There are several key verses which Christians use to
prove the biblical origin of the Trinity. Upon analysis of these verses,
one can clearly see that they do not prove the Trinity, but rather the same
monotheistic message of God. One of the most frequently cited passages
from the Bible is Isaiah 9:6-7, from which Christians conclude that the Messiah
must be God incarnate. The passage states:
“or a child will be born to us, a son will be given to
us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There
will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of
David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and
righteousness from then on and forevermore the zeal of the Lord of hosts will
accomplish this.”
That Isaiah 9:6 has been misinterpreted can be seen
from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Eternal Father” anywhere else in
Bible. Since the Trinitarian doctrine teaches that Christians should
“neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed), how
can the Trinitarians accept that Jesus is the “Eternal Father”? Let us consider
additional facts impartially.
First, all
the Hebrew verb forms in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense. For example,
the word which the Christian Bibles render as “his name will be called”
is the two words ‘vayikra shemo,’ which properly translated, should read
“his name was called.” The word “vayikra” is the first word
to appear in the book of Leviticus (1:1), and it is translated properly over
there – in the past tense. In addition, the King James Version translates
the same verbs elsewhere in the past tense in Genesis 4:26 and Isaiah
5:25. Only in Isaiah 9:6-7 are these verbs translated in the future
tense!
Notice that it says “a child HAS been born to us.”
This is an event that has just occurred, not a future event. Isaiah is
not making a prophecy, but recounting history. A future event would say a
child will be born to us, but this is NOT what the verse says. The
Christian translations capitalize the word ‘son’ assuming that this is a
messianic prophecy and the names of a divine son.
Second, the
two letter word “is”, is usually not stated in Hebrew. Rather, “is”
is understood. For example, the words “hakelev” (the dog) and “gadol”
(big), when joined into a sentence - hakelev gadol - means “the dog IS
big,” even though no Hebrew word in that sentence represents the word
“is.” A more accurate translation of the name of that child, then, would
be “A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting father ...”.
This name describes God, not the person who carries the name. The
name Isaiah itself means “God is salvation,” but no one believes the
prophet himself is God in a human body!
Third, the
phrase “Mighty God” is a poor translation according to some biblical
scholars. Although English makes a clear distinction between “God”
and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters,
cannot. The Hebrew word “God” had a much wider range of
application than it does in English. Some suggest a better translation
for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.”
Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine
hero” in their Bibles.
Fourth,
according to the New Testament, Jesus was never called any of these names in
his lifetime.
Fifth, if
Isaiah 9:6 is taken to refer to Jesus, then Jesus is the Father! And this
is against the Trinitarian doctrine.
Sixth, the
fact that the New Testament does not quote this passage shows that even the New
Testament authors didn’t take this verse to be in reference to Jesus.
Seventh, the
passage is talking about the wonders performed by the Lord for Hezekiah, king
of Judah. Preceding verses in Isaiah 9 talk of a great military triumph
by Israel over its enemies. At the time Isaiah is said to have written
this passage, God had just delivered King Hezekiah and Jerusalem from a siege
laid by the Assyrians under General Sennacherib. The deliverance is said
to have been accomplished in spectacular fashion: an angel went into the
Assyrian camp and killed 185,000 soldiers while they slept. When
Sennacherib awoke to find his army decimated, he and the remaining soldiers
fled, where he was assassinated by his own sons (Isaiah 37:36-38).
Chapters 36 and 37 of Isaiah recount how Hezekiah stood firm in the face of
Sennacherib’s vast army and his blasphemous words against the God. When
all seemed lost, Hezekiah continued to trust in the Lord, and for this he was
rewarded with a miraculous victory. It is interesting to note that the
statement, “the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this,” found
at the end of Isaiah 9:7, is found in only two other places in the Bible:
Isaiah 37:32 and 2 Kings 19:31. Both these passages discuss the
miraculous deliverance of Hezekiah by God. Therefore, in light of the
above, Isaiah is recounting God’s defense of Jerusalem during the Assyrian
siege. Furthermore, Soncino’s commentary says the chapter is about the
fall of Assyria and the announcement of the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz.
The Hebrew name “Immanuel” can be translated as, “God
with us” or “God is with us.” Some people believe, based on Isaiah 7:14, that
because Jesus would be called “Immanuel,” he must be God incarnate.
Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23 are often read around Christmas. They are
read as follows:
Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you
a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will
call him Immanuel.”
Matthew 1:23 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child,
and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.”
First, the
prophesy states that his name will be Immanuel.”
It does not say that “he will be Immanuel.”
Second, Mary
never called her child “Immanuel” as required by the prophecy. According
to the Bible, she named him Jesus following instructions by the angel of God.
Matthew 1:25 “but kept her a virgin until she gave
birth to a son; and he called His name Jesus.”
Luke 1:30-31 “The angel said to her, ‘Do not be
afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will
conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.”
Third, when
read in context, the birth and naming of the child Immanuel was to be a sign
for king Ahaz that God was with his people who were about to be invaded by two
rival kingdoms (Isa 7:10-16). The promise was fulfilled by God (2 Kings
16:9). The name “God is with us,” means that God will support us. [1]
The name makes perfect sense if the child’s name was supposed to indicate
to King Ahaz that God was on his side.
Isa 7:10-16 “Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, ‘Ask the
Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest
heights.’ But Ahaz said, ‘I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.’
Then Isaiah said, ‘Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the
patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also?
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with
child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will
eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the
right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the
right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.”
2 Kings 16:9 The king of Assyria complied by attacking
Damascus and capturing it. He deported its inhabitants to Kir and put
Rezin to death.
Fourth,
Isaiah 7:14 in actual Hebrew does not say a virgin would give birth but that a
young woman would conceive. The Hebrew word almah, used in Isaiah
7:14 means young woman or maiden, not a virgin. The Hebrew word for
virgin is b’tulah. The RSV (Revised Standard Version) Bible is one
of the few Christian Bibles that used the translation ‘young woman’ instead of
replacing it with the word ‘virgin.’
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a
sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call
his name Imman’u-el.
Fifth, when
something is “called” a certain name, it does not mean that the thing is
literally what it is called. Symbolic names are frequently used by
Hebrews in the Bible. Many names would cause great problems if taken
literally. Jerusalem is called “the Lord our Righteousness,” and
Jerusalem is obviously not God (Jer. 33:16). In Genesis 32:30, we are
told that Jacob called a piece of land “Face of God.” Abraham called the
mountain on which he was about to sacrifice Ishmael “the Lord will provide,”
yet no one would believe that the mountain was God. Similarly, no one
would believe an altar was God, even if Moses called it that: “Moses built an
altar and called it ‘the Lord is my Banner’” (Ex. 17:15). Would
Christians believe that Elijah was “God Jehovah,” or that Bithiah, a daughter
of Pharaoh, was the sister of Jesus because her name means “daughter of
Jehovah?” Do Christians believe that Dibri, not Jesus, was the “Promise
of Jehovah,” or that Eliab was the real Messiah since his name means “My God
(is my) father?” Similarly, would they say that Jesus Bar-Abbas, who
avoided crucifixion by being set free (Mat. 27:15-26) [2],
was the son of God because his name meant “Jesus, son of his Father”? Of
course not.
We can conclude that reading Jesus as the fruition of
a prophecy in Isaiah is only due to Matthew quoting the prophecy, rather than
people actually calling Jesus Immanuel in his lifetime. Furthermore, even
if his name was Immanuel, the name does not necessarily reflect the fact, as
can be seen from other names linked with God (in the Hebrew forms of El or
Yah) belonging to other people. Making the claim that Immanuel
means Jesus God in the flesh among His people is therefore merely an
example of how the Trinitarian doctrine of incarnation was forced upon the
message of Jesus by “bending” prophecies.
Some people say that since the same titles – Alpha and
Omega - are used for both God and Jesus, this proves that they one and the
same. It is further claimed that these expressions mean the eternity of
the Father and the Son. Upon analysis, we see that this notion raises
several problems.
Isaiah 44:6 “This is what the Lord says - Israel’s
King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart
from me there is no God.”
Revelation 1:8 “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning
and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come,
the Almighty.”
Revelation 1:11 “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the
first and the last:”
Revelation 22:13 “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the
first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
First, the
Book of Revelation is an unreliable book. Early Christians and elders of
the Church - Marcion, Caius of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria, Amphilocius of
Iconium, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Synod of Laodicea in 360 CE
- disputed it. [3]
The author of the Revelation identifies himself as some unknown John, but
probably not the apostle John because the style of the book is completely
different from the Gospel of John. [4]
Other than his name, very little is known about him. Martin Luther
criticized this book. He wrote in the preface to Revelation,
About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave
everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to
my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one
thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor
prophetic… Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago… For me
this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor
known in it.” [5]
To this day, Lutheran scholars put the Revelation of
John in a separate category of disputed books.
Second,
Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet.
Biblical scholars are not completely sure what the phrase “the Alpha and the
Omega” means. It cannot be strictly literal, because neither God nor
Jesus is a Greek letter. It is like saying God is ‘A’ and ‘Z’.
Lenski concludes, “It is fruitless to search Jewish and pagan literature
for the source of something that resembles this name Alpha and Omega.
Nowhere is a person, to say nothing of a divine Person, called ‘Alpha and
Omega’, or in Hebrew, ‘Aleph and Tau’.” [6]
Although there is no evidence from the historical sources that anyone is
named “the Alpha and Omega,” Bullinger says that the phrase “is a
Hebraism, in common use among the ancient Jewish Commentators to designate the
whole of anything from the beginning to the end; e.g., ‘Adam transgressed
the whole law from Aleph to Tau’.” [7]
The best scholarly minds have concluded that the phrase has something to
do with starting and finishing something, or the entirety of something.
Third, the
doctrine of Alpha and Omega is a sad and unfortunate example of mankind’s
tampering with the Word of God. It shows how doctrine is contracted by
men to justify false beliefs. The phrase “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” (Revelation 1:11) which is found in the King James
Version was not in the original Greek texts. Therefore, the Alpha Omega
phrase is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even
as a footnote, in any modern translation!
Revelation 1:10-11
KJV “and heard behind me a great voice, as of a
trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:”
NIV “and I heard behind me a loud voice like a
trumpet, which said: ‘Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven
churches’”
NASB and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound
of a trumpet, saying, “Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven
churches:”
ASV “and I heard behind me a great voice, as of a
trumpet saying, What thou seest, write in a book and send it to the seven
churches:”
RSV “and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet
saying, “Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches”
NAB (Catholic) “and heard behind me a voice as loud as
a trumpet, which said, “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven
churches”
Fourth, In
the Book of Revelation 1:8, King James Version implies that Jesus said he was
Alpha and Omega. Since God says He is Alpha and Omega in Isaiah 44:6,
Jesus, according to Christians, is claiming divinity here. However, the
wording of King James is inaccurate. Not only do all modern translations
clarify it was God who said it, not Jesus, but the conveyor of the words is one
of God’s angels.
Revelation 1:1-3
NRSV “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave
him to show his servants what must soon take place; He made it known by
sending His angel to His servant John, who testified to the word of God
and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the
one who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear
and who keep what is written in it; for the time is near.”
With these corrections, it becomes evident that this
was a statement of God and not a statement of Jesus, the Prophet of God.
Revelation 1:8
KJV “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the
ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the
Almighty.”
NIV “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God,
“who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”
NASB “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord
God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
ASV “I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God,
who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”
RSV ‘“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord
God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.’
New American Bible (Catholic) “I am the Alpha and the
Omega,” says the Lord God, “the one who is and who was and who is to come, the
almighty.”
Fifth,
Revelation 22:13 is part of the vision of an unknown John (not the author of
the gospel) in which he claims a visitation by an angel, mentioned in
Revelation 21:09.
NRSV “Then one of the seven angels who had the seven
bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, ‘Come, I will show
you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.’”
The angel is speaking from Revelation 22:10-13:
NRSV “And he said to me, ‘Do not seal up the words of
the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the evildoer still do
evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the
holy still be holy. See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay
according to everyone’s work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the
last, the beginning and the end.’
Jesus did not say those words, not is there any
indication they refer to him. Then passage continues in verses 14 and 15.
NRSV “Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that
they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the
gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and
idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.”
This does not appear to be Jesus Christ speaking
because the appearance of the first person singular pronoun in 22:16 signals a
shift in speaker. Therefore, Alpha and Omega in the passage refers to God
Himself, speaking through the angel. This is born out by Revelation 21:5-7,
which says:
NRSV “And the One Who was seated on the throne said,
‘See, I am making all things new.’ Also He said, ‘Write this, for these
words are trustworthy and true.’ Then He said to me, ‘It is done! I am
the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give
water as a gift from the spring of the water of life. Those who conquer
will inherit these things, and I will be their God and they will be my
children.’”
What Jesus is reported as saying is,
NRSV, Revelation 22:16; “‘It is I, Jesus, who sent my
angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the
descendant of David, the bright morning star.’”
Therefore, for the sake of argument, should the saying
“I am the Alpha and the Omega” actually pertain to other than Jesus, can
one gamble personal salvation on a vision claimed by an author whose identity
is not clear, and whose book is disputed as being reliably canon?
Sixth, what
is significant is not so much the use of this name, but the fact that God is
always superior to Jesus when the Bible describes the relationship between God
and Jesus as explained elsewhere.
We can see from this analysis that these verses which
Christians use to prove that Jesus is the son of God cannot be used in proving
the Trinity. Rather, an examination of the history of the theological development
in Church philosophy will reveal that the Trinity was a concept developed much
later in Christianity due to various socio-political factors, which later
Christians sought to justify through various passages of the Bible.
[1] “The name Immanuel could mean ‘God be with
us’ in the sense ‘God help us.’ “Interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible,
vol. 2, p. 686.
[4] A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The
Revelation of St. John by
R. H. Charles. T. & T. Clark, 1920
[6] R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St.
John’s Revelation (Augsburg Pub. House, Minneapolis, MN 1963), p. 51.
[7] E. W. Bullinger, Commentary on Revelation
(Kregel Pub., Grand Rapids, MI, 1984), pp. 147 and 148.
No comments:
Post a Comment