley constantly employed his favorite tactic--adding to the text--in clear violation of Rev. 22:18 ("If any man shall add unto these things, god shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book") to resolve problems. He freely used the very ploy which is repeatedly attributed to those exposing the Bible. His resolutions of several contradictions show as much.
•(1) Luke 6:37 says, "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn not, and you shall not be condemned," while John 7:24 says, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement." Are we or are we not to judge? Haley attempted to reconcile this contradiction by saying, "The text from Matthew forbids harsh, conscious judgement, but does not preclude the giving of judicial decisions, not the expression of our opinions in a proper manner (Ibid. page 284)." Yet, there is nothing whatever to prove only "harsh" punishment is forbidden. He made a distinction wholly unsupported by the text.
•(2) Prov. 22:15 says, "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him," while Prov. 27:27 says, "Though you pound a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, Yet his folly will not depart from him (NASB)." Are we or are we not to punish the foolish child with a rod? Haley rationalized this dilemma by saying, " These passages refer to entirely different persons. 'foolishness,' in the first text, is the incipient waywardness which belongs, in a greater or lesser degree, to children, and may be corrected by suitable discipline. The 'fool' in the second text, is the grownup fool, whose folly is past cure (Ibid. p. 278)." Of course, nothing whatever justifies attributing the second text to adults only.
•(3) Exodus 20:17 says, "Thou shalt not covet ....anything that is thy neighbor's," while 1 Cor. 12:31 says, "Covet earnestly the best gifts." So, are we or are we not to covet? Haley "explains" this dilemma by saying, "covet" in the second text, "implies an earnest desire for that which is legitimately within our reach; in the first, it denotes an unlawful craving for that which properly belongs to another (Ibid. p. 249)." In truth, neither verses says anything about that which is "legitimately" within our reach. Exodus 20 says don't covet, period. It doesn't allow for exceptions. An "unlawful craving" isn't even mentioned. Haley adds to the text in violation of Rev. 22:18 by arbitrarily creating a wholly unjustified distinction. It would be nice from his perspective, and certainly a lot easier to defend, if the Bible did make such a distinction; but alas, it is nowhere to be found.
The Bible's propensity for absolutes is undoubtedly one of its greatest weaknesses. By not acknowledging exceptions, the Bible seriously undermines its credibility. "Black and white" describes far fewer situations than "shades of gray".

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #37 from KEN continues from Issue #14, Page 2 (Part c)
(In the Sept. 1983 commentary BE stated that the bat is a bird according to Lev. 11:13 & 19 and Deut. 14:11 and 18. In the following October issue KEN said he believed "bird" was a generic term in Leviticus and referred to any variety of flying creature. BE's response was that Lev. 11 listed 20 animals as fowls. "So there is no doubt that birds and only birds are being referred to." KEN continues) ...You insisted that because modern ornithology does not classify a bat as a "bird" or "fowl;" the classification in Lev. 11 is a clearcut error.... As far as I can tell, you based your conclusions on two assumptions. (1) In modern vernacular, a bird is a warm-blooded vertebrate having a body covered with feathers and forelimbs converted entirely to wings. (2) In the Leviticus passages, all the other examples of fowls cited were also birds in the modern sense. Thus, you conclude, a bat is not a bird in the Biblical sense either; the text is wrong. Both your assumptions are untenable. In the first case, authors and translators of the KJV had no conception of modern zoology and phylum classifications. Thus we cannot honestly assume they would use modern classification. Elementary logic will tell you that a set is not defined by a subset, even a majority subset. The fact that most of the "fowl" listed in Lev. 11 were birds in a modern ornithological sense does not imply they all must be. As an example, suppose you prepared a list of arachnids, and the list fell into the hands of someone who was not familiar with the term. This person examines the lists and notices that it contains 10 species of spider and a species of scorpion. May this person correctly assume you made a mistake, merely because most species on the list were web-builders, and one was not? No... The truth is, I simply don't know what the authors/translators of the Pentateuch meant by "fowl." Any semanticists...will tell you that in cases of semantical uncertainty, the honest critic will give the text the benefit of the doubt. In effect, the text is innocent until proven guilty...
Editor's Response to Letter #37 (Part c)
All you have done, KEN, is repeated and refurbished the common apologetic defense that the Bible was not meant to be a scientific textbook, If so, then it should have avoided the subject. You made several noteworthy mistakes. First, whether or not they are operating by the rules of modern zoology is irrelevant. The fact is the Bible used the word "fowl" and listed 20 animals as members of this group. What does the last one listed--a bat--have in common with the other 19? The Bible must have had some meaning for the word "fowl;", otherwise, it wouldn't have used the term. And regardless of the meanings used, the bat could not have been included, unless many non-fowl were included and many birds were excluded. If the Bible defined a fowl as that which has the ability to fly, then millions of insects would have to be included, while the ostrich and kiwi would have to be excluded--highly inaccurate science. If the Bible defined a fowl or bird as that which has two legs, then many primates would have to be included--again, inaccurate science. The point is, regardless of the Bible's definition of fowl, the bat can't be listed with the other 19 in Leviticus 11. The first 19 only have characteristics which distinguish them from all other animals as long as the bat is omitted. The Bible must have had some kind of definition for the word "fowl", and no definition can have any scientific validity if the twenty listed in Lev. 11 are included together. Secondly, your analogy with respect to arachnids is inaccurate for several reasons:(1) A list of fowl, not arachnids, fell into our hands and we are familiar with the term "fowl." (2) Arachnids, are defined as 8-legged creatures, not web-builders; therefore scorpions can be correctly included. Fowl are defined as warm-blooded vertebrates with feathers and without mammary glands; therefore bats can't be included. To answer your question: If arachnids were defined as web-builders, one could assume you made a mistake. But they aren't. You admit that "most" (i.e. 19) of the fowl listed in Lev. 11 are birds in the modern ornithological sense.... Why try to rationalize the twentieth? (3) Your "elementary logic" with respect to subsets is inaccurate in that a set was not defined by a subset. Instead, a set, fowl, was employed to which all subsets had to conform. Although not directly defined by the Bible, the set had to have some kind of definition. And, as shown, there is no definition one could use that would make sense, if bats are included. Leviticus 11 is an example, not of poor science, but of not science. With hair, ears, fangs, and a preference for hanging upside-down, the bat doesn't even have the superficial appearance of a bird.

Letter #37 continues (Part d)
Why am I adamant about this? Because as I said earlier, I am basically on your side. I do not believe the Bible is an accurate historical, scientific or moral guide. I am evangelical about this and would like to convince others, particularly the fundamentalists, who have been the authors of insufferable intellectual and social damage. And I believe that one of the best ways to do this, as you point out in Issue #8 of BE, is to publicize the many errors, cruelties and contradictions in the Bible. But remember whom we are dealing with. The typical fundamentalist has his feet set in concrete. Petty quibbles about the meanings of words like "fowl" or "turtle" will not impress him. Why waste your time? BE would be more effective if it avoided such picayune, equivocal issues--which fundamentalists and apologists simply regard as semantical gymnastics, and shrug off. BE should devote its pages to the more cutting contradictions, the major contradictions of doctrine and fact which fundamentalists cannot casually dismiss. There is no dearth of these, as you know.

Editor's response to Letter #37 (Part d)
The problem, KEN, lies with your phrase "petty quibbles". First, what is a petty quibble? One man's petty quibble is another man's major problem. Second, any investigation agency worth its name collects, stores, and uses every shred of evidence available. Watch lawyers in a courtroom, police on a case, or a forensic chemist in a lab and you'll learn what seeking after minutiae really involves. You can't iqnore anything; it's all important. Imagine construction crews leaving out certain bricks in a building's wall because it seemed insignificant to the overall structure! If you want to fell a tree, you chop and chip, blow by blow. One powerful strike isn't enough. Third, who is going to separate the petty from the weighty? Not I. I'd rather present the data and let others decide. And lastly, the phrase "inerrant" means perfect. God's perfect Book can't have imperfections. How can a perfect being create an imperfect volume? Millions of people don't seem to understand the full import of this fact. If it isn't perfect, it isn't God's. And if it isn't God's, then it's man's. And if it's man's, it could easily have been written by people no better than our leaders of today.

Letter #37 concludes (Part e)
One of the first rules in psychology of debate is to court your opponents, to be as reasonable as you possibly can. Give them the benefit of the doubt at each turn, concede every questionable point on every questionable issue; don't split hairs, don't quibble over word meanings. And in spite of this, in the face of every concession, show them they are wrong. If BE used this approach, the effect could be devastating.

Editor's Response to the conclusion of Letter #37 (Part e)
Are you serious, KEN? Following your suggestion would bring devastation to the wrong party. Apologists have spent a great deal of time, money, and effort devising "plausible" answers to every point this publication has made. You don't concede anything out-of-hand. You make your opposition prove its case. I can see you have never been involved in labor negotiations, arms reductions talks, or writing draft resolutions at the United Nations. Participants often "quibble" for hours over one word. Remember the "shape-of-the-table" debate at the Paris Peace Talks on Vietnam.. If you are going to concede every questionable point, you might as well concede.