Rethinking the Trinity

Articles on: Rethinking the Trinity

True Biblical Monotheism

Written by John Schoenheit

Introduction

The Bible teaches that there is one Elohim, the Father, and one Messiah and Lord, Yeshua Messiah, who is the divinely conceived Son of Elohim. Those are very important truths, and this article will give evidence that supports them. In doing so, this article will also show that Yeshua Messiah is the fully human “Son of Elohim,” and not “Elohim the Son,” and thus it will also give evidence that shows that the Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity.

For clarity’s sake, it is helpful to understand what the Trinity is. The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father is Elohim, the Son is Elohim, and the Holy Spirit is Elohim, and the three of them are co-equal, co-eternal, and share the same essence, and together those three individual “Persons” are one triune Elohim; also, Yeshua is both 100% Elohim and 100% man, and both Yeshua’ divine nature and his human nature live together in his flesh body. The doctrine of the Trinity, though widely believed, is never stated in the Bible.

We do not present this article to antagonize or attack anyone, but rather because we believe an honest and rigorous examination of the biblical evidence will support that the Father alone is Elohim and Yeshua is His created Son. Furthermore, we think it is important for Christians to know the truth about Elohim, Yeshua, and the holy spirit.

There is value in truth, and Elohim and Yeshua deserve to be known for who they really are. Knowing that there is only one Elohim, and that He is not triune and thus sharing His identity with two others, elevates Him to His rightful position as the one Elohim of the Bible, the Creator of the universe, and the One who we love with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. Similarly, knowing that the Lord Yeshua is who Peter said he was, “a man approved of Elohim” (Acts 2:22 KJV), elevates him to his rightful position. He is the only begotten Son of Elohim, who loved so much that he lived a sinless, obedient life and died on the cross for us, whom Elohim raised from the dead and who now stands at Elohim’s right hand as Elohim’s second in command, administering the things of Elohim.

Something that is openly admitted by theologians but not known by many Christians is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not stated in the Bible but is actually “built” by piecing together statements that are said to support it. But since most Christians believe that the Trinity is a mystery and no one can understand it, doctrinal discussions about it are often avoided or brushed aside and ignored. Worse, the teaching that the Trinity is a “mystery” has been used as a club to beat down doubters and dissenters, and those people are often branded as “heretics” and their role in Christianity minimized (the idea the Trinity is a mystery is covered in section 17 below).

Thus, the Trinity stands as an unchallengeable but never-understood fortress in the center of Christianity. But Christians should get their doctrine from the Bible. What if a careful examination of the Bible showed that there was no Trinity? What if careful study showed that Yehovah was the one Elohim of the Bible, and Yeshua was who Peter said he was, “a man approved of Elohim” and not a “God-man”? What if the “mystery” of the Trinity was not a mystery at all, but an erroneous doctrine that was formulated over time? This study will show that Yeshua was indeed a fully human man approved by Elohim.

This short article can only summarize some of the major points about who Elohim and Yeshua Messiah really are. For further study, a bibliography of some of the books on the subject is included at the end of this article. Also, it is not the intention of this article to explain the verses that are traditionally used to support the doctrine of the Trinity, such as John 10:30 or John 8:58. Each of those verses can be understood in a way that supports the Biblical Unitarian position.

1) Basic Problems with the doctrine of the Trinity

The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible. Although that does not rule out the possible existence of the Trinity, it is supporting evidence that the doctrine is unbiblical.

Trinitarians differ, sometimes greatly, in their definitions of the Trinity. The Eastern Orthodox Church differs from the Western Church on the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. Also, Trinitarians who hold to the “classic” definition of the Trinity, that Yeshua was 100% Elohim and 100% man while on earth, believe differently from Kenotic Trinitarians, who believe that Yeshua set aside his godhood while he was a man on earth. Oneness Pentecostals say the classic formula of the Trinity is completely wrong. Yet all these claim that Messiah is Elohim and that the Bible supports their position...

Yehovah Elohim

Everybody has a name. Every individual man, woman, boy and girl has a name. My personal name is Gregory. Gregory happens to mean ‘watchful’. I don’t mind if you call me Greg … in fact, the only person who ever called me Gregory was my mother and then I knew I was in trouble because it was always said in a firm tone with an exclamation mark after it! Your name represents you, the real person, your ‘self’. I have known many people get quite upset when their rightful personal name is forgotten, altered, not spelled right, etc.

In the Bible Elohim has gone to a lot of trouble to reveal His Personal Name to us. Some 6,828 times the one and only Elohim of the Bible is called Yehovah. This number does not include the 49 occurrences of “Yah” (a shortened version, much like Greg is short for Gregory) nor the many expressions of “Hallelujah” (or Hallelu-Yah) meaning ‘praise Yah’.

In the original Hebrew Bible Yehovah is written using the four consonants YHWH. There are no vowels written in the Hebrew text. These four consonants are called the Tetragrammaton meaning ‘four letters’. Because there are no vowels in the text, and because the Jews stopped pronouncing the Name for fear they might inadvertently blaspheme it, today there is some debate as to how to pronounce YHWH.

However, the authoritative Encyclopedia Judaica states the original pronunciation was Yehovah and has never been lost. In any case, there is no prohibition in Scripture for us to stop using, or not to continue to use Elohim’s Name. On the contrary, His people are told to ”Give thanks to Yehovah; proclaim His name! Celebrate His works among the peoples. Declare that his name is exalted” (Is. 12:4 HCSB).

So, Yehovah’s Name on average appears over 6 times per page in the Old Testament! The preponderance of the Name of Elohim is a powerful testimony as to the identity of the Elohim of the Bible. Yehovah is the central and most important Person in the Bible.

There are places in the Bible where Elohim actually calls Himself a “Soul”, which is the equivalent of ‘Self’. In Isaiah 42:1 Elohim speaks of “My Soul”. The Hebrew nephesh here translated ‘soul’ is used consistently to mean an individual, that is, a single self, whether animal, human or Elohim Himself. Yehovah describes himself as a Single Individual Soul, a “Self”. This fact is verified thousands of times throughout the Bible, not only by the use of His Personal Name, but also by personal pronouns.

Whenever Elohim speaks of Himself or is addressed or referred to by others, singular personal pronouns are used. When referring to Himself Elohim says, ‘I’, ‘Me’, ‘My’, ‘Mine’ in the first person. When He is prayed to He is addressed in the second person singular, ‘Thou’, ‘Thee’, ‘Thy’ or ‘Thine’, but this is old English, and not so obvious today because our ‘you’ can be either singular or plural in meaning depending on context and whether the attending verbs and pronouns are singular or plural. Then, when someone refers to Elohim indirectly, the third person singular ‘He’, ‘Him’, ‘His’, ‘Himself’ are invariably used.

"Yeshua is the Son of Elohim; Not Elohim the Son"

By: John Schoenheit

Introduction

The Bible teaches that there is one Elohim, the Father, and one Messiah and Lord, Yeshua Messiah, who is the divinely conceived Son of Elohim. Those are very important truths, and this appendix will give evidence that supports them. In doing so, this appendix will also show that Yeshua Messiah is the fully human “Son of Elohim,” and not “Elohim the Son,” and thus it will also give evidence that shows that the Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity.

We do not present this appendix to antagonize or attack anyone, but rather because we believe an honest and rigorous examination of the biblical evidence will support that the Father alone is Elohim and Yeshua is His created Son. Furthermore, we think it is important for Christians to know the truth about Elohim, Yeshua, and the holy spirit.

Thus, the Trinity stands as an unchallengeable but never-understood fortress in the center of Christianity. But Christians should get their doctrine from the Bible. What if a careful examination of the Bible showed that there was no Trinity? What if careful study showed that Yehovah was the one Elohim of the Bible, and Yeshua was who Peter said he was, “a man approved of Elohim” and not a “Elohim-man”? What if the “mystery” of the Trinity was not a mystery at all, but an erroneous doctrine that was formulated over time? This study will show that Yeshua was indeed a fully human man approved by Elohim.

This short appendix can only summarize some of the major points about who Elohim and Yeshua Messiah really are. For further study, a bibliography of some of the books on the subject is included at the end of this appendix. Also, it is not the intention of this appendix to explain the verses that are traditionally used to support the doctrine of the Trinity, such as John 10:30 or John 8:58.

1) Basic Problems with the doctrine of the Trinity

The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible. Although that does not rule out the possible existence of the Trinity, it is supporting evidence that the doctrine is unbiblical.

A study of the history of the Christian Church shows a definite development in the doctrine of the Trinity over the centuries. For example, the early form of the Apostles’ Creed, believed to date back to shortly after the time of the apostles themselves, does not mention the Trinity or the dual nature of Messiah. Furthermore, it only states, “I believe in ‘the holy spirit,’” which could just as easily refer to the gift of holy spirit as it could to a third “Person” in the Trinity. The Nicene Creed, written in 325 AD and modified later, added the material about Yeshua Messiah being “eternally begotten” and “true Elohim,” and about the Holy Spirit being “Lord.” But it was the Athanasian Creed, most likely composed in the late 400s or early 500s AD, that was the first creed to explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity, and it includes that if a person does not believe it, he is not saved but will perish everlastingly. Yet saying that a person who does not believe in the Trinity is not saved contradicts the Bible. For example, when Peter addressed the Jews on the Day of Pentecost he did not mention the Trinity or that Yeshua was Elohim in the flesh, yet about 3,000 people in the audience were saved (Acts 2:41).....

Yeshua's Teaching on the Shema

"Hear O Israel, Yehovah our Elohim Yehovah is one."
- The Shema

Proof of the Trinity Error

The fact that Yeshua was born under the Torah and was required to observe the Torah, demonstrates to us precisely WHO this passage is identifying: the Elohim of our Master Yeshua Messiah.

The Evidence
Yehovah is three
While the text says that Yehovah is one, Trinitarians would have it that we can also imagine a different idea into this passage, "Hear O Israel, Yehovah our Elohim, Yehovah is three," or, "Hear O Israel, Yehovah our Elohim, Yehovah is three yet one." Or, they alternatively imagine the text to be saying, "Hear O Israel, Yehovah our Elohim Yehovah is one [divine nature].

We Jews worship what we know
Yeshua's; Elohim was not any different than the Elohim of Israel. As a Jew under the Torah, he was obligated to obey the Torah and Yeshua' Elohim could not be any different than the Elohim of Israel. His Elohim was one person and one person alone, his Father alone. If his Elohim was one person then so was the Elohim of Israel.

Trintiarians claim that the Jews did not know they had been worshiping a three-person-being all along until it had been revealed to them in New Testament times. However, Yeshua declared the opposite. In the context of worshiping Elohim in Jerusalem, Yeshua declared that the Jews worshiped what they knew (John 4:20-22). Trinitarians are nullifying Yeshua' words for the sake of their tradition. Not only so, they fail to see the implications of Yeshua' words, WE worship what WE know. Yeshua is including himself among all Jews and saying that all the nation of Israel knew what they worshiped just as he himself knew what he worshiped. Yeshua knew who he worshiped as the Elohim of Israel: his Father alone. But Yeshua used the word "WE" indicating that ALL Jews knew this and not just he himself.

Yehovah OUR Elohim
The Shema says "OUR Elohim "not "MY Elohim." These words referred to the Elohim of EVERY Israelite and that included Yeshua. Yeshua could not have interpreted the Shema to mean one thing while it really meant something else for the rest of the Jewish nation (even if they didn't realize it as Trinitarians claim). He could not have interpreted the Shema to refer to one person while it actually really meant three persons for every other Jew. Such a proposition is absurd. Yeshua could not have possibly interpreted the Shema to refer to only his Father, which he did, while at the same time it referred to three persons for every other Israelite. The Shema says "OUR" Elohim. ....

"Do You Have to Believe in the Trinity to be Saved?"
By: John Schoenheit
According to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, if a person claims to be a Christian but does not believe in the Trinity, he is not saved. Is that the truth?

Not from the evidence in the Bible. [1] In fact, the evidence in Scripture is that a person can be saved without even knowing about the Trinity. Before we discuss the issue further, however, we need to know the definition of the Trinity according to orthodox theologians. This is important because some Christians think they are Trinitarians simply because they believe in the Father, the Son, and a being called “the Holy Spirit.” But that is not the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father is Elohim, the Son is Elohim, the Holy Spirit is Elohim, and together these “three Persons” make one Elohim; and these three are co-equal and co-eternal, the Son having been “eternally begotten” of the Father, and Yeshua being simultaneously 100% Elohim and 100% man.

We have encountered Trinitarians who say that a person will be saved if he believes that Yeshua is both 100% Elohim and 100% man, even if he does not believe the full doctrine of the Trinity. First, that is not the doctrinal position of the Orthodox Church, and second, the Bible never says that believing Yeshua is both 100% Elohim and 100% man is necessary for salvation. Non-Trinitarians assert that a person can be saved without believing in the Trinity, and demand, as did Martin Luther during the Reformation, that we be convinced from Scripture that what Trinitarians teach is true. Perhaps a good question to begin this study is, “When did Elohim start requiring that a person believe in the Trinity to be saved?”

The Old Testament

The Old Testament does not teach the Trinity, or even set forth clearly that the Messiah would be Elohim. Therefore it is unreasonable to think that someone back then had to believe it to be saved. [2] There is no evidence of anyone knowing about, or believing in, the Trinity in all the Jewish literature before Messiah, including the Old Testament, the Jewish targums and commentaries, the Apocrypha or other apocryphal literature, or the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It is well known that the foundational tenet of the Old Testament faith was, “Hear, O Israel: Yehovah our Elohim is one Yehovah” (Deut. 6:4 – KJV), and the Jews fiercely defended that faith against polytheism of all kinds. There are some singular verses that many Trinitarians today say point to the doctrine of the Trinity underlying the revelation of the Old Testament, but none expound it clearly enough that anyone would have formulated the doctrine of a Triune Elohim from them, and there is no historical record that anyone did (which is good evidence for the validity of our point that all those verses have a non-Trinitarian explanation).

Some Trinitarian scholars are aware of the fact that the Old Testament does not teach the Trinity. The distinguished Trinitarian scholar Bertrand de Margerie writes:

“…contemporary exegetes [Bible teachers] affirm unanimously that the Old Testament did not bring to the Jewish people a clear and distinct Revelation of the existence of a plurality of persons in Elohim. In this they agree with the clear and frequent affirmation of Fathers such as Irenaeus, Hilary, and Gregory of Nazianzus: that the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed only in the New Testament.” [3]

Since many Trinitarians admit that the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament, there are both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians who agree that before Yeshua’ ministry a person did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved.

The Four Gospels

We have seen that both Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians agree that a person living during the Old Testament did not have to believe in the Trinity to be saved because there was no presentation of the Trinity in the Old Testament for them to believe. However, orthodox Trinitarian doctrine is that during the ministry of Yeshua, and afterward, a person had to believe in the Trinity to be saved. This means that if Yeshua or the Apostles wanted anyone to be saved, they had to teach the person more information than was revealed in the Old Testament. If the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine is correct, then we should see a clear presentation of the Trinity in Scripture, but we do not, nor is there any record that Yeshua, or anyone else, ever taught the doctrine of the Trinity to anyone in order to get him or her saved.....

"Did Yeshua claim the be the "I AM" of Exodus?"
By: John Schoenheit

“I am the one.” Many Trinitarians argue that this verse states that when Yeshua said “I am” that he was claiming to be Elohim, (i.e., Yehovah, the Elohim who revealed Himself to Moses in the Old Testament). But saying “I am” does not mean a person is claiming to be Elohim. The Greek that is translated as “I am” is egō eime (ἐγὼ εἰμί), and it was a common Greek way for a person to identify themself. For example, only ten verses after Yeshua said, egō eime (“I am”) in John 8:58, the man who had been born blind identified himself by saying exactly what Yeshua said; egō eime (“I am;” John 9:9). Thus, Yeshua and the man born blind both identified themselves by saying egō eime (“I am”), only ten verses apart.

Sadly, unless a person looks at the Greek text, he will never see that “I am” was a common Greek way for a man or woman to identify themselves. In what seems to be a clear case of Trinitarian bias in translating the Greek text, when Yeshua says, egō eime (“I am”) in John 8:58, our English Bibles read, “I am.” But when Yeshua says egō eime in other places in the New Testament, or other people say egō eime (“I am”), the Greek phrase gets translated differently. So, for example, some English translations of what the man born blind said are: “I am the one” (CJB; HCSB; NASB; NET); “I am he” (BBE; ERV; KJV; YLT); “It is I” (Darby); and, “I am the man” (ESV; NIV). The only commonly used English Bible that has “I am” in John 9:9 is the New American Bible.

There are many other examples of the phrase egō eime not being translated as “I am,” but being translated as “I am he” or some other similar phrase. For example, Yeshua taught that people would come in his name, saying egō eime (“I am he”) and will deceive many (Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; HCSB; ESV; NAB; NET; NIV).

Yeshua said egō eime (“I am”), in a large number of places, but it is usually translated “I am he,” “It is I,” or “I am the one,” which are good translations because, as was stated above, egō eime was commonly used by people to identify themselves. Examples of Yeshua using egō eime include: John 13:19; 18:5, 6, and 18:8; Yeshua identifying himself to the apostles on the boat: Matthew 14:27; Mark 6:50; and John 6:20; and Yeshua identifying himself to the Jews, saying egō eime, translated “I am the one I claim to be” (NIV84, John 8:24 and 8:28.). All these places where Yeshua says egō eime but it is not translated “I am” shows that the translators understand that just saying egō eime does not mean the person is claiming to be Elohim.

At the Last Supper, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny Messiah. They used egō eime as the standard Greek identifier. Yeshua had said one of them would betray him, and one after another they said to him, mētiegō eime, Kurie (literally, “not I am, Lord;” Matt. 26:22 and 26:25.) The apostles were not trying to deny that they were Elohim by saying, “Not I am.” They were simply using as the common personal identifier egō eime and saying, “Surely not I, Lord”

In Acts 26:29, when Paul was defending himself in court, he said, “I would to Elohim, that …all who hear me this day, might become such as I am [egō eime].” Obviously, Paul was not claiming to be Elohim. There are more uses of the phrase “I am,” and especially so if we realize that what has been covered above is only the nominative singular pronoun and the first person singular verb that we have just covered. The point is this: “I am” was a common way of designating oneself, and it did not mean you were claiming to be Elohim. C. K. Barrett writes:

Egō eimi [“I am”] does not identify Yeshua with Elohim, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know Elohim.”....

"Shema! – The Creed of Yeshua"
By: J. Dan Gill
Christians today often recite creeds which were devised by post-biblical Gentile Christians centuries after Messiah. They do that, while at the same time having never learned the Shema, the biblical creed which Elohim himself gave to Moses. It is that creed which Yeshua affirms. When he is approached by a Jewish man who asks him which is the most important of all of the commandments, Yeshua responds that it is:

Hear, O Israel! Yehovah is our Elohim, Yehovah is one. — Yeshua (Mark 12:29)

Christians today seldom reflect on those amazing words which were spoken by the founder of our faith. That is unacceptable. It is tragic that a great many Christians are unaware that Yeshua even spoke those words, words which he himself pronounced to be of paramount importance. Has not our attention been drawn away from the essential teaching of Yeshua about Elohim and diverted to creeds developed centuries after the Bible?[1]

Why has the creed of Yeshua been so tragically neglected by post-biblical Christians? Isn’t it because his creed does not teach the later dogma that Elohim is multiple persons? Isn’t it because his creed does not assert that he himself is also Elohim in addition to his Father? Furthermore, isn’t the creed of Yeshua neglected — perhaps avoided — because it declares that only one individual is Elohim, thus completely disallowing that two or three persons are the one Elohim? When will we as followers of Yeshua stand up boldly for Yeshua and his teaching about Elohim? When will we join with the man who asked the question, “which is most important of all?” and respond as he did to the words of Yeshua? —

Well said, teacher! You have truly said that there is one Elohim and there is no other but him (Mark 12:32).

When will we as followers of Yeshua come to love and celebrate Yeshua’s creed and affirm that only one individual is Elohim? When will our children learn the words of Yeshua about Elohim? When will our pastors finally abandon a stubborn affirmation of post-biblical ideas that they themselves admit have never made sense? When will a pastor run to Yeshua, and against all others, unceasingly speak his words about Elohim? Again, it is Yeshua who said that his Father is “the only true Elohim” ( John 17:1–3).

And notice again, as was the case in Deuteronomy 6, that the pronouns in Mark 12 allow for no other possibility than that the one who alone is Elohim is a “him,” not a “them.” Yeshua’ declaration in v. 29 (“Yehovah is one”) has a singular verb of being. Even a first year student of New Testament Greek can affirm that more literally the phrase is, “Yehovah ‘he is’ one.”[2] In that light, the man speaking with Yeshua goes on to say:

And to love him with all the heart, with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices (Mark 12:33).

And how does Yeshua respond to the man’s affirmation?

When Yeshua saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of Elohim” (Mark 12:34).....

"John 1 – In the Beginning… Elohim’s Word!"
J. Dan Gill
Elohim’s word is the word of our Creator. It is the standard by which the words of all others must be measured. If we cannot trust the One who made us, all is lost! Why then would we imagine that we could trust anyone or anything else? His word is a connection to the very meaning of our human existence.

To the people of the Bible, Elohim’s word is the definition of truth. King David prayed, “And now, O Lord Yehovah, you are Elohim, and your words are truth” (2 Sam. 7:28). Yeshua gives that same definition of truth in the New Testament, “Father … Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17).

The one true Elohim extends himself to creation by his spirit and shares his thoughts with us by his words. We as human beings come to know one another by our words. So it is that we can know Elohim by his words. They are light to our minds. The psalmist writes, “The unfolding of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple” (Ps. 119:130).

A person’s word is something that can be shared with others without being lost to the sharer. It is in that sense that Elohim’s word is “with” him and can come to be “with” us as well. It is spoken by the mouth of Elohim (2 Chron. 6:4), and comes to his prophets (1 Sam. 15:10). In turn it is spoken or written by them (1 Kings 17:24); people can hear it, read it. As he imparts his word to us, we can know the mind of Elohim.

His Word is Him

Just as Elohim’s spirit is him in his operation and presence, so is his word. By it he shares his knowledge, understanding and wisdom. To the people of the Bible, his word is the expression of his thoughts. In it are his will for us and his plans for all he does. And just as the word of a human being is not a separate person from that human being, neither is Elohim’s word a separate person from the Father. What Elohim’s word does is done by the Father himself. He acts by communicating — commanding.

As people, our thoughts are with us. We sometimes speak of a person “keeping her thoughts to herself.” Yet one’s innermost reasoning can be expressed by words. Our words begin with us, go out from us and have effect on those around us. They can benefit others and cause change in our world. Likewise, Elohim’s word is active. He declares:

So will my word be that goes forth out of my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but it will accomplish what I desire, and succeed in the purpose for which I sent it (Isa. 55:11).

In the New Testament, we find again that Elohim’s word is dynamic:

For the word of Elohim is living and active. It is sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit; joints and marrow. It is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart (Heb. 4:12).

Elohim’s word is at times personified in the Bible. His wisdom is beautifully personified as though it were a woman[1] in Proverbs 8. This “woman” dwells with “prudence” (v. 12). It is said that Elohim possessed her in the beginning (vv. 22, 30). But these are poetic statements about characteristics of Elohim. Neither “wisdom” nor “prudence” are actually persons in themselves. Elohim’s voice, mouth, word and wisdom are never to be understood literally as persons in addition to the Father. Rather, they are expressions of the Father’s own mighty power.

When we hear a person’s voice or word, we rightly say that we have heard that person himself. What is said by one’s voice has been said by him. It is an extension of that individual. When we converse with a friend, we do not afterwards say that we talked with his “voice” or spoke to his “word.” Rather, we say that we spoke with our friend himself — the whole person.

So it is with Elohim’s word. In the entire Hebrew Bible there is no instance in which anyone is said to have had a conversation with “Elohim’s word” or prayed to it. No one makes requests to “the word of Elohim.” No one addresses thanks or sings songs to it. All of the requests, giving of thanks and even praise of the word are addressed to the Father on his throne — the Elohim whose word it is:

Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. Your word is very pure, therefore your servant loves it (Ps. 119:105, 140).
....

The Assumed Trinity: A look at Philippians 2:6
By: Skip Moen
who, although He existed in the form of Elohim, did not regard equality with Elohim a thing to be grasped Philippians 2:6 NASB

I apologize that this is long and technical. There is no other way to do this.

Frankly, I would just as soon let this go. I don’t like coming back to an investigation of verses used to support the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, thinking about these things really bothers me. It keeps me up at night. It scares me. All my life I thought that the statement “Jesus is God” was unassailable, fixed in concrete theologically, fundamental to faith. Now I’m scared that I might have simply swallowed the doctrine without examination. Now the foundation of what I used to believe (and maybe still do) is a bit shaken. But I am not about to just sweep the issues under the Pope’s rug and pretend everything is perfectly fine in Bibleland. Everything isn’t perfectly fine. The more I dig into the Jewish world of the first century, the more I see how my own presuppositions may have been in error. I grew up on Calvin, Berkouwer and Campus Crusade. I know the drill. But the drill has bored through to something I never expected.

Ureil ben-Mordechai[1] points out that the Greek negative in this verse (ouk) is not attached to the verb (hegesato) but rather to the noun harpagmon. That means the reading of this verse should be “counted not something to be grasped,” instead of “not counted something to be grasped.” Let me make the difference clearer. The standard Christian translation of this Greek phrase suggests that Yeshua did not consider equality something to be grasped. But the actual Greek text reads, “counted equality not something that could be grasped.” In other words, if the negative particle ouk is tied to the noun rather than the verb, the implication is the Yeshua saw equality with Elohim as something unattainable. Do you realize what this means? It means that this verse does not say that Yeshua gave up equality with Elohim voluntarily because it did not serve the purposes of the Messiah. It says that Yeshua never aspired to be equal with Elohim because equality with Elohim is not possible.

Before you go crazy, remember that the Greek text is the issue, not the translation. In the Greek text, the negative ouk is clearly present before the noun, not before the verb. The Greek reads hos en morphe theos hyparchon ouk harpagmon hegesato, literally, “who in morphe theos (we will get back to this) is, was regarded not something to be gained (or esteemed).” So, was is it that he did not regard equality as something or was it that he regarded equality as not something. Oh, my aching head!

Do you suppose that Paul, in this great Trinitarian passage, isn’t really talking about the Trinity at all? What if Paul is saying that Yeshua, as the Messiah, didn’t try to be equal with Elohim because no one can be equal with Elohim? What if the entire purpose of Paul’s statement is not a declaration of “Jesus is God” but rather a proclamation that Yeshua took on the role of a servant as Messiah, rather than trying to be Elohim? The Greek text puts the ouk in a very funny place if Paul meant to say something about Yeshua’s Elohim-likeness. The same negative particle + noun arrangement is found in Hebrew 12:8 and in the LXX at 2 Chronicles 15:3. The particle negates the noun, not the verb. It’s a problem. A big problem.....

"The Trinity: Pointing the Way"
By:Skip Moen
The Lord says to my Lord:
“Sit at My right hand
until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” Psalm 110:1 NASB

Lord/Lord – Sometimes reading a verse in English translation does nothing but confuse the real meaning. Such is the case here. Furthermore, since Yeshua quotes this verse in Psalm 110 in a discussion of the true status of the Messiah (cf. Matthew 22:44), we must be very careful to read it as it is written in the original, not as it ends up in translation.

Let’s start by getting the proper Hebrew words. The first occurrence of our translation “Lord” is Elohim’s proper name, Yehovah. The Hebrew text is neum Yehovah (“announces Yehovah”). This is followed by la-‘doni, unfortunately also translated “to my Lord.” Trinitarian exponents conclude that since adonai and Yehovah are both designations of Elohim, this conversation must mean that there are at least two divine beings in the Godhead. Patrick Navas quotes William Varner: “The psalmist David, in verse one, records a conversation between two members of the Godhead . . . A literal translation of the first phrase is: ‘Yehovah said to my Adonai . . .’ Yehovah . . . and Adonai are two names for Elohim in the Old Testament. The only adequate explanation for this conversation between two persons with Divine names is that there must be a plurality of personalities within the Godhead.”[1]

In a careful analysis of the Masoretic pointing of this text, Navas demonstrates that there is a distinction between adoni and adonai. The difference is how the same consonants are pointed (indicating vowels and syllabication), but this tiny difference makes a huge difference in the meanings of the words. Adonai is used as a title (not a name) of Elohim the Father (Yehovah). Adoni (the same consonants but different pointing) is used to describe someone in a superior position like a king or a master. For example, in Genesis 24:12 Abraham’s servant uses the term adoni to describe Abraham as his lord. In this psalm, the second occurrence of the translated word “lord” is not adonai. It is adoni. The meaning is not, therefore, a second reference to a divine name. It is a statement made by David the king that there is someone of greater authority over him. In other words, the verse should be understood as follows: Yehovah announces to my (David’s) master: “Sit at my right hand . . .” There is no indication in the text itself that this conversation occurs between two divine persons.

Anthony Buzzard comments: “It is amazing that a number of commentaries wrongly assert that the second lord is adonai. . . . Unfortunately, this [mistranslation] suggests that the Messiah is Elohim Himself. In fact the Hebrew for ‘my lord’ is not adonai but adoni, which is never used of Elohim but often of the king of Israel and other human superiors.....

"The Trinity: I Am Passages"
By:Skip Moen Ph.D.

Yeshua said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. John 14:6 NASB

I am – A lot has been made of the “I am” sayings in the gospels. In fact, the translation of the text has been so influenced by Trinitarian doctrine that sometimes the words “I am” are actually put in capitals and bold, “I AM,” clearly indicating that the translators take the phrase as a declaration of the personal, holy name of Elohim from Exodus 3:14. With this sort of translation, Trinitarian proponents argue that Yeshua declared himself to be Elohim.

But there are just a few messy problems.

First, of course, is that these “I am” statements are in Greek, not Hebrew. Ego eimi is the Greek phrase and it is typically used as a self-identifier, something like, “It’s me” (literally translated “I am he” or “I am the one”). So we would have to back-translate these Greek words into Hebrew in order to get something akin to the divine name. That isn’t a problem since it is fairly obvious that Yeshua was not speaking Greek when he said “I am.” But it is a problem when we construct the Hebrew text because the divine name from Exodus 3:14 doesn’t say “I am.” The Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 is ‘eheye(h)’ ‘asher ‘eheye(h)’, which does not mean “I am.” If anything, it means something like “I will be who I will be.” The verb is a Qal imperfect indicating continuing action, not a state of being like the Greek tense or the English translation. It is the first person singular equivalent of “I come to pass, I occur, I happen, I become or I will be.” The translation “I am” is not dynamic. It is a statement of static existence. So even if we back-translate to Hebrew, we don’t find the equivalent of the divine name. What we find is a forced English translation of the Exodus text to make it fit a Greek construction.

But that isn’t the only issue. It should also be obvious that Yeshua adopts the first century Jewish convention of avoiding the use of the divine name. For example, he uses the phrase “kingdom of heaven” as a circumlocution of the name of Elohim. In fact, he regularly substitutes idioms rather than use Elohim’s divine name, as any orthodox Jew would have done. In Luke’s gospel, these circumlocutions are not employed but that isn’t because Yeshua didn’t use them. It’s because Luke is writing to a Greek audience, not a Hebrew audience. It is highly probable that Yeshua did not use the divine name. He was Jewish, in a Jewish culture and speaking to orthodox Jews. To use the divine name would have been quite scandalous. Therefore, to suggest (in translation) that Yeshua applied the divine name to himself goes against everything else we know about his respect for the name and his cultural situation. Unless we come to these texts with Trinitarian translations already in mind, we do not find Yeshua making declarations that he is Elohim Himself. What we find is that Yeshua declares himself to be Elohim’s chosen one, Elohim’s Messiah, Elohim’s sent one, Elohim’s Son and Elohim’s messenger. But that is not the same as claiming he is Elohim....

Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel! Yehovah is our Elohim, Yehovah alone!
By: John Schoenheit
“Hear, O Israel! Yehovah is our Elohim, Yehovah alone!” It is believed by some Trinitarians that the Hebrew word ’echad (H259 אֶחָד), “one,” that is used in Deut 6:4 and other verses indicates a “compound unity.” Concerning the use of the word echad, Anthony Buzzard writes:

“It is untrue to say that the Hebrew word echad (one) in Deut 6:4 points to a compound unity. A recent defense of the Trinity argues that when “one” modifies a collective noun like “bunch” or “herd,” a plurality is implied in echad. The argument is fallacious. The sense of plurality is derived from the collective noun (herd, etc.), not from the word “one.”Echad in Hebrew is the numeral “one.” “Abraham was one [echad]” (Eze 33:24; “only one man,” NIV). Isa 51:2 also describes Abraham as “one” (echad; “alone,” KJV; “the only one,” NJBO, where there is no possible misunderstanding about the meaning of this simple word.” Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound [International Scholars Publications, New York, 1998], p. 25).

In the Old Testament, there is no reference to the word “one” as indicating a plurality of any kind. A study of its uses in the Old Testament will reveal its simple meaning and the truth it conveys. It is used of “one” in number, “the first” in a series, “one” in the sense of “the same” or “alone,” and “one” in the sense of “each” or “a certain one.” It is used as “alone” in verses like Deu 6:4, and “first” in verses like Gen 1:5, when Elohim made light on the “first” day. The whole earth spoke “one” language before Babel (Gen 11:1). Hagar cast her child under “one” of the bushes (Gen 21:15). In Pharaoh’s dream, there were seven ears of grain on “one” stalk (Gen 41:5). In the plague on Egypt’s livestock, not “one” cow died in Israel (Exo 9:6). Exo 12:49 says that Israel shall have “one” law for the citizen and the foreigner. The examples are far too many to list for this frequently used word, which appears more than 950 times in the Old Testament, and there is no hint in any Jewish commentary or lexicon that it somehow implies a “compound unity.”

The history of the Jewish thought is well known. They were famous in the ancient world for being downright obnoxious when it came to defending their “one Elohim” against the polytheistic views of other civilizations. Elohim chose the Jews as His people, and He chose to communicate to them in the Hebrew language. The Jews debated their writings to the point of tedium and argued over almost every word in the Law, yet there is no evidence that any of them thought that their word for “one” implied a compound unity. That assumption did not develop until Christians needed evidence for the Trinity in the Old Testament; it is a late and invalid assumption with no solid evidence behind it.

Deut 6:4, “Hear, O Israel! Yehovah is our Elohim, Yehovah alone,” where echad is translated “alone,” is one of the strongest texts against the Trinity. The Bible affirms that Elohim is “one,” not “three-in-one” or some other plurality. This has been the rallying cry of Jews down through the ages who have stood aggressively against any form of polytheism or pantheism. Although it is commonly believed that Deut 6:4 (known as the Shema) is a statement of “monotheism” and thus the “compound unity” of Elohim, that is not what the verse is saying. Of course, it is certainly a statement about monotheism (that there is one Elohim), but that is not its primary emphasis.

In addition, it is not a statement about the compound unity of Elohim for a number of reasons. For one thing, the compound unity of Elohim does not appear in Scripture. Also, the Old Testament was given by Elohim to the Jews so they could know and obey Him, and never in the more than 3500 years since the Shema was written have the Jews understood it to refer to a compound unity in Elohim—quite the opposite. They took it to mean that there was only one Elohim, and they fiercely fought against polytheism throughout their history. So if the Shema was Elohim’s attempt to reveal a compound unity in Himself, the attempt was an epic failure. It makes much more sense that Elohim gave the verse to the Jews and intended it to mean what the Jews say it means. Furthermore, the Jews did not take the Shema as their primary statement of monotheism because many other verses in Hebrew Scripture made that point just as clearly.....

A New way to Translate Deuteronomy 6:4
By: John Schoenheit

Deuteronomy 6:4 is a well-known verse that is most often translated something like this: “Hear O Israel, Yehovah our Elohim is one Yehovah,” or “Hear O Israel, Yehovah our Elohim, Yehovah is one.” However, in this article we will see that these translations are not the best, and can lead to false conclusions.

The Hebrew words Shema Yisrael (שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל), “Hear, [O] Israel!”) are the first two words of Deuteronomy 6:4, and are the title of a prayer that serves as a centerpiece of the morning and evening Jewish prayer services (the title “Shema Yisrael” is often shortened to simply “Shema”). Observant Jews consider the Shema to be the most important part of the prayer service in Judaism. Originally the “Shema” prayer was only Deuteronomy 6:4, but in more modern Judaism it has been expanded to include other sections of the Torah as well. (In this article, we will sometimes refer to Deuteronomy 6:4 as the Shema).

The first thing we should say about the statement, “Hear, O Israel! Yehovah our Elohim is Yehovah alone!” is that, according to Messiah, it was a part of the greatest commandment in the Torah. Usually when someone asks, “What are the two greatest commandments in the Torah?” the answer is “Love Elohim, and love your neighbor.” But Yeshua did not answer that way. Yeshua included the Shema in his answer, and by doing so made a very important point: before we say that “Love Elohim” is the first and greatest commandment, we should know who “Elohim” is. The Shema shows us that we do not get to choose who “our Elohim” is, Yehovah alone is Elohim.

Most people think that the great commandment is just “Love Elohim,” partly because the record in Matthew 22:37, which is the same event, does not include the Shema statement. However, it is common that when two or more Gospels recorded an event that they include different details. In this case, Mark gives the full account, and Matthew leaves out the Shema, which is understandable because the account in Matthew is much shorter than the account in Mark.

The Shema is widely understood by Christians to be about the nature of Elohim and a confirmation of the Trinity and the compound unity of Elohim, i.e., that Elohim is “one,” and therefore He is one Elohim made up of three persons. However, that is not at all what the verse is saying, as we will see by examining both the Hebrew Scriptures and Renewed Covenant texts on the subject.

One thing should be clear to everyone who studies Mark 12:29: no matter how the Greek text of Mark is worded, it is a translation of the Hebrew, because to answer the Pharisee’s question, Yeshua Messiah would have quoted the Hebrew text of the Hebrew Scriptures. Yeshua would not have spoken Greek to him. Although we will see as the study develops that the Greek in Mark (and the Septuagint), can mean what the Hebrew OT says, the Hebrew wording is very dense and has a number of secondary meanings built into it, and so the full meaning of the Hebrew is difficult to capture in Greek.

To fully understand the dialogue between the Pharisee and Yeshua in Mark 12:28-34, it is helpful to know it is the same record as Matthew 22:34-39, although each Gospel has details that the other Gospel does not include. The Pharisee, who was also a “scribe,” that is, an expert in the Torah, asked Yeshua what was the greatest commandment in the Torah. The conversation that followed gives us a context that helps us properly understand and translate the Shema.

The Hebrew Scriptures text, like the Renewed Covenant, is often used to support the Trinity. But that is not what the verse is saying. For one thing, the Jews do not now, and never have, believed in a Trinity, and yet they have used Deuteronomy 6:4 as the rallying call of the nation of Israel since long before the time of Yeshua.

Deuteronomy 6:4 can be, and should be, translated close to the way it is translated in a number of modern versions: “Hear, O Israel! Yehovah is our Elohim, Yehovah alone” (NAB, NLT, NRSV, and the Tanakh; the JPS Bible). The Geneva Bible of 1599, which was the Bible of the Pilgrims and many of our founding Fathers and is a translation generally recognized by scholars as a better translation than the King James Version, has: “Hear O Israel, the Lord our Elohim is Lord only....

Does John 10:30 Support the Trinity?
By: John Schoenheit

“I and the Father are one.” Here in John 10:30, Yeshua says that he and the Father are “one” in purpose, and unified in their goals and actions. Yeshua and the Father operate in perfect unity, and it should be the goal of every Christian to be “one” with them. This is clearly what Yeshua wanted when he prayed, “…that they [Yeshua’ followers] may be one as we are one; I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be perfected into one” (John 17:22-23 Young’s Literal Translation). When Yeshua prayed that his disciples “may be one as we are one,” he did not mean “one in substance,” he meant “one in heart” having unity of purpose.

There is no reason to take John 10:30 to mean what Trinitarian doctrine says it means, that is that Messiah and the Father are of the same “substance” and make up “one Elohim.” To be “one” was a common idiom in the biblical world and it is even still used the same way today when two people say they are “one.” For example, when Paul wrote to the Corinthians about his ministry in Corinth, he said that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, “he who plants and he who waters are one” (1 Cor. 3:8 KJV). In the Greek texts, the wording of Paul is the same as that in John 10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up “one being,” or are somehow “of one substance.” Furthermore, the NIV translates 1 Corinthians 3:8 as “he who plants and he who waters have one purpose.” Why translate the same Greek phrase as “are one” in one place, but as “have one purpose” in another place? The reason is the translator’s bias toward the Trinity. But translating the same Greek phrase in two different ways obscures the clear meaning of Messiah’s statement in John 10:30: Messiah always did the Father’s will; he and Elohim have “one purpose.” The NIV translators would have been exactly correct if they had translated both John 10:30 and 1 Corinthians 3:8 as “have one purpose” instead of only 1 Corinthians 3:8.

Yeshua used the concept of “being one” in other places, and from them, one can see that “one purpose” is what he meant. John 11:52 says Yeshua was to die to make all Elohim’s children “one.” In John 17:11, 21-23, Yeshua prayed to Elohim that his followers would be “one” as he and Elohim were “one.” We believe the meaning is clear: Yeshua was praying that all his followers be one in purpose just as he and Elohim were one in purpose, a prayer that has not yet been answered....

“Elohim is one” vs. “Elohim is three-in-one”
By: Daniel N.N.
Essentially Christianity was supposed to be part or a branch from Judaism; being that Yeshua was a Jew and all of the 12 disciples and many of the 1st Century CE followers were Jews. Christianity had Jewish beginnings, and thus if we claim we worship the same Elohim as the Jews, if we claim we worship Elohim the Father of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it should be that today we should be worshipping the same Elohim as the Jews. But seeing what became of Christianity in the 4th Century CE take over by the Roman government and the exchange of Elohim from one to a combination of three-in-one, it’s easy to see why Jews today and for centuries did not believe in the same god Christians believed in.

Jews today still hold the true identity of the one and only true Elohim (Elohim the Father of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) as only our Father – and not this combination god we created. Ask any Jew practicing Judaism whether Christians are worshipping the same Elohim as the Jews and they will frankly tell you we are not worshipping the same Elohim despite the popular belief we are serving the same Elohim. They may share the same name, but in reality, they are two very different “GODS” as we saw above.

The problem is not that Christians don’t know who Elohim the Father of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is; the problem is we are worshipping the wrong god, a false image, a combination god the church fathers created to represent Elohim the Father of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We have taken the name of the true Elohim and changed him by adding other entities and then claiming that this new god we formed in the 4 th century CE, a triune image is the same as the true Elohim when in fact he is not.

For whatever reason the 4 th century CE bishops changed the image of Elohim, either for political reasons or for the purposes of cultural integration or because they thought Yeshua was actually one and the same person as Elohim because of all the miracles, wonders and signs they had heard he had done; what we know for sure is that they changed the identity of who Elohim is. Maybe like them we might be thinking that in worshipping and uplifting Yeshua to the status of Elohim we are doing the right thing, but then we are not because as we clearly saw in the verses before Yeshua is not the same person as Elohim and there are hundreds of verses in the Bible to prove it.

To begin with, Yeshua did not ask us to make him Elohim, and secondly what we are doing is undermining the glory reserved only for Elohim, the Creator of all things by uplifting a servant he sent (Acts 3:26) to the same status as Elohim who sent him. Elohim clearly says I will not share my glory with another (Isaiah 42:8 or 48:11). So, by worshiping “a trinity god” we have not only created our own god (“Elohim the Father”, “Elohim the Son”, “Elohim the Holy Spirit”) but we have also taken Elohim's glory away and spilt it among two other entities that the Bible clearly does not in any way claim to be Elohim or the same as Elohim or part of Elohim.

Just imagine if the Israelites had lifted up Moses – who was sent to lead the Israelites out of captivity in Egypt – to the status of Elohim or made him equal to Elohim because of all the miracles that Elohim did through him. Wouldn’t we have called them Idolaters? Yet we all know and it is documented in the Bible that the miracles Yeshua performed, Elohim did through him.

“Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Yeshua of Nazareth was a man accredited by Elohim to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which Elohim did among you through him , as you yourselves know.

Acts 2:22

So, judge for yourself, who then should receive the glory, Yeshua a servant who Elohim sent and did the miracles through, or Elohim who sent Yeshua?

Does Elohim Change?

“Elohim who is enthroned from of old, who does not change –...”

Psalm 55:19

Elohim cannot be one, one, one, one, one, one, one... from the beginning of time, for more than 4000 years, then in the middle – after neglecting to tell every prophet he sent – around the 4 th century CE he reveals it to a select group of Roman government appointed Ecumenical Council Bishops that He was a combination god. Bishops who even at the time of their deliberations to try change the identity of who Elohim is, were strongly opposed by their fellow Bishops.

The biggest problem with the triune image of Elohim is that it was never so from the beginning. This is a new concept that was added later – specifically beginning in 325 CE – in the Church. Elohim is not a Elohim of confusion, He is not like man, He does not change, He cannot be “one” and then along the way change to “three-in-one” – a concept that is equally confusing and surrounded with so many unanswered questions, “mysteries” or things that don’t even make sense.....

Psalm 110:1
By: John Schoenheit
Yehovah says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”

Trinitarian commentators frequently argue that “my Lord” in this verse is the Hebrew word adonai, another name for Elohim, and is therefore proof of the divinity of the Messiah. But not only is this not a valid argument, this verse is actually one of the great proofs of the complete humanity of the promised Messiah. The Hebrew word translated “my lord” is adoni (pronounced “Adon nee” [1] ) in the standard Hebrew texts. This word is always used in Scripture to describe human masters and lords, but never Elohim. Unfortunately, most Hebrew concordances and lexicons give only root words, not the word that actually occurs in the Hebrew text. This is one reason why biblical research done by people using only tools such as a Strong’s Concordance will often be limited. [2] While this usually does not affect the interpretation of the text, sometimes it makes a great deal of difference, such as in Psalm 110:1. Focus on the Kingdom reports:

The Bible in Psalm 110:1 actually gives the Messiah the title that never describes Elohim. The word is adoni and in all of its 195 occurrences in the Hebrew Scriptures it means a superior who is human (or occasionally angelic), created and not Elohim. So Psalm 110:1 presents the clearest evidence that the Messiah is not Elohim, but a supremely exalted man. [3]

The difference between adoni (“lord,” always used of men or angels) and adonai (which is used of Elohim and sometimes written adonay) is critical to the understanding of Psalm 110:1. The Hebrew Lexicon by Brown, Driver and Briggs (BDB), considered by many to be the best available, makes the distinction between these words. Note how in BDB the word adoni refers to “lords” that are not Elohim, while another word, adonai, refers to Elohim: [4]

(1) Reference to men: my lord, my master: (adoni)

(a) master: Exod. 21:5 (Covenant code) Gen. 24:12, 44:5 (J, 20t.), 1 Sam. 30:13, 15; 2 Kings 5:3, 20, 22; 6:15;

(b) husband: Gen. 18:12 (J);

(c) prophet: 1 Kings 18:7, 13; 2 Kings 2:19; 4:16, 28; 6:5; 8:5;

(d) prince: Gen. 42:10 (E), Gen. 23:6,11, 15 (P), Gen 43:20; 44:18; 47:18, (J, 12t.); Judges 4:18;

(e) king: 1 Sam. 22:12 (S&K 75t.);

(f) father: Gen. 31:5 (E);

(g) Moses: Exod. 32:22; Num. 11:28; 12:11; 32:26-27 (J); Num. 36:2 (2x) (P);

(h) priest: 1 Sam. 1:15, 26 (2x);

(i) theophanic angel [an angel representing Elohim]: Josh. 5:14; Judges 6:13;

(j) captain: 2 Sam. 11:11;

(k) general recognition of superiority: Gen. 24:18; 32:5; 33:8; 44:7 (J 13t.), Ruth 2:13; 1 Sam. 25:24 (15t.).

(2) Reference to Elohim: [adonai]. Notice that when the word refers to Elohim, it changes from when it refers to men. The vowel under the “n” (the second letter from the left) has changed. [5....

“The Father Is Greater Than I”
Exploring Biblical Subordination
by Sean Finnegan

In the spirit of biblical theology, what follows divides roughly into two halves: the first part presents the biblical evidence for the subordination of the Son to the Father and the latter contains a discussion of the theological implications. After briefly considering the titles “Father” and “Son,” I explore the standard approach to explaining how the Son is ontologically equal to the Father in the face of so many texts that seem to say otherwise: the economic Trinity model. Drawing on the work of Wayne Grudem, I show how the economic Trinity fails to account for subordination texts that apply prior to and after Yeshua’ human career. After exploring Grudem’s case for permanent functional subordination, I present Keith Yandell’s case for why necessary role subordination necessitates ontological subordination. Assuming both Grudem and Yandell are correct, I consider the only apparent solution left—ontological subordination. To do so, I offer preliminary analyses of the standard coequality proof texts, demonstrating that they are either misunderstood or ambiguous with respect to ontological equality. I conclude by summarizing the theologies that ontological subordination eliminates and makes available before presenting some of the advantages of adopting this view.

Biblical Evidence for the Son’s Subordination to the Father

Before addressing the theological considerations raised by subordination texts, we will begin with Scripture itself. Instead of classifying subordination texts into artificial categories, we will observe them in their native canonical environment, allowing them to speak to us on their own terms. Only then, once we’ve allowed the biblical authors to define what kind of subordination they have in mind, can we begin to wrestle with the theological implications.

The Hebrew Scriptures

Let’s begin with the Hebrew Bible. Messianic prophecies can depend on the eye of the beholder and his or her hermeneutical approach. Furthermore, most of them do not bear on our inquiry. Consequently, I’ll limit myself to just a few broadly recognized messianic prophecies that will serve as representative flavor of what the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) anticipated about the subordinate role of the Messiah to the one who would send him.

In the most alluded-to verse in the New Testament (NT), we find Yehovah saying to David’s Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Ps 110.1). As is typical for messianic prophecies, Elohim devises the plan and sees it through. Yehovah tells the Messiah to sit until his enemies are defeated for him. Once this happens Yehovah “sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter” and commands him “Rule in the midst of your enemies!” (Ps 110.2). The reader has no question who is the planner, initiator, and executor here. Yehovah issues the commands, empowers the Messiah to rule, and makes him “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110.4). In another messianic Psalm, the Davidic king reports Elohim’s decree, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me and I will make the nations your heritage…” (Ps 2.7-8). Once again, Yehovah initiates and carries out his plan while the Son obeys him by asking for the nations.

Perhaps no OT prophecies are more pertinent to this topic than the four servant songs of Isaiah. In the first song (Isa 42.1-4), Yehovah chooses, upholds, delights in, and puts his Spirit upon his servant (Isa 42.1). The second one (Isa 49.1-6) has Yehovah calling him “from the womb,” naming him, making his mouth like a sharp sword, hiding him, and ordaining that through his servant “I will be glorified” (Isa 49.1-3). The servant recognizes that Yehovah formed him “from the womb to be his servant” and says, “my Elohim has become my strength” (Isa 49.5). Likewise, in the third song (Isa 50.4-9), the Lord Yehovah initiates and empowers his servant with “the tongue of those who are taught” (Isa 50.4). The servant says, “Yehovah has opened my ear and I was not rebellious” (Isa 50.5). Elohim helps him and vindicates his servant so he will not suffer disgrace or shame (Isa 50.7-8). The roles are clear: Elohim ordains, and his servant fulfills....

The Trinity: Goodness Gracious
By: Skip Moen, Ph.D.
“And Yeshua said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except Elohim alone.” Mark 10:18

Before we look at this verse today, let me ask you this: Does your relationship with Elohim depend on the doctrine we are investigating, or does it continue with or without the doctrinal conclusions? Do you believe in the Father because of what you have learned about theological ideas or do you have a relationship with Him that allows you to question and examine without fear that you will somehow lose your faith?

We may not actually come to conclusions as we investigate, but we will no longer be naive about these things. Is that OK? Can we look, think, ask — and then continue even if we don’t get it all figured out? Or must be come to a “correct” understanding in order for Elohim to still be real to us? Did Abraham believe in the Trinity?

No one – As we have learned, exegesis of a text must not violate the obvious meaning of the text (the Pashat). What the text says is what the text says. It is not some hidden, mystical code that really reveals something entirely different (this is the problem with exegesis of Song of Songs as allegory). In this case, if the text says that no one is good except Elohim, that’s what it means. And, by the way, this is how anyone in the audience would have understood what Yeshua said since it is perfectly compatible with the Jewish view of Elohim’s goodness. To attempt to press this text into another mold violates what it plainly states. Attempts like that should give us great pause (and suspicion).

Unfortunately, the plain meaning of this text is a problem for those who claim that Yeshua is also (simultaneously) equal to Elohim. The idea of the Godhead (the three “persons” in one being) implies that whatever is true of the Godhead is equally simultaneously true of each “person” in the Godhead. If Yeshua is Elohim in this sense, then He cannot at the same time be somehow less than Elohim. This problem is usually handled by the claim that Yeshua is both fully Elohim and fully Man. How exactly that is possible is not and cannot be explained since there is no metaphysics available in human experience to show how one thing can also be completely and fully another thing in its essentials at the same time and in the same space. And we are not talking about relational conditions (like I can be a father and a husband at the same time). We are talking about “persons” and in human thought, a person is a unique entity occupying space and time independently from any other person. So how one “person” can be equally two other “persons” simultaneously is a big problem. Perhaps that’s why Millard Erickson (who defends the Trinity as an essential doctrine) says that this doctrine “is so absurd from a human standpoint that no one would have invented it” and therefore it must have been revealed by Elohim....

47 Reasons Why Our Heavenly Father Has No Equals or “Co-Equals”
By: Spirit & Truth Fellowship.
There are many verses that, if read and believed in a simple, straightforward manner, should clearly convince any unbiased person that Elohim and Yeshua are two completely different and distinct beings. There are also many logical reasons that should cause us to doubt the doctrine of the Trinity. What follows is a list of some reasons to believe that the Father is the only true Elohim of Scripture and has no equal.

Reasons to doubt that the Trinity exists:

(1) The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible.

(2) There is no clear Trinitarian formula in the Bible.

(3) Trinitarians differ greatly in their definitions of the Trinity. The Eastern Orthodox Church differs from the Western traditions regarding the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. Some television evangelists differ greatly from the Reformed Churches in their concept of Messiah’s divinity while he was on earth. Oneness Pentecostals say the classic formula of the Trinity is completely wrong. Yet all these claim that Messiah is Elohim and that the Bible supports their position. Surely if the Trinity were a part of Bible doctrine, and especially if one had to believe it to be saved, it would be clearly defined in Scripture. Yet there is no Trinitarian formula in the Bible and Trinitarians themselves cannot agree on a definition. If one is to believe in the Trinity, how is he to know which definition is correct, since none appears in the Bible?

(4) The Trinitarian contention that “the Father is Elohim, the Son is Elohim, the Holy Spirit is Elohim, and together they make one Elohim” is not in Scripture and is illogical. Trinitarians teach that Yeshua is both 100 percent man and 100 percent Elohim. We say that Elohim can do the impossible, but He cannot perform that which is inherently contradictory. Elohim is the inventor of logic and mathematics, disciplines He created to allow us to get to know Him and His world. It is the very reason why He said that He is “One Elohim,” and why Yeshua said that the witness of two was true and then said that he and His Father both were witnesses. Elohim cannot make a round square, and He cannot make 100 percent +100 percent = 100 percent, without contradicting the laws of mathematics He designed.....

Personification in Scripture - John 1
By: By: Marcia Railton
How many times does it take for a false statement to be repeated before it becomes true? Can you make a myth true if a lot of people believe it long enough?

What would happen if we read the Bible with no prior bias. What if we could vacuum out of our brain all knowledge and impact of the Apostles’ Creed which would be written hundreds of years after Yeshua walked on earth? What if we could read John for what John wanted to say, instead of what the emperor and church leaders over 200 years later decided they wanted it to say?

John, the beloved disciple. He loved Yeshua and Yeshua loved him. Perhaps he knew Yeshua better than anyone. He was there very near the start of Yeshua’ ministry – the fisherman who with his brother James left their fishing nets to follow and learn more about Yeshua. He heard Yeshua’ teachings and was with him when he calmed the storm and healed the sick. His feet had been washed by his master, Yeshua. That horrific day at the foot of the cross, Yeshua entrusted to John the care of Mary, his mother. John ran to the empty tomb and saw with his own eyes the resurrected Yeshua and spent 40 more days listening to and learning from his risen Lord and Savior. And, then Yeshua was taken into heaven in the clouds and John and the others were told Yeshua would return in the same way – but until then they were to be his witnesses. John had a job to do, to tell the world of Yeshua. And so, before his death he carefully writes it down for all the future generations – and we have the New Testament book called the Gospel (good news) of John.

John specifically states near the end of his gospel what his purpose in writing has been. He says Yeshua did much much more than could be recorded, “But these are written that you may believe that Yeshua is the Messiah ( the Anointed One, the Chosen King), the Son of Elohim, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31 NIV – parenthetical definition of “Messiah” added). Obviously, it becomes very important for John to clearly represent Yeshua if life and salvation come from believing in Yeshua. We wouldn’t want to get that wrong, would we? And, we can expect that since this is John’s purpose statement nothing we read in the book of John will contradict what his mission is – to show us who the Messiah, the SON of Elohim is. Remember, we already cleaned out of our brain any future manipulation, twisting or reversal of this term that will develop centuries later. John, and the other New Testament writers (and Old Testament for that matter) never used the term “Elohim the Son”. If it didn’t come from the Bible, where did it come from? It seems we should be concentrating on who and what John meant by the Messiah, the Son of Elohim, rather than trying to use this book to explain Elohim the Son.

John would have been very familiar with Old Testament scripture which exalts and reveres the word of Elohim – the words, plans, thoughts, intent, desire, ideas, as well as the actual spoken word of the Almighty Elohim. The terms word of Elohim and Elohim’s word have also been used to refer to His written word, the Scriptures, in part or whole. Can we worship Elohim, without knowing or trying to understand (to the best of our human ability) what His words, His thoughts, His desires are? It’s almost like voting for a president without having a clue what he stands for, what he has said in speeches, written in papers, what he thinks, believes and intends to do. It sounds dangerous to try to separate a candidate or a Elohim from His words. We should view them as one – Elohim and what He says/plans/intends/thinks/desires are the same.

It is also helpful to know that in Greek all words are assigned a male or female pronoun (similar to Spanish and many other languages in which every noun is known either as a she or a he) and the word “word”, in Greek “logos”, is assigned a male pronoun. It is interesting to note that 8 Bible translations written before the first King James version of 1611 did not use the Greek male pronouns (he and his) when referring to the word in John 1, but used “it” the gender neutral English pronoun given for all the other Greek nouns that were not people (he or she) but objects or ideas (its). Also, in the Greek language they did not use capitalization, so when John wrote “word” he did not write “Word”......

Is the Trinity biblical? Is Yeshua Elohim?
By: Jason Lauterbach
The Trinity is probably the most popular doctrine of Christianity. It has been widely preached within the churches around the world. They even came up with a complex “image” which is supposed to explain their theory of the Trinity. It shows how Yeshua, the Spirit and the Father are “one and the same substance”:

Trinity explained

But is this concept actually biblical? Or is it just another form of interpretation? Did Yeshua really teach us anything about the Trinity? The best way to answer this question is to examine the Bible and especially Yeshua own statements.

The Trinity was INVENTED by the Catholic Church and is therefore not biblical

It is known today that the Trinity was DEVELOPED by the Catholic Church between the years 325 and 675. You can even read it on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Therefore, it is no wonder that neither Yeshua’ disciples, nor Paul, nor the rest of the early Christians knew anything about a Trinity, let alone ever mentioned it. In fact, the belief in a Trinitarian Elohim is merely a pagan custom that was adopted to make Christianity more pleasant to pagans and to dissociate the Christian Church from Judaism.

The Trinitarian Baptismal Formula was subsequently inserted into the Bible by the Catholic Church

The only verse in the Bible that could indicate that a Trinity exists is this one:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 28:19)

But the problem is that this Bible verse was actually added deliberately to the Bible by the Catholic Church. This Bible verse does not exist in the original Hebrew text of the Gospel of Matthew. This means: The Catholic Church has falsified the Bible to support its own interests. The Trinity is therefore not a biblical teaching, but merely invented by the Church. You don’t have to believe me, you can examine it yourself. Here is the original version of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew translated to English:

We should be baptized in the name of Yeshua

In fact, the Bible always says that we should be baptized in the name of Yeshua. And nothing else. Here’s one example:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Yeshua Messiah for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)

However, there is much more evidence that we should only be baptized in Yeshua name: Acts 8:16, 10:48, 19: 5, Romans 6: 3, 1 Corinthians 12: 12-13, Galatians 3:27

Is the Trinity in the Bible? Elohim, the Father, is also the Spirit

Let us start out with Elohim Himself. The first great mistake of the Trinity is to separate Elohim and the Spirit from each other. Because Elohim is the Spirit! Yeshua himself makes this statement. And the Old Testament says nothing else. Already the beginning of the Bible says that the Spirit of Elohim moves over the waters:

In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Elohim moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2)

If this passage didn’t already clarify that Elohim is the Creator AND the Spirit, we should take a look at the 10 Commandments in the Bible. One of these commandments forbids us to make an image of Elohim. To make an image of Him would be like the worship of another, false Elohim. That Elohim tells us that we shouldn’t make any image of Him, clearly shows us that there is no image of Him. He doesn’t resemble anything. Neither in heaven nor on earth. He is the invisible Elohim....

‘Elohim THE SON’ or ‘THE SON OF Elohim’?
By: Greg Deuble
No doubt many will be surprised, even shocked perhaps, that the heading of this article could even hint that the titles “Elohim the Son” and “The Son of Elohim” are not one and the same. For them it is not one or the other. Both designations are equivalent and therefore equally true. For most believers calling Yeshua “the Son of Elohim”, really means Yeshua is “Elohim the Son”. Is this so and does it really matter anyway?

Some years ago I had the very great privilege of meeting and spending some time with a Professor Colin Brown. Colin Brown was the distinguished Professor of Systematic theology at Fuller Seminary and was also the general editor of the prestigious New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Speaking about the identity of Yeshua as the Son of Elohim, D r Brown surprisingly admits,

“The crux of the matter is how we understand the term ‘Son of Elohim’... The title Son of Elohim is not in itself a designation of personal deity or an expression of metaphysical distinctions within the Godhead. Indeed, to be a ‘Son of Elohim’ one has to be a being who is not Elohim! It is a designation for a creature indicating a special relationship with Elohim. In particular, it denotes Elohim’s representative, Elohim’s vice-regent. It is a designation of kingship, identifying the king as Elohim’s Son.” (1).

It will come as a shock to many sincere believers to learn that many of their brightest and most ‘orthodox’ scholars align with this sentiment of Dr Colin Brown’s, that “Indeed, to be a ‘Son of Elohim’ one has to be a being who is not Elohim!”

One of the foremost Anglican scholars of this generation, Bishop N.T. Wright, cautions against reading our post Nicene creeds back into the Biblical revelation of Yeshua:

“At a popular level ... the phrase ‘son of Elohim’ is read as if the disciples, and indeed Caiaphas at the trial, understood it in the fully Nicene sense ... We must stress that in the first century the regular Jewish meaning of this title [‘son of Elohim’] had nothing to do with an incipient trinitarianism; it referred to the king as Israel’s representative. Israel was the son of YHWH: the king who would come to take her destiny on himself would share this title.” (2)

We will shortly demonstrate the truth of Wright’s claim that in the Bible the description ‘the Son of Elohim’ “had nothing to do with an incipient trinitarianism”, but rather “referred to the king as Israel’s representative.” In other words, the title is not a description of one who is Elohim Himself! Ah la Dr Brown.

James D.G. Dunn has been a NT scholar in the vanguard of Christological studies. In his landmark book Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation Dunn writes that in our understanding of the identity of Yeshua we must start with the title ‘the Son of Elohim’, since such language was always prominent in early Christian talk of Yeshua, and indeed was the central and decisive Christological title. He asks, “So what did the first Christians (and Yeshua himself?) mean when they spoke of Yeshua as Elohim’s Son, or Son of Elohim, or Son of the Father?”

Dunn in company with Brown and Wright then advises us to shut out the voices of the early church Fathers, the Councils and the dogmaticians down the centuries in case they drown out, and indeed say something different to, the NT witness itself. (3)

Dunn goes on to write this amazing conclusion that,

“Perhaps the most striking of all is the surprising absence within the range of materials surveyed (he means both Biblical and intertestamental sources such as the Apochrypha and Dead Sea scrolls) of the idea of a son of Elohim or divine individual who [literally] descends from heaven to earth to redeem men ...” (p. 18).

Karl-Josef Kuschel has produced a classic study on the question of whether the Son of Elohim literally existed in heaven before his appearance on earth. His conclusion also is,

“The title ‘Son of Elohim’ used for Yeshua has its origin in the Israelite royal ideology”... [then he quotes the Tubingen OT scholar Herbert Haag with approval] saying, ‘In the Old Testament and early Judaism ‘son of Elohim’ signifies creatureliness, election and intimacy’ and is not intended to signify divinity.” (4)

Again, shades of Dr Colin Brown, Wright, and Dunn where to be a Son of Elohim one has to be a being who is not Elohim!

Another expresses his concerns this way,

“How can Yeshua be the Son of Elohim and also be called ‘Elohim’ at the same time? I was troubled by the word Son. It suggests he was born and had a beginning. Since Elohim is eternal and does not have a beginning or end, how could Yeshua be Elohim?” (5)

This sample of serious scholarship is not a roster of light-weights and could be multiplied many times over. They are not theological cowboys, lone rangers or quacks. They are from the fold of evangelical and respected “orthodoxy”. To ignore such scholarly advice is to rush down a road to possible deception in our understanding of Yeshua, the Son of Elohim...

‘The Divine Name?
By: Skip Moen
And Elohim said to Moses, I am the one being. And he said, Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, The one being had sent me to you. Exodus 3:14 LXX

I am the one being – Hinneni. “Here I am” is the common Hebrew expression for humbly identifying oneself in conversation. There is a Greek equivalent. Ego eimi is the Greek expression for self-identification. We find it in the mouth of Judas (Matthew 26:25), Paul (1 Timothy 1:15) and John the Baptist (John 1:27). Notice that the translation of this Exodus passage in Greek (the LXX) employs ego eimi. But ego eimi is not the divine name. That’s why the translators of the Hebrew text in the LXX added the Greek words ho on, rendering the expression “I am the one” or “I am the one being.” The addition of ho on was necessary in order to distinguish the common identifier from the special case associated with Yehovah.

Here’s the point. Ego eimi is no grounds at all for the claim that when Yeshua uses it he is declaring himself to be Elohim. Consistent exegesis of the phrase would require that John, Paul and Judas were also making the claim and that is obviously not true. And the Greek text of the New Testament does not add ho on. So why do some theologians suggest that in this instance Yeshua is employing the divine name? Because they read the text according to a theological commitment. What’s even more important is that the Greek rendition of the divine name is not ego eimi. Furthermore, “I am that I am” is not the proper translation of the Exodus passage from Hebrew. The Hebrew is a future tense, so that the statement from Yehovah “was not intended as a name, but as a declaration of the certain fulfillment of all the promises of Elohim.”[1] We can think of this in the context of Moses’ request for Elohim to provide him with proof that he is actually being commissioned. Yehovah replies, in effect, “After you have done what I ask you will know that I sent you because you will end up right here again.” The “name” is an announcement of fulfillment. As we have noted in the past, the Paleo-Hebrew combination doesn’t yield Yehovah. The Hebrew is ehyeh asher ehyeh, literally Aleph-Hey-Vav-Hey). It’s difficult if not impossible to conflate the Hebrew announcement with the Greek identifier.

What did Yeshua mean when he used ego eimi? How about this: “I am the one you are speaking to (about).” That’s precisely the use of the term in John 4 when he addressed the woman at the well. He claims to be the Messiah, not to be Elohim. Isn’t it likely that the same logic should be used when we read the other so-called “I AM” statements? Would any Greek reader in the first century (let alone any Hebrew speaker) think that ego eimi was a divine appellation? Obviously, not. So we must ask, “Why do some Christian apologists use this argument for the divinity of the Messiah?” The idea started somewhere. Do you know where?

[1] John Pye Smith, Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, p. 161.

The Rock That Followed Them Was Messiah

There are a handful of verses that are used by some to try and prove the preexistence of Yeshua, which, according to modern orthodoxy, equates with Yeshua being Elohim. One of those verses is found in Paul’s first letter to the church in Corinth:

1 Corinthians 10:1-5 (NASB) For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Messiah. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them Elohim was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness. (emphasis added)

Those who believe in the preexistence of Yeshua interpret verse 4 to mean that Yeshua literally followed the Israelites in the wilderness. But is this what Paul intended to communicate to his first century audience? We will explore the context of this passage, as well as Paul’s Christology as stated in 1 Corinthians, to arrive at a proper exegesis.

Context

Considering the context of a passage, whether it is modern or ancient, is vital to understanding the meaning of an author’s words. What is the context in which Paul’s statement about Yeshua occurs? What is the subject matter he is addressing? The answer is found in the preceding chapter.

In Corinthians 9:23-27, the apostle says that he does “all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.”[1] Moreover, Paul states that he disciplines his body and makes it his slave, so that, after he has preached to others, he might not be disqualified.[2] He realizes the possibility, though tragically ironic, that he might personally fail to attain to the same resurrection in the coming kingdom that he has been preaching to others. Paul’s solution, therefore, is to not only preach the gospel to others, but to himself as well.

By way of exhortation, Paul uses athletic events, that of running and boxing, as analogies to instruct his readers to likewise persevere in the faith. Just as athletes must persevere when competing, lest they be disqualified, believers are to persevere lest they fail to gain the imperishable prize of eternal life found in Messiah Yeshua. His point is that some will compete but to no avail. They will not attain victory because their disobedience will disqualify them.

Paul continues this theme in the passage under consideration. He reminds his audience that their fathers all experienced the presence and power of Elohim during the days of Moses:

1 Corinthians 10:1-4a (NASB) For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink…

They all were under the guidance of the supernatural cloud that led them through the wilderness.[3] They all experienced Elohim’s supernatural deliverance from the pursuing Egyptian army when He parted the Red Sea.[4] What’s more, the Israelites all ate from the spiritual food and drink, that is, the miraculous provision of manna from heaven and water from a rock, that Elohim provided during their years in the wilderness.[5] One could say, therefore, that because Elohim worked through His mediator Moses, the Israelites were in effect, baptized into Moses. And yet, even though all of Elohim’s people experienced these things, He was not pleased with most of them....

The Trinity Delusion: Hebrews 1:8

But concerning the Son, "Your throne O Elohim is forever and ever."

The Trinitarian Claim

Trinitarians claim Elohim the Father addresses Yeshua as "Elohim" in this verse.

The Claim vs. The Facts

The facts show that the Trinitarian interpretation and translation is impossible and the writer is rather describing how the exalted Yeshua now has the authority of Elohim's throne.

The Problems with the Trinitarian Claim

Hebrews 1:8 is a quotation of Psalm 45:6. The above translation of Hebrews 1:8 is another example of Trinitarian translation bias. Here they outrageously try to claim that Elohim the Father is addressing Yeshua as "O Elohim." This translation crudely violates the context for the sake of Trinitarian tradition.

1. The Greek Grammar and Intentional Translation Bias

Concerning Hebrews 1:8, Trinitarian apologists are somewhat pretentious and would have you believe their "O Elohim" translation is the only possible translation. So they always cherry pick the vocative "O Elohim" translation for their apologetic agenda.* However, Trinitarian Greek translation scholars openly admit the Greek grammar does indeed allow for a different translation. Trinitarian scholars admit that "Elohim is your throne (or Your throne is Elohim) is grammatically correct (see Robertson or Westcott for example). Some of these scholars also concede that it makes theological sense. This is also evidenced by a review of various major translations. The RSV translates Psalm 45:6 as "Your divine throne endures forever and ever." The NRSV footnote for Psalm 45:6 reads, "Your throne is a throne of Elohim" and the Hebrews 1:8 footnote reads, "Elohim is your throne."

(Note: * Some grammarians have even argued that the vocative is an artificial category created by translators. In other words, they argue that it is a category which is an English speaking convention which would have never been conceived in a Koine Greek speaker's mind.)

The word "throne" in Scripture

With the exception of a few informed scholars, Trinitarians generally seem to dismiss the "Elohim is your throne," or "Your throne is Elohim," translation because they can't imagine how Elohim could be Yeshua Christ's throne. Some even conclude this is silly because, they object, it would have Elohim being used as Yeshua' chair (throne). However, the ignorance is actually their own. The problem is that they are equating the word "throne" with a chair to sit upon. This notion comes from ignorance concerning the use of the word "throne" in the Scripture.

David and Solomon sat on "the throne of Yehovah" (1 Chronicles 29:23; 2 Chronicles 9:8) over the Kingdom of Elohim (1 Chronicles 28:5).. This does not mean they sat on Elohim's chair in heaven. To sit on a throne means one assumes the authority signified by that throne. When David and Solomon sat on the throne of Yehovah it meant they were given the right to execute the authority of Elohim's throne over the nation of Israel, that is, Elohim's authority over Israel. Elohim promised David that He would establish his throne forever (2 Samuel 7:13,16) but it doesn't mean Elohim is establishing a chair. It means Elohim will establish David's Kingdom authority. When Benaiah says, "may He be with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my Lord King David!" (1 Kings 1:36), he isn't suggesting that Solomon will have a better chair to sit on than David. When Gabriel informs Mary that Elohim will give baby Yeshua the throne of his father David (Luke 1:32), he wasn't suggesting that Elohim was going to give a chair to Yeshua. The word "throne" is a reference to kingly authority. Also see Colossians 1:16 were "thrones" are in a list of varies authorities. When Yeshua said he sat down with his Father on His throne (Revelation 3:21), the main idea is not that Yeshua squeezed up beside the Father on the Father's chair in heaven. The point is that Yeshua assumed the authority signified by that throne and was given the right to execute his Elohim's authority. And this is the concept expressed by the translations, "Elohim is your throne," or "Your throne is Elohim."

It is important to recognize how the word "throne" is used in the Bible and for the reader to see that the Trinitarian objection to the "Elohim is your throne" translation is implicitly based on a false premise. A physical throne symbolizes kingly authority. The word "throne" at Hebrews 1:8 is being used to refer to authority not where Yeshua is physically sitting. This is made obvious by the immediate context, "...the scepter of your Kingdom..." To be given a throne is a way of saying someone is given kingly authority. So a translation which says, "Your throne is Elohim" would not be saying, "The place where you sit is Elohim" as Trinitarians are necessarily presuming in their objection. Rather, this language would be a way of saying either: (1) Yeshua' authority is Elohim" (Elohim is over Yeshua in terms of authority), or (2) Yeshua' authority is Elohim's authority granted by Elohim to Yeshua to execute (just as Joseph's authority was Pharaoh's authority). In context, the latter of the two would make the most sense. When it is clearly understood how the word "throne" is being used here, and in places like Luke 1:32, it is also clearly seen why the Trinitarian objection to the "Elohim is your throne" translation is feeble at best.

2. Psalm 45:6

Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quotation of the Septuagint translation of Psalm 45:6-7. The 45th Psalm celebrates an ancient Davidic king's marriage to a foreign princess from Tyre in Phoenicia. This event occurred a several centuries before Yeshua was born. The identity of the king in question is uncertain but most scholars think it is probably Solomon. So if we translated the Greek text as Trinitarians do, it would look like the following:

You are the fairest of the sons of men. Grace is poured upon your lips; therefore Elohim has blessed you forever. Gird your sword on your thigh, O mighty one, In your splendor and your majesty! And in your majesty ride forth victoriously, for the cause of truth and meekness and righteousness; Let your right hand teach you awesome things. Your arrows are sharp; the peoples fall under you. Your arrows are in the heart of the King's enemies. Your throne, O Elohim, is forever and ever. A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore Elohim, your Elohim, has anointed you with the oil of joy above your fellows. All your garments are fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia; out of ivory palaces stringed instruments have made you glad. Kings' daughters are among your noble ladies; at your right hand stands the queen in gold from Ophir. Listen, O daughter, give attention and incline your ear: Forget your people and your father's house; Then the King will desire your beauty. Because he is your Lord, bow down to him. The daughter of Tyre will come with a gift; the rich among the people will seek your favor. The King's daughter is all glorious within; her clothing is interwoven with gold. She will be led to the King in embroidered work; the virgins, her companions who follow her, will be brought to you. They will be led forth with gladness and rejoicing; they will enter into the King's palace. In place of your fathers will be your sons; you shall make them princes in all the earth. I will cause your name to be remembered in all generations; therefore the peoples will give you thanks forever and ever. (Psalm 45).

So shall we conclude that Solomon was being called "Elohim." To claim that Yeshua is being called "Elohim" at Hebrews 1:8 is to also claim Solomon is being called "Elohim" at Psalm 45:6. That just isn't going to make any sense. Or perhaps we should add Solomon to the Trinity and end up with a Quadrinity? The honest person will see the seriousness of the problem here....

Hebrews 1:8, Whose Throne?

But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O Elohim, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.

Both from the immediate context and with the presence of translation problems, there are quite a few reasons why we do not believe that this verse is not calling Yeshua “Elohim” nor should it be translated, “Your throne, O Elohim, is forever and ever.”

1. First, evidence that the psalm is speaking of a human king is in Psalm 45:7, which says, “You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore Elohim, your Elohim, has anointed you with the oil of exultation above your peers.” That the text calls Elohim, “your Elohim,” i.e., the king’s Elohim, shows that the king is inferior to Elohim. “Elohim” does not have a Elohim. It would make no sense to be calling the king “Elohim” here, as the clear biblical teaching is that there is one Elohim (1 Cor. 8:6; John 5:44; 17:3), so if Yeshua is the one true Elohim, how could he have a Elohim?

2. The context of both Hebrews 1 and Psalm 45 makes it clear that this king being referred to is not the supreme Elohim because this king has been blessed by Elohim (Psa. 45:2), has a wife (Psa. 45:9), and simply put, he is a human king (Psa. 45:1, 5, 13, 15), not the supreme Elohim. We also know this passage in Psalm 45 is not originally about Yeshua because the king has a wife. The queen is said to be a woman of foreign descent, possibly from Tyre (Ps. 45:12) who was told to forget her own people and father’s house (Ps. 45:10), and she and her husband have an ivory house (Ps. 45:8). Those facts have led some commentators to suggest that this psalm is referring to the marriage of the Phoenician princess Jezebel to King Ahab, who had an ivory palace (1 Kings 22:39). But that is untenable since Ahab does not fit the characteristics of a Elohimly king that are so prominent in the psalm. Solomon, who also married foreign women and lived in luxury, is a much more likely candidate.

Thus, the original quote in Psalm 45:6 is not actually referring to Yeshua, but originally refers to an Old Testament king, but also finds later application in Yeshua. If the verse is calling the king “Elohim,” then that would make both Solomon and Yeshua Elohim, which is untenable, and there is no internal reason to apply Psalm 45:6 to the Messiah without verse 7 applying to the same king. That would be eisegesis, reading into the verse to make it fit one’s theology. If the psalm is calling the Messiah “Elohim,” then the Davidic king is also Elohim. So, if a Trinitarian is using this verse to prove Yeshua is Elohim, it actually would prove too much and make Solomon Elohim too....

Theological Correctness
By: Skip Moen, Ph.D.
Are You not from time everlasting, Yehovah, my Elohim, my Holy One? We will not die. Habakkuk 1:12a NASB

We – What is a tiqun sofrim? As you might guess, it is a written restoration, a place where a scribe corrected the text because of the theological implication. In this case, the Masoretic text reads “we,” but this has been corrected in order to avoid associating “Elohim” with “death.” The text should read, “You will not die,” but that was viewed as scandalous, so the scribes changed the text to read “we will not die.” Unfortunately, that little change altered Habakkuk’s comparison.

Habakkuk contrasts the gods of the pagan Chaldeans with the Elohim of Israel. He points out that even if the Chaldeans are used by Elohim to bring judgment on mankind, their attribution to their own gods is a grand mistake. Their gods are idols, nothing more. The real Elohim, the true Elohim of Israel, is behind their success because it fits His plan, not theirs. So, Habakkuk reminds his audience that the true Elohim is from everlasting (meqedem). Unlike the pagan gods of Israel’s enemies, He does not die.

But the Masoretes didn’t like even the suggestion that Elohim might die, so they altered the text. As a result, it appears that Habakkuk is saying that his audience won’t die. Unfortunately, that wasn’t true. The result makes us think that Habakkuk made a false prediction. Israel did fall to the Chaldeans. Many died. But not Elohim. Had the Masoretes left the text alone, we would have had a powerful statement of Elohim’s eternal existence and His everlasting involvement. As it is, we get a watered-down mistake.

But there’s something else we can learn from the hyper-religious consciousness of the Masoretes. It’s this: Elohim is not subject to the category of death. The two ideas do not mix. There is no possibility that death has anything to do with Elohim. And that has a somewhat serious implication for the Christian view of Yeshua’s sacrifice on the cross. If Habakkuk is allowed to say what he intended to say, then the claim that Yeshua as the second person of the Trinity died on the cross is theological nonsense. Elohim does not die!

Yes, of course, the Trinitarian view is that the man Yeshua died but the Elohim Yeshua didn’t, as if somehow just saying that erases the illogical and irrational assertion. Fully Elohim and fully man? Okay, so how does the “fully man” die and the “fully Elohim” not die and still be one person, not two? And how does this doctrine find any correspondence in the Tanakh’s view of Elohim?

- Return Home -

This Site was created by
Messianic Teacher Glenn Kay
Copyright © 2023 Grafted-In Ministries