Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

by hooberus 133 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Dean Porter

LittleToe,

Good Evening to you,

I have to say it , your mind is sharp and your posts show you are a deep thinker.
Which is good because it means I've got to 'be on my Toes' if you will pardon the pun.

Where is the Son reffered to in scripture as Bene Ha Elohim ? Good Question.

First of all I need to point out that I was not inferring that there was a Direct reference to the Son by this term - as I don't believe there is. However, I also don't believe this phrase is used directly in scripture to refer to any individual.
(You will no doubt keep me right on that one.)

The term, as you know occurs only a relatively few times. On the occassions it does it appears to be a GENERAL term refferring to a group. Therefore I believe it refers to the Son when the term is used to refer to the heavenly group that he belongs to.

The scriptures I am thinking of are JOB. 1:6 AND JOB. 2:1 and also JOB. 38:7 which you mentioned. I note that you have taken the term Master Worker from Proverbs 8 and supplanted it with your comments on JOB. 38. The speaker in JOB. 38 is God, not the Master Worker. The two classes of angels mentioned in JOB.38 are Morning-Stars and Angels. The Master Worker may well be one of the Morning-Stars.

Anyhow, I believe that the pre-incarnate Jesus was as the Pre-Emminent Only -Begotten Son was included in this assembly of Divine Beings mentioned in JOB.Therefore I think there is no problem in reffering to the Son as Bene Ha Elohim as surely he is the Primary and most emminent example of a Son of God.

" The International Standard Bible Encyclopeadia" Volume 1 page 124.....
......Angel: Definition and Terms......Bene Ha Elohim......MEMBERS OF THE CLASS CALLED ELOHIM.

"The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament" Volume 8 page 347.....
......BEINGS THAT BELONG TO THE DIVINE WORLD OR SPHERE.

" The Anchor Bible - Commentary by Mitchell Dahood" "psalms" page 50-51....
the gods ( bene ha elohim) MEMBERS OF THE HEAVENLY COURT OF YAHWEH.

Therefore if as I believe Jesus is not YAHWEH himself, then automatically I will see him as being the most senior member of ths Heavenly Court of Yahweh. I hope that explains why I used that term of Jesus. ( also I like the term and your understanding of it is a gauge for me of your discernment which I appreciate).

Regards

Dean.
LittleToe

Hi Dean,
Actually I've been a bit fuzzy headed, these last few days. However, I'm surviving the rigours of life, so I guess I shouldn't complain too much
Since all of creation was "through" that one, "made" by him, in one sense the Son is their immediate father. Isa.9:6 springs to mind, in that context, where he is called the "Everlasting Father". You may disagree, in which case I'd be interested in hearing your interpretation of that part of the verse. Bearing in mind that he is also a brother
(You might also want to put it on the other thread, to keep Hooberus happy )
At times a grandfather (or forebearer, progenitor) is refered to as a father, as when the Jews declared their father to be Abraham. I think this may also be surmised by the genealogies of Jesus (esp. Matt.1:1). But Luke takes this back further, indirectly indicating that people are sons of God in the same fashion. This is regardless of our actual direct parent.
My purpose for saying all this is that the "Bene ha Elohim" could equally be sons of the Son, hence it isn't necessarily clear proof for the Unitarian position. The Son could be included in their number, but then who was speaking to Satan, if not the Word? Further, was the Father speaking directly to Job, or again, was it the Word?
There is a human analogy that may help clarify this.
Ambassadors are accorded the rights of the ones that send them forth.
I understand that even Ghengis Khan saw the murder of Ambassadors as tantamount to declaration of war.
The Son is as distinct as the Father, in scripture, and has a role that appears to accord him such rights as the Father Himself has.
I would also ask you to consider where he was stationed, in the heavenlies. I believe that a clue to this is to be found in his request to be returned to that same place (John.17:5), and the way he is subsequently seen in vision. In Revelation he isn't just in the assembly of the angels but has a specific place.
I'll grant that this will likely be seen as merely my opinion, to you, but I would suggest that his role, title and position is more than merely a pre-eminant angelic creature.
Do you really think that the "master worker" of Prov.8 is an individual angel? Just what does this title symbolise to you?
(I've bolded specific titles, in the hope of clarifying what I'm saying. Capitalisation isn't always clear on first read).
(Sorry about the length of this post, I usually prefer to keep them short and sweet)
Dean Porter

LittleToe,

don't worry about the length of the post : but I agree that a short concise post dealing with a few thoughts is much easier to reply to and helps to focus on one main topic.

You might find this strange but I think I can say that I totally agree with the content of your last post.

Now I am going to do some 'thinking out loud ' here, so don't quote me on this "as gospel'. I think you are right in that Jesus made the Angels as the Master Worker and in a sense Fathered them. However he could still be viewed as a brother of the angels because they were all still Sons of God despite the fact that Jesus was a unique or Only-Begotten Son.

I suppose in the same way that Adam fathered the Human race but in a sense could be viewed as our Brother because we can be all be viewed as Sons of God. Only he was a unique Son in the sense that he was brought into existence directly by God.

In JOB I think it is Yahweh who is speaking to Satan directly as it suggests that the assembly was before Yahweh's presence in heaven. Unlike us humans who Yahweh would speak to through His Angel. It would be the Word or Angel of the Lord speaking to JOB. I think the Word could speak about this angelic group and still include himself in that group.

I completly agree with your analogy re: Ghengis Khan and the Ambassador. This is precisely the arrangement I was meaning in an earlier post about Jesus being the Father's Shaliach. Jesus is the Father's Envoy / Apostle / Ambassador. His Plenipotentiary Agent who fully represents the Father acting and speaking for him AS IF HE WERE THE FATHER who sent him.

This for me explains all the texts that refer to Yahweh which are applied to Jesus and in particular the Text were Thomas exclaims MY LORD AND MY GOD because Thomas has recognised that Yahweh is present before him as visibly represented to him by the risen Shaliach Jesus.

In the same way that Yahweh 'appeared' to and 'spoke' to Moses face to face by means of His Angel in the burning bush. The angel was his Shaliach and therefore the Angel WAS Yahweh whilst exercising that role.

I hope that goes some way to explaining my view of Jesus. I don't view him as a simple low ranking Angel. No, he is the Image of God; the only-begotten Son who is in the BOSOM POSITION of the Father. He sit at the Father's Right-hand the position of favour and authority. Yet as high as these terms are he is still not Yahweh but is Yahweh's Shaliach to mankind.

The revelation still shows this by the way that Jesus is always seen 'seperate' from 'God' in the throne visions. Yes , as you say he is seperate from the 24 Elders and the other bene Ha Elohim but he sits at God's right-hand.

I don't think we are so far apart in our understanding. I think the only real difference is the extent of the Ambassadorial role of Jesus.

I started by saying I like short sharp posts and here I am posting another novel.

I will read some more on the Master Worker but the more I post here the more I find I need to research. My head is starting to hurt too.

By the way did you have a think about my question re: the understanding of how many persons are to be understood in the use of GOD in various passages using context.
Does the word GOD means a different number of persons in different contexts ?

This is an important question for me as I think it has a bearing on many important texts.

Regards

Dean.
LittleToe
Dean:
I do see the title "God" being applied to the collective of [Father, Son and HS] at times, but at other qualified times simply to the Father. The latter occasions seem to center mainly around times when Christ is mentioned in his role as Lord, giving him a specific focus.
A few questions for you:
Do you think the Word was only such to human creation, or all of creation?
To what extent do you see Christ as an ambassador?
Who do you think the 24 elders are ('I'll start a thread for this, so please don't answer that here)?
What do you see as the difference between being begotten and created?
Other than that I believe I can agree with all your comments, as related to my own framework of reference.
(Edited to add link to new thread)
Dean Porter

LittleToe,
sorry for delay but you know how it is , weekend , family responsibilities and the rest.

thanks for the reply about the 'number of persons' implied by the Term God.

So, along with your previous comment I understand you to be saying that sometimes context can show how many persons are meant and other times a comment re: Jesus Lordship shows that God can simply be referring to the Father.

Should it not be the case that when Jesus or the Son is mentioned next to God without further qualification that the Term God should mean the other two members of the trinity ?

If not, why not ?

Unless the scripture makes it clear in the context that the Father alone is meant or unless if the scripture actually states God the Father, should not the reader understand the term God to mean the other two persons of the trinity ?

For example: In the scripture that Hooberus was banging on about in 1 Tim. 2:5,
God is mentioned twice in the verse and Christ Jesus is mentioned seperately. Therefore , Does the number of persons inferred from the term God differ in each of the two occurances. Indeed maybe you could tell me how many persons exactly you understand to be inferred in each occurance God in this verse.

The reason I ask is because I foresee problems with the understanding of this verse
depending on how many persons are implied by God in each of its occurrences. Sincerely, I would appreciate your thoughts on this point as I am making a study of certain key texts with this thought in mind.

Now some replies to your questions.

1. Your first question re: the Word I think you were asking do I think the pre-existent Jesus was simply involved in the creation of Man or indeed in all Creation.
I would say that Colossians chapter 1 shows he was involved in the creation of all things and was thus the Fathers 'Master Worker' in Creation.

2. The extent that I see Christ as an Ambassador is more or less as I previously stated in the last post. He is the IMAGE of God. The Visible REPRESENTATION of the Father. The Father's Shaliach i.e. the Fathers Legal AGENT and PLENIPOTENTIARY.

"The Twentieth Century New Testament' expresses the thought well in its translation of John. 7:28,29...." Yet I have not come on my own authority, but he who sent me may be trusted; and him you do not know. I do know him , for it is from him that I have come, and he sent me as his MESSENGER.

3. The difference between Begotten and created ? You saved the best one for last and quite right to.

I think there is a fine shade of 'distinction' of meaning between these two terms rather than there being a 'difference'.

To create is to bring into existence; to beget is to 'procreate' or Father.

Both terms retain the thought of bringing into existence but the term Beget includes the thought of fathering sentient life whereas one could simply create a work of art.

Another relevant question might be: what is the difference between 'Uncreated' and
'Eternally Begotten' ?

Cheers LittleToe,

Dean.
LittleToe

Dean:
I had a busy weekend, too. I enjoyed your post, btw.
1Tim.2:5I believe that here "God" is is the Godhead, since it makes the specific comment that God is "one". Why mention that, unless there was otherwise the possibility of confusion?
Christ is the human-face of God, and hence the mediator between makind and "God".
Let me illustrate that, to show how I would see the reciprocal of this working:
If Mankind wanted to broker a relationship with an alien race, we would possibly send one of our own (I'm not trying to get "trekky", here, btw).
That one would be an ambassador and mediator, for us.
They would still be part of mankind - that doesn't change, just because they are the public face of humanity.
They could both be a representative of that body of people at the same time as being one of them.
So, too with God. There are several persons (IMHO) who comprise "God" but only one has been sent as a mediator and ambassador.
How do you understand 1Tim.2:3, where it is "God" who is spoken of as saviour, rather than Christ?
1.
If "the Son" is the master worker, then how can angels be given this title?
3.
It's fine shades of meaning that are the reason people are careful how they craft what they say about the Trinity and especially the Son.
I believe that the Word was begotten, not created (hence he is "uncreated").
As for the phrase "Eternally Begotten", I understand that to mean begotten in eternity, before anything was created, including time itself.
There are arguments to do with "seed" (Heb.7:9, 10) that indicate that one may be present, even before one is actually born. I don't find it a stretch to think of the Son in this way, at the very least.
I would however tend to go further, and again maybe an illustration is in order:
In the case of a single celled amoeba, procreation consists of spliting in two (cell division is also seen in the whole animal kingdom, but I want to restrict this to "individuals").
The result of this division is two identical organisms.
Which came first?
In the case of "God", where there is high intellect and order, "one" must naturally take the role of "leader" or "Father". Each have a role, and this is His.
With regard to roles, the Son is the Word (IMHO) and the Spirit is the Wisdom (hence Prov.7; 8 and John14:26)
Some say that the Spirit is the "power" of God.
Yet how do you explain 1Cor.1:24?
I believe it may only be understood in the context of Joh.14:16.
(I hope you don't find either of my illustrations irreverant. That's not my intent)
Dean Porter

LittleToe,

Re: 1 Tim. 2:5 you didn't specifically state anything about the second occurance of God in this verse ? Or did you just mean it is the collective Godhead in both occurances ?

I am working on this verse with the intention of posting on Hooberus' specific thread at a later date. However , we are on the subject now ... so......

I like your illustration ( especially the Star trek reference - Live Long and Prosper - were you aware of the origins of the Vulcan V sign ? ; but thats another thread).

However. I think you are 'confusing' the role of an Ambassador and that of a Mediator. Using your illustration , if the Klingons and earthlings wanted to broker a relationship then certainly they would send Ambassadors to meet with earth's Ambassadors to thrash out a deal. Each Ambassador would naturally be a representative of their Race. But, if a deal could not be brokered then the matter would have to go to ARBITRATION and this is when a Mediator would be required.

The point is this, a Mediator would have to be a "middle-man" i.e. a neutral person
who does not belong to either disputing party, otherwise there would be bias. So, in such a situation a Vulcan could act as Mediator because the Vulcan is neither Klingon nor Earthling.

So in 1 Tim. 2:5 Jesus is not acting as a Representative or Ambassador but rather he is acting as the INDEPENDANT MEDIATOR who is in the Middle being not a member of either party who is in dispute.

God as Savior - no problem with that as the Father is the source of Salvation and Jesus is the Instrument of Salvation.

So , with regard to Begotten, you don't see creation implied in this term ?

Does not the word Begotten carry in it the sense of Birth / generation ?

With respect, you don't seem to have defined what Begotten means to you. You just imply it doesn't mean created , so what does it mean?

I threw in the phrase Eternally Begotten because it is the Athanasian Creed term.
You seem to be happy to use it. Yet, it made me wonder, because if you realised the truth of the trinity from your reading of the Bible ; you certainly didn't get this term from the bible as it does not use this term of Jesus.

( by the way , I have read "VINES" comments on his definition of Monogenos where he talks about unoriginated relationship etc. I honsetly think even he would have to admit that what he says goes beyond what the greek word means itself. He unashamedly profers an interpretation where I believe he puts the cart before the horse to arrive at his answer - if you know what I mean.)

The bible only states that he is the only-begotten not the Eternally -Begotten.

If the Son is Eternally - begotten and thus uncreated then why isn't the Father also described as Eternally -begotten ?

The fact that he isn't tells me that there is clearly a difference between the Existence of the Father and the Son.

I think the term Eternally Begotten was needed so as to try and get around this problem. Because surely Begotten implies a birth and thus a beginning to a life.

Again , I like your illustration regarding the AMOEBA. It is interesting that you use the term 'Procreation' as well. I see what you mean about the new cell being derived from the already existing matter of the original cell. So it could be viewed as having already been in existence. Therefore is it a new creation or just a reproduction ? Therefore is the begetting of the son a creation or a reproduction ?

Thus if the Son is is begotten from the already eternally existing Father is not the son eternal too, already existing ? I do see the import of all that and to tell the truth I have been thinking along those lines myself.

But these facts still remain. As per your Amoeba, the new cell arises from the pre -existent cell material but once it has its own membrane and nucleus it is a SEPERATE ENTITY. Also , once there is two Cells the Original Cell material in fact PRE-Dates the second cellular entity. Further, the second cellular entity only exists by virtue of the First cellular entity.

Has the new cell been born or created ? Does it have a BEGINNING ?

Therefore by this illustration I still see the Father as the Source of Life who pre-dates the Son who is now a Seperate Entity (not just seperate personality but seperate entity). I don't think even this scenario justifies a 'co -eternal' Godhead.

Enough from me ,

back to you ,

Dean.
hooberus

Dean Porter said:

With regard to 1 Cor. 8:5,6 you say that there was no contextual need for Paul to speak about the Holy Spirit because he was only talking about the contrast between the pagan lords and gods. But does not the Trinity doctrine mean that the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit are each and all Jehovah, each and all God and each and all Lord?

Yes the Trinity teaches this because each person is called God and Lord in scripture. The Father is called "God" and "Lord" the Son is called "God" and "Lord" (John 20:28) and the Holy Spirit is called "God" and "Lord" (Acts Chapter 5; 2 Corinthians 3:17).
However, the normal practice in the New Testament is to call the Father "God" the Son "Lord" and the Spirit the "Holy Spirit." This makes for identification of each person within the godhead. Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:6 thus contrasts the "gods many" and "lords many" with the God and Lord of Christians applying as usual the word "God" to the Father and the word "Lord" to the Son.

So therefore if Paul is defining here the christians God and Lord then I think there is a contextual need to show that all three persons share these Diety Titles. As I said right at the start of this thread its not so much what these verses say as what they do not say that is your problem.
The problem with this verse is Unitarians using it to attempt to deny the full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Trinitarians use this verse to show the full deity of the Father and the Son. The fact that the Spirit is not mentioned here does not disprove his personality or deity. There are verses which only mention the Son as being Lord and God (John 20:28) and which don't mention the Father as being Lord and God, yet we know from other verses that the Father is Lord and God. In the same way just because 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not mention the Holy Spirit does not mean that he is not Lord and God.

You may be interested in reading an excerpt from a book I found during my research entitled " The Jesus Question " by John Ziesler ( senior lecturer of Theology University of Bristol). I will type the pertinent portions but by all means find the book and check the full text for verification.

page 60 " The word ( kyrios) thus has a spectrum of use, from the merely human to the divine, but probably always conveys the notion of legitimate as opposed to despotic authority.......as they read the septuagint which used kyrios in place of the divine name they completed the arguement Jesus is Lord, and Yahweh is Lord; therefore Jesus must be divine. THIS IS A SOMEWHAT MUDDLED ARGUEMENT, AND IS NO LONGER AS SECURE AS WAS THOUGHT.........the septuagint arguement is an odd one and proves too much , FOR NO ONE IN THE EARLY CHURCH WANTED TO EQUATE JESUS WITH YAHWEH. THEY DID WANT TO SAY HE WAS DIVINE, BUT THEY AVOIDED BALD IDENTIFICATION......
Jesus is constantly identified with the Yahweh of the Old testament in the New Testament. Here is Just one example (many could be listed):
Isaiah Chapter 6
1: In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
2: Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
3: And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
4: And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.
5: Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.
6: Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:
7: And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.
8: Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
9: And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.
10: Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
John Chapter 12
38: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
39: Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
40: He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
41: These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.
.....It is instructive to read again 1 Cor. 8:5,6 where Paul in calling Jesus 'Lord' SEEMS TO DISTINGUISH HIM FROM YAHWEH THE ONE GOD......... page 62.....there is a reservation. Jesus is bracketed with God, YET CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED FROM HIM". end of quote.
Here are some of my earlier comments to this issue:
Answering Objections: Isn't 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 is clearly making a distinction between Jesus and Jehovah?
1 Corintians 8:5-6 is not making a disctiction between Jesus and Jehovah (which name does not appear in the New Testament). 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 is primarily making a distinction between the "gods many" / "lords many" with the one God and one Lord. The is also a disctiction made between the Father and the Son. However both are Jehovah. But aren't the Father and the Son are addressed in completely separate references in verse 6?
The Trinty teaches that the Father and the Son are separate persons within the Godhead, hense them shown to be distinct from one another is according to Trinitarian theology. The fact that there seems to be a distinction between the "one God the Father" and Jesus Christ does not mean that He is not also God any more than the fact that the Father is shown to be distinct from the "one Lord Jesus Christ" means that He is not also Lord.
hooberus

"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:" Mark 12:29
What do these words mean here? "Lord" "God" "one Lord"?
"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." John 20:28
"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
What do these words mean here? "Lord" "God" "one Lord" Do these words mean different things when applied to Jesus? Does "one Lord" mean less in 1 Corinthians 8:6 then "one Lord" in Mark 12:29?
hooberus

A verse very similar to 1 Corinthians 8:6 is Romans 11:36
For who hath known the mind of the Lord? [NWT "Jehovah"] or who hath been his counsellor?or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and unto him, are all things. To him `be' the glory for ever. Amen. Romans 11:34-36 ASV
Who are all things of in Romans 11:36?
Who are all things through in Romans 11:36?
"yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him." 1 Corinthians 8:6 ASV
Who are all things of in 1 Corinthians 8:6?
Who are all things through in 1 Corinthians 8:6?

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

Share this