In an attempt to support
the post-biblical concept of the (creedal) Trinity, anti-Mormon author Daniel
G. Thompson argues that the following texts prove that Jesus is numerically
identical to the “One God” as understood by Trinitarianism:
Matthew 1:22-23, “Behold,
a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall his
name Emmanuel, which being interpreted, is God with us.”
1 Timothy 3:16, “And
without controversy great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in the
flesh.” (Daniel G. Thompson, Witness to Mormons in Love: The
Mormon Scrapbook [rev ed.: Createspace, 2014], 53)
In a previous post, I discussed the author’s poor grasp of
exegesis vis-à-vis John 3:1-7 and the topic of baptism. Sadly, in this section,
there is no attempt at any exegesis whatsoever; furthermore, it only shows the
poor (read: non-existent) scholarly abilities of the author.
Matt 1:22-23
The very fact that a name has a divine name element (theophoric)
does not mean that the holder of that name is numerically identical to the One
God. For instance, consider the following names in the Hebrew Bible that
contain divine name elements:
אֵלִיָּהוּ Eli'yah[u]
(KJV: Elijah), meaning "Yahweh is my El/God."
אֱלִישָׁע Elisha,
meaning "God is salvation."
יְשַׁעְיָהוּ
Yesha'yah[u] (KJV: Isaiah), meaning "Salvation of Yah"
Of course, none of the individuals with these, and similar, names
were considered deities, let alone numerically identical to the one true God.
Ultimately, the apologists' "argument" is similar to
Jehovah's Witnesses who claim that the archangel Michael and Jesus are
numerically identical, as Michael's name in Hebrew means "one who is like
God"--it displays a lack of knowledge of biblical onomasticon. Indeed, one
could, using the "logic" of Thompson, "argue" that the
angel Gabriel and Jesus are numerically identical, as the Hebrew גַּבְרִיאֵל means
"man of God," with the אֵל (God/El)
element denoting Gabriel's deity and being a "man of God" affirming
his humanity, it affirms the hypostatic union, as defined in AD 451 at
Chalcedon. Of course, such is utterly absurd, but such is taking the
"logic" of the author to its obvious conclusions.
One should also note Exo 23:20-21 where the angel of the Lord is said
to have Yahweh’s name “in” him:
Behold, I send an angel before
thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have
prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not
pardon your transgressions for my name is in him.
1 Tim 3:16
It is universally accepted, outside the King James Only movement,
that 1 Tim 3:16 should read “he who,” not “God.” The earliest manuscripts of
this verse reads ος
“he
who,” not θς, an abbreviation
(nomina sacra) of θεος,
the Greek word for “God,” something that even conservative New Testament
scholars admit (e.g. Philip Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary
[Tyndale House Publishers, 2008]).
It is also generally accepted this was a theological corruption by
proto-Orthodox scribes to counter Docetism, an early Christological heresy that
stated that, while appearing to be human, Jesus was not truly human but “only”
divine,” a heresy condemned in the New Testament itself (cf. 1 John 4:1-3).
Such scribes changed the omicron (o) to a theta (θ) to support their Christology that God (the Son)
became truly human (or “flesh” [Greek: σαρξ]).
For a full-length discussion of this and other variants, see Bart D. Ehrman, The
Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological
Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford University Press,
1993).
One should note the following
from the NET Bible, produced by Evangelical Protestants who, like Thompson,
accept the Trinity dogma:
The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (אc Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88 pc] 1739 1881 vgms) read θεός (theos, "God") for ὅς (hos,
"who"). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second
correctors of some of the other MSS tend to conform to the medieval standard,
the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the discussion. A few MSS
have ὁ θεός (so 88 pc), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός.On
the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 pc Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and
virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (ho,
"which"), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not
easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally,
there is no question as to what should be considered original: The Alexandrian
and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence
is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally?
"Who" is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also
is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably
the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the
rest of 1Ti 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a six-strophed hymn. As
such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without
syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent
for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not
too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is
taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author's style
(cf. also Col 1:15; Phi 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun
begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand,
with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the
relative pronoun: θ-̰σ vs. οσ. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for
the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would
go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous
relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς.
How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd
century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or
as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the
same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to
influence all the rest of the MSS it came in contact with (including MSS
already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after
the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative
pronoun is certainly a "correction" of ὅς, conforming the gender to
that of the neuter μυστήριον (musterion, "mystery"). What is
significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses
have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was
apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the "Western"
text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely
in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt
in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand
the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it
appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite
compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, "no uncial
(in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός;
all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the
last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός." Thus, the
cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special
pleading in this case. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is
self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the
relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ.
They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics
introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός
(Christos, "Christ") or κύριος (kurios, "Lord"), since the
text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a
proclamation of his deity.
One appreciates the intellectual integrity of the authors of the
above note; would that most critics of the Restored Gospel would follow their
more scholarly co-religionists. Sadly, this is reflective of the lack of
meaningful exegesis and scholarship in Thompson’s book.
Trinitarians such as Thompson
and others are in a rather unenviable position of having to defend a position that
is opposed to the historical-grammatical exegesis of the Bible, but also one that is contradicted by
logic and mathematics. As I explained in a recent email to a Reformed
Protestant living here in Cork, Ireland:
[L]ogically, one has to conclude a plurality of
Gods, unless one wishes to explicitly reject at least one of premises a-c from
the following:
A. There are at least three divine persons.
B. Every divine person is God
C. If every a = b, there cannot be fewer B's than A's
D. Conclusion: There are at least three Gods.
B. Every divine person is God
C. If every a = b, there cannot be fewer B's than A's
D. Conclusion: There are at least three Gods.
I am aware of the "three persons/one
being" or "three 'whos' in the one 'what" idea--however,
Trinitarianism also states:
Jesus = God
Father = God
Spirit = God
Jesus is not the person of the Father; the Father
is not the person of the Spirit; the Spirit is not the person of the Son
Numerically, there is only one God
God = Father, Son, and Spirit
To put it into logical language:
Jesus = x
Father = x
Spirit = x
Numerically, there is only one x
Only by using one definition of "God"
when speaking of the tri-une "being" of God and another definition of
"God" when predicated upon the persons of the Trinity can one get
away from a logical/mathematical impossibility (3 "x"'s equalling 1
"x") or a form of Modalism, where the Father, Son, and Spirit are the
same person. The latter is condemned (rightfully) as heresy and antithetical to
the biblical texts by Trinitarianism; the former, however, is not allowed, as
the various person are said to be numerically identical to the
"One God." This is not a "mystery" (something that cannot
be understood perfectly, like the atonement of Jesus Christ), but a logical,
mathematical, and I argue, a biblical-exegetical impossibility.
. . .
The mainstream Trinitarian position is very
marginal within modern Old and New Testament scholarship. How scholars define
"monotheism," for example, is not how Trinitarianism *necessitates*
it to be defined as; consider the following from a recent monograph:
I intentionally used the term “monotheism” with the
full realisation of its controversial nature in scholarly discussions. I do not
use this word with the understanding that there are no other spiritual beings,
and I do not intend to imply that the gods of the nations do not exist (I read
Isa 40-55 as hyperbolic expression). Rather, and I find that this view accords
with the canon, by “monotheism” I mean that there is one Creator who reigns
supreme over all, and this Creator is YHWH. The supposed “gods” do not rival
the status of ‘elohim; instead, they are SHDYM [goat demons] (Deut 32:17). I
prefer the word “monotheism” over “henotheism” because I do not believe that
this latter word accurately captures the emic view of the canon; the Lord is
not one God among many gods. The Lord reigns supreme over all. (Terrance R.
Wardlaw, Jr. Elohim with the Psalms: Petitioning the Creator to Order
Chaos in Oral-Derived Literature [London: Bloomsbury, 2015], 37 n. 67;
comment in square brackets my own).
Additionally, even those within your own Evangelical
camp are now coming to the realisation that their position does injustice to
the biblical texts, such as the long-refuted claim that the elohim ("gods")
in Pa 82:6 are human judges, not actual (plural) gods. Note the following from
three Evangelicals in a conservative Protestant commentary series on the Old
Testament:
Psalm 82: King of the Gods Psalm 82 places the
modern reader in a very unfamiliar world. Modern thinkers hold to a
monotheistic theology, meaning there is only one god and the gods of others
simply do not exist. Ancient Israel did not have the same definition of
monotheism. Indeed, for them not only did other gods exist, but these gods were
active in the world.[1] This psalm gives us a window on the assembly of the
gods, a place where the gods are gathered to make decisions about the world.[2]
This council is part of the greater ancient Near Eastern mythology and would be
a familiar image to ancient Israelites.[3] [1] A multitude of texts
demonstrate this belief, e.g. Exod. 20:3-6; Deut. 4:15-20; josh. 24:14-15. In
addition, many prophetic texts extol the people to love God alone and not go
after other gods, e.g., Jer. 8:19; Hos. 11:2. In later texts, the theology
seems to move more toward an exclusive monotheism; see. Isa. 41:21-24 . . . Verses
6-7 place the gods on equal footing with the humans. They have
lost their immortality, hence their god status[4]. This ability for the Go of
Israel to demote the others speaks of the power of the king of the council. The
king alone can control all of the other gods. This divine trial also
demonstrates the fairness of Israel’s god. This god is not capricious, but
sentences the other gods for their refusal to act in ways that reflect the
values of God’s kingdom . . . [Psalm 89:5-8] set the state in the heavenly
council. In vv.5 and 8, God is praised by the heavens for
God’s faithfulness, and this certainly continues the theme of
vv.1-4 while also broadening God’s faithfulness to the whole world. The
questions in v.6 are rhetorical, just as in Isa. 40:18 and Pss. 18:31 and
77:13, followed by the declaration of God’s clear supremacy among the gods
(v.7). God is not only the God of Israel but is the chief god of the
council, and all others bow before the Lord. [2] See 1 Kgs. 22:19-23;
Job 1:6-12; Zech. 1:7-17. [3] See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew
Epic, pp. 177-90. [4] The Gilgamesh Epic is a story that concerns
Gilgamesh’s quest for immortality that will make him a god, indicating the
importance of immortality in ancient myth. (Nancy Declaissé-Walford, Rolf A.
Jacobson, and Beth Laneel Tanner, The Book of Psalms [New
International Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2014],
641, 642, 680).
