Identifying Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit
SOURCE OF INFORMATION
AND AUTHORSHIP:
www.yrm.org
For
nearly 2,000 years the intrinsic nature of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit has
been in dispute. To remedy this problem the Roman Church convened councils and
passed several creeds, which continue to influence modern worship today. But do
these creeds reflect the truth of Scripture? To answer this crucial question,
this booklet will explore the historical and biblical accuracy of these
doctrines, including the Trinity, oneness belief, and the preexistence of
Yahshua the Messiah.
An Early Paradigm Shift
The main inducement for
interpreting the essence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in a triune deity
came through Greek and Roman cults. The early church constituted Jews and
proselytes to the Jewish faith. With the introduction of gentile converts came
a shift in thought and theology. Unlike the Jews, who viewed the worship of
Yahweh in a monotheistic manner, the gentiles were polytheistic, worshiping
many false gods.
Besides the monotheism versus
polytheism issue, there was another key distinction between Jew and gentile.
While the Jews emphasized their relationship with Yahweh, the Greeks were more
concerned with His essence. This difference in emphasis along with the
burgeoning numbers of gentile converts led to understanding Yahweh from a
Greco-Roman perspective.
According to authors Alan Johnson
and Robert E. Webber, “The view of God in the ancient church passed through the
Greco-Roman grid. Consequently the emphasis in this early period of the church
is not so much on the relationship of God to the world as on God as he is in
himself” (What Christians Believe, A Biblical and Historical Summary,
p. 82).
The authors go on to state,
“The issue the church faced in the pagan Hellenistic culture was to affirm both
the unity and the diversity of God in the midst of a polytheistic culture. On
the one hand, the church needed to remain faithful to the Old Testament
emphasis on the oneness of God. On the other hand, it could not ignore the New
Testament revelation of diversity. So the questions were: How do you maintain
the unity of God without losing the diversity? How do you maintain the
diversity of God without falling into polytheism? While the church was
eventually to affirm both the unity and the diversity of God in the creeds,
various groups in the second and third century overemphasized either the unity
or the diversity” (p. 83).
The authors explain here the overwhelming task
that the Church had in the first few centuries. As gentile-minded believers
were coming in they had to please both them and the Jewish converts who
established the early assembly in the New Testament. Many Jews were arguing
that a convert to Messiah had to become a Jew first through physical
circumcision, which is the controversy inActs 15.
So what was the church to do?
Should they continue to maintain the monotheistic beliefs of the Jews or change
their theology to more closely align with the many new gentile converts? At the
root of this question was the essence of the Father and Son. Were they one and
the same, were they distinct beings, were they co-equal, were they co-eternal,
was one subservient to the other?
To answer these critical
questions, the church went through several stages of meetings (counsels) and
developed several creeds until they solidified the position of the church. The
major advocates of each side were Arius (250 CE – 336 CE) and the bishop
Athanasius (296-336). While there were other arguments and contributors, the
positions that the men proposed became the two competing views of the church.
Arius’ Hebraic View
Arius was a prominent priest
in Alexandria, Egypt. He chose an ascetic life, rejecting the many pleasures of
the world. From historical accounts, Arius was a man of devotion and sincere
motives. He received his religious training at Antioch, the first location of
the early assembly. Unlike Alexandria, which was dominated by the Greek mind,
Antioch maintained a Hebraic view, including a strict monotheistic
interpretation of Scripture. He was taught under Lucian of Antioch, a
well-known teacher and martyr of the early church; some blamed Lucian for
Arius’ opposition to the Trinity.
Arius held that the Father
and Son were distinct from one another and that the Father was superior to the
Son. He also maintained that the Son pre-existed with the Father and rejected
the belief that the Son was co-eternal with the Father. He maintained that the
Messiah was created by His Father Yahweh. For these beliefs he was branded a
heretic and suffered persecution.
Author Wayne Gruden concurs,
“Arius taught that god the Son was at one point created by God the Father, and
that before that time the Son did not exist, nor did the Holy Spirit, but the
Father only. Thus, though the Son is a heavenly being who existed before the
rest of creation and who is far greater than all the rest of creation, he is
still not equal to the Father in all his attributes—he may even be said to be
‘like the Father’ or ‘similar to the Father’ in his nature, but he cannot be
said to be ‘of the same nature’ as the Father” (Systematic Theology,
p. 243).
Athanasius for the Opposition
While historical records are
sketchy, records show that Athanasius was born in Alexandria and was mentored
under Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria. From an early age he showed promise
in the church. As a result, he was ordained a deacon in the Roman Church before
age 30.
Because of these early
achievements, Athanasius was instrumental at influencing the most important
council in the history of the church. “Although many early church leaders
contributed to the gradual formulation of a correct doctrine of the Trinity,
the most influential by far was Athanasius. He was only twenty-nine years old
when he came to the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, not as an official member but
as secretary to Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria. Yet his keen mind and
writing ability allowed him to have an important influence on the outcome of
the Council, and he himself became Bishop of Alexandria in 328” (Ibid,
p. 245).
Athanasius understood the
relationship between the Father and Son much differently from his opponent,
Arius. He believed that the Father and Son were co-equal and of the same
substance. According to author Earl E. Cairns he “insisted that Christ had
existed from all eternity with the Father and was of the same essence (homoousios)
as the Father, although He was a distinct personality. He insisted upon these
things because he believed that, if Christ were less than He had stated Him to
be, He could not be the Saviour of men. The question of man’s eternal salvation
was involved in the relationship of the Father and the son according to
Athanasius. He held that Christ was coequal, coeternal and consubstantial with
the Father…” (Christianity Through the Centuries, pp. 142-143).
Political Unity the Overriding Concern
Because of the competing
beliefs of Arius and Athanasius, many were concerned about not only the
stability of the church but of the empire, including Emperor Constantine.
Authors Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting in their book, The
Doctrine of the Unity, describe this deep fear: “The marked ideological
differences between Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were matters of concern to
the Roman Emperor. The power of religion played so great a role in the
stability of the fourth-century Roman Empire that religious turmoil had to be
brought under control by the State, lest it disrupt political unity.
“Constantine determined to
resolve the dispute by means of the following identical, conciliatory letters
sent to each faction, urging reconciliation of differences: ‘Constantine the
Victor, Supreme Augustus, to Alexander and Arius…How deep a wound has not only
my ears but my heart received from the report that divisions exist among
yourselves…Having inquired carefully into the origin and foundation of these
differences, I find their cause to be of a truly insignificant nature, quite
unworthy of such bitter contention’” (pp. 149-150).
Emperor Constantine simply
wanted political unity in his empire and he failed to grasp the magnitude of
what was being discussed. This is consistent with his heathen background,
wherein both pagan Greek and Roman cults’ theological differences were
inconsequential. The overriding concern was only that the many gods in Greece
and Rome got their due obeisance. Doctrine was not critical.
The theological impact of the
two views being espoused was enormous, with Athanasius firmly holding to the
view that the Father and Son were of the same substance, co-eternal and
co-equal, while Arius contended that the Father and Son were distinct with the
Son being neither co-eternal nor co-equal with His Father. According to
historians, their differences led to numerous bloody conflicts. “Before the
orthodox doctrine of the relationship of the two natures was finally
formulated, many scenes of passion and violence occurred” (Christianity
Through the Centuries, p. 146).
According to Arthur Cushman
McGiffert, “In the hope of securing for his throne the support of the growing
body of Christians he had shown them considerable favor and it was to his
interest to have the church vigorous and united. The Arian controversy was
threatening its unity and menacing its strength. He therefore undertook to put
an end to the trouble. It was suggested to him, perhaps by the Spanish bishop
Hosius, who was influential at court, that if a synod were to meet representing
the whole church both east and west, it might be possible to restore harmony.
‘Constantine himself of course neither knew nor cared anything about the matter
in dispute but he was eager to bring the controversy to a close, and Hosius’
advice appealed to him as sound’” (A History of Christian Thought,
vol. 1, p. 258).
It’s ironic that the
motivation for finding a resolution on this central issue was not scriptural
but political. To accomplish this, the church convened a council, which would become
the method of resolving disputes in the church. In most cases, the emperor
would preside over the councils. In the case of the Council of Nicea, Emperor
Constantine chaired the proceedings.
Hot Debate at the Council of Nicea
From June 19 through August
25, 325 CE, leaders of the Church met at the council of Nicea. Constantine
invited 1,800 bishops, but only a fraction attended. In addition to discussing
the canonization of the New Testament and the date for Easter, the council was
there to finally resolve the debate between Arius and Athanasius.
According to author Earl E.
Cairns, “Three hundred and eighteen leaders were present, but less than ten
were from the Western section of the Empire…Arius, who was backed by Eusebius
of Nicomedia (to be distinguished from Eusebius of Caesarea) and a minority of
those present, insisted that Christ had not existed from all eternity but had a
beginning by the creative act of God prior to time. He believed that Christ was
of a different (heteros) essence or substance than the Father. Because
of the virtue of His life and His obedience to God’s will, Christ was to be
considered divine. But Arius believed that Christ was a being, created out of
nothing, subordinate to the Father and of a different essence from the Father.
He was not coequal, coeternal or consubstantial with the Father. To Arius He
was divine but not deity.
“Athanasius became the chief
exponent of what became the orthodox view. His wealthy parents had provided for
his theological education in the famous catechetical school of Alexandria. His
work De Incarnatione presented his idea of the doctrine of Christ. At the
council this young man, slightly over thirty, insisted that Christ had existed
from all eternity with the Father and was of the same essence (homoousios)
as the Father, although He was a distinct personality. He insisted upon these
things because he believed that, if Christ were less than He had stated Him to
be, He could not be the Saviour of men. The question of man’s eternal salvation
was involved in the relationship of the Father and the son according to
Athanasius. He held that Christ was coequal, coeternal and consubstantial with
the Father, and for these views he suffered exile five times before his death”
(Christianity Through the Centuries, pp. 142-143).
After much debate, Athanasius
won the day. While this was a major setback for those who embraced the original
Jewish tenants as taught by the Messiah and His Apostles, this was a notable
win for the Greek minded gentiles that influenced the church. Authors Anthony
F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting state, “The Greek philosophically-minded
Alexandrian theologians, led by Athanasius, won the day. Those more under the
earlier influence of Jewish monotheism were defeated. Dissenters who refused to
sign the agreement were immediately banished. The Church was now taken over and
dictated to by theologians strongly influenced by the Greek mind… ‘When the
Greek mind and the Roman mind, instead of the Hebrew mind, came to dominate the
Church, there occurred a disaster from which the Church has never recovered,
either in doctrine or practice’” (The Doctrine of the Trinity,
pp. 151-152).
To ensure uniformity in the
Church, the council drafted its first creed, which was called the Nicene Creed.
It read, “We believe in one God the Father all-sovereign, maker of all things.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father,
only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of
Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the
Father, through whom all things were made, things in heaven and things on the
earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, and
became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens, and
is coming to judge living and dead. And in the Holy Spirit. And those that say
‘There was when he was not,’ and, ‘Before he was begotten he was not,’ and
that, ‘He came into being from what-is-not,’ or those that allege, that the son
of God is ‘Of another substance or essence’ or ‘created,’ or ‘changeable’ or
‘alterable,’ these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.”
While the first Nicene Creed
set out to express the official position of the Church regarding the persons of
the Father and Son, it did little to address the Holy Spirit. Consequently,
while this council gave a final dogmatic ruling on the Father and Son, it did
not fully substantiate the Trinity doctrine. It would take almost fifty more
years to solidify the Trinity doctrine into church teaching.
How Constant Was Constantine?
With Emperor Constantine
presiding over and greatly influencing the results at the Council of Nicea, it
must be asked, was this emperor ever converted? Even though many in Christendom
desire to show him as a champion of the Church, the reality is he was nothing
more than a crafty politician and a pagan sun worshiper, as was his father
before him.
“Constantine appears to have
been a sun-worshiper, one of a number of late pagan cults which had observances
in common with Christians. Worship of such gods was not a novel idea. Every
Greek or Roman expected that political success followed from religious piety.
Christianity was the religion of Constantine’s father. Although Constantine
claimed that he was the thirteenth Apostle, his was no sudden Damascus
conversion. Indeed it is highly doubtful that he ever truly abandoned
sun-worship. After his professed acceptance of Christianity, he built a
triumphal arch to the sun god and in Constantinople set up a statue of the same
sun god bearing his own features. He was finally deified after his death by
official edict in the Empire, as were many Roman rulers” (Ibid, p. 147).
Author Norbert Brox endorses
this position. “Constantine did not experience any conversion; there are no
signs of a change of faith in him. He never said of himself that he had turned
to another god. . . at the time when he turned to Christianity, for him this
was Sol Invictus (the victorious sun god)” (A Concise History of the
Early Church, p. 48).
Another historian writes of
Constantine, “He did not make Christianity the sole religion of the state. That
was to follow under later Emperors. He continued to support both paganism and
Christianity. In 314, when the cross first appeared on his coins, it was
accompanied by the figures of Sol Invictus and Mars Conservator. To the end of
his days he bore the title of pontifex maximus as chief priest of the pagan
state cult. The subservient Roman Senate followed the long-established custom
and classed him among the gods” (A History of Christianity,
Kenneth Scott Latourette, p. 92).
Despite his penchant for sun
worship, the church in its attempt to recognize the legitimacy of Constantine’s
involvement at the Council at Nicea deified him as a saint. Such recognition is
hardly justifiable on any level. For this reason all those who bow their knee
to Athanasius and to the Nicene Creed justify this pagan emperor who changed
the church forever!
If not for Constantine’s
involvement, it’s possible that the Church would have preserved its
monotheistic heritage. “The bulk of Christians, had they been let alone, would
have been satisfied with the old belief in one God, the Father, and would have
distrusted the ‘dispensation,’ as it has been called, by which the sole Deity of
the Father expanded into the Deity of the Father and the Son… ‘All simple
people,’ Tertullian wrote, ‘not to call them ignorant and uneducated…take
fright at the “dispensation”…They will have it that we are proclaiming two or
three gods’” (The Doctrine of the Unity, Anthony F. Buzzard and
Charles F. Hunting, p. 145).
Council at Constantinople Solidifies the
Trinity
After the first council at
Nicea and the persistent strife that followed, Emperor Constantine began to
regret convening the council. According to historians, little changed after
this council. Church leaders continued teaching their preferred position,
whether it was Arius (also known as Arianism) or the doctrine solidified by
Athanasius at Nicea. “For two centuries after Constantine, slaughter followed
slaughter as professing Christian vied with Christian in a bloody struggle in
defense of what became a hardened religious orthodoxy. It was required that one
accept belief in the Godhead of two persons (later expanded to a Deity of three
persons) or face banishment, exile, torture and death…” (Ibid, p. 153).
In an attempt to finally
resolve the division in the church, in 381 CE Emperor Theodosius I, also known
as Theodosius the Great, who ruled from 379 CE to 395 CE, called a second
ecumenical council. A total of 150 bishops attended. It was held at
Constantinople, which is Istanbul, Turkey, today. Gregory of Nazianzus chaired
the council, an educated philosopher who infused Hellenistic beliefs into the
church. Being an advocate of the Trinity, including the divinity of the Holy
Spirit, he urged his fellow bishops to accept his view. However, during the
council, Gregory of Nazianzus became ill and resigned his chair. In his place,
a man named Nectarous was appointed. Oddly, Nectarous was not even baptized and
was now in a position to help determine the theological fate of Christianity.
This was the second time a layman presided over a prominent council.
The council ultimately
confirmed the Holy Spirit as a third equal “person” in the Trinity. As a
result, the original Nicene Creed, now known as the Nicene -Constantinopolitan
Creed, was updated to read,
“We believe in one God, the
Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and
unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally
begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were
made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven. By the power of
the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For
our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was
buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures. He
ascended in heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come
again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no
end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds
from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and
glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic
and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen.”
This final step by Theodosius
the Great not only produced an updated creed, but also established the doctrine
of the Trinity that we know today.
Scholars: Zero Evidence in New Testament for
the Trinity
Being that it took 350 years
after the Messiah to solidify the Trinity, the simple question is, why so long?
If the Trinity is found and supported in the Bible, why did it require many
centuries and numerous church schisms, arguments, debates, and even violence to
legitimize and propagate this doctrine? Why wasn’t it authenticated from the
very beginning, in the book of Acts, avoiding endless questions and wrangling
over it? Where is the New Testament teaching of a triune being?
The fact is the word
“Trinity” is not found anywhere in the Bible. Even the concept is missing.
Clearly it was contrived in the imaginations of man. An exhaustive review of
Scripture and history reveals the simple fact that the Trinity teaching was
unknown to the early New Testament assembly, as supported by numerous
authorities:
• “Because the Trinity is
such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the
term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of
three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations
cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon” (Oxford
Companion to the Bible, 1993, p. 782).
• “The Bible does not teach
the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word ‘trinity’ itself nor such
language as ‘one-in-three,’ ‘three-in-one,’ one ‘essence’ (or ‘substance’), and
three ‘persons,’ is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the
language of the ancient church taken from classical Greek philosophy” (Christian
Doctrine, Shirley Guthrie, Jr., 1994, pp. 76-77). It’s important to
observe here that the author attributes the notion of the Trinity not to
Scripture, but to influence from Greek philosophy.
• “This is not itself a
Biblical term, but was a term coined by Tertullian to refer to this whole
concept under one word” (Classic Bible Dictionary, Jay P. Green,
p. 483). Tertullian was a Christian author and apologist who lived from 160 CE
to 225 CE. Before Tertullian the word trinity did not exist in Christian
writing.
• “Many doctrines are
accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which
there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best
example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the
doctrine of the Trinity” (Basic Theology, Professor Charles
Ryrie, 1999, p. 89).
• “It is indeed true that the
name ‘Trinity’ is nowhere to be found in the Holy Scriptures, but has been
conceived and invented by man” (The Sermons of Martin Luther,
John Lenker, Vol. 3, 1988, p. 406). Even though Martin Luther was an avid
supporter of the Trinity, he correctly recognized that the doctrine was derived
from man and not from the Bible.
• “The term ‘Trinity’ is not
a biblical term…In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is a purely
revealed doctrine…As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason,
so it is incapable of proof from reason” (International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia , vol. 5, p. 3012, “Trinity”).
• “It is admitted by all who
thoughtfully deal with this subject that the Scripture revelation here leads us
into the presence of a deep mystery; and that all human attempts at expression
are of necessity imperfect” (New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 1988,
p. 1308, “Trinity”). Should we rest our entire faith on a belief that is a
“deep mystery?”
• “Respecting the manner in
which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit make one God, the Scripture
teaches nothing, since the subject is of such a nature as not to admit of its
being explained to us” (Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and
Ecclesiastical Literature, p. 553, “Trinity”).
• “Precisely what that
doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are
not agreed among themselves” (A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge,
1885, “Trinitarians”). Disagreements abounded through the centuries even among
those who advocate this doctrine. Should not a belief so critical and
indispensable be not only plainly and clearly taught in the Scriptures, but at
least be understood and agreed upon by its very proponents?
• “The formal doctrine of the
Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth
centuries is not to be found in the NT” (The Harper Collins Bible
Dictionary, 1996, “Trinity”).
• “The doctrine developed
gradually over several centuries and through many controversies… The council of
Nicea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession
that the ‘Son is of the same substance…as the Father,’ even though it said very
little about the Holy Spirit…By the end of the 4th century…the doctrine of the
Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since” (Encyclopaedia
Britannica, “Trinity”).
• “…primitive Christianity
did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently
elaborated in the creeds of the early church” (New International
Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 2, 1976, p. 84,
“God”).
• “The formulation ‘one God
in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated
into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th
century… Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely
approaching such a mentality or perspective” (New Catholic Encyclopedia,
1967, Vol. 14).
Both secular historians and
Bible scholars readily admit that the doctrine of the Trinity was not official
church teaching until the council of Nicea. This is startling! Neither the
Apostles nor the early apostolic fathers had a concept of a triune relationship
among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is freely admitted that the doctrine
was not established until 400 years after the Savior’s resurrection. If the
doctrine of the Trinity is not biblical, how did it originate?
Legions of Pagan Trinities
Author Marie Sinclair writes,
“It is generally, although erroneously, supposed that the doctrine of the
Trinity is of Christian origin. Nearly every nation of antiquity possessed a
similar doctrine” (Old Truths in a New Light, 1876, p. 382). The
belief in a triune deity is also very ancient, and can be traced back to
ancient Babylon. “Will anyone after this say that the Roman Catholic Church
must still be called Christian, because it holds the doctrine of the Trinity?
So did the pagan Babylonians, so did the Egyptians, so do the Hindoos at this
hour, in the very sense in which Rome does” (The Two Babylons, by
Alexander Hislop).
Hislop’s statements are
supported in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics,
“Although the notion of a divine triad or Trinity is characteristic of the
Christian religion, it is by no means peculiar to it. In Indian religion we
meet with the trinitarian group of Brahma, Siva, and Vishnu; and in Egyptian
religion with the trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, constituting a
divine family, like the Father, Mother and Son in mediaeval Christian pictures”
(Trinity, p. 458). According to the Larousse Encyclopedia of
Mythology, Sumer, an ancient civilization first settled around 4500 BCE
to 4000 BCE in southern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), contained a similar belief,
“The universe was divided into three regions each of which become the domain of
a god. Anu’s share was the sky. The earth was given to Enlil. Ea became the
ruler of the waters. Together they constituted the triad of the Great Gods”
(1994, pg. 54-55).
Perhaps even more important
is the influence of Greek philosophy. According to Aristotle, “All things are
three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of our
gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bounded by
threes, for the end, the middle and the beginning have this number in
everything, and they compose the number of the Trinity” (Author Weigall,Paganism
in Our Christianity, p. 197-198).
A question few ever stop to
ask is, why is the Trinity a belief held firmly by most of Christendom, being
completely lacking in the Bible’s teachings? The historian Will Durant offers
this revealing explanation, “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted
it…The Greek language, having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the
vehicle of Christian literature and ritual; The Greek mysteries passed down
into the impressive mystery of the Mass. Other pagan cultures contributed to
the syncretist result. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine Trinity” (The
Story of Civilization, vol. III).
This blending with paganism,
which was commonplace in the early church, changed Christianity forever. Like
the development of the Trinity, many practices and beliefs today developed over
time without biblical support.
A Son Unequal to His Father
What does the Bible actually
say about the relationship between the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit? Does
any evidence for the Trinity exist in the New Testament? The answer is a
resolute no. The first problem with the Trinity doctrine is that the New
Testament says expressly that the Father is greater than the Son. Yahshua
called Yahweh His “Father” for the simple reason that Yahweh was superior to
and preceded the Son in existence—as do all fathers.
The doctrine of the Trinity
says that the Son is both co-equal to and co-eternal with the Father, while the
Scriptures maintain the opposite.
Yahshua the Messiah Himself affirmed that he
was not co-equal with the Father, but was in submission and subjection to the
Father. “You have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto
you. If you loved me, you would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father:
for my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). One cannot be equal with another if the
other is greater.
Yahshua again confirms his submission to his
Father in John 10:29, “My Father, which gave them me, is greater
than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” Since
Yahshua is speaking, He included Himself here. In His own words Yahshua
confirms that the Father is superior to everyone, including the Son Himself. As
we note in the Restoration Study Bible, “…This precludes the
possibility of a duality or trinity of Father and Son.”
The Apostle Paul also confirms Yahshua’s
subordinate relationship to the Father. “But I would have you know, that the
head of every man is Messiah; and the head of the woman is the man; and the
head of Messiah is Yahweh” (1Cor. 11:3). As Yahweh appointed the man over the woman
at creation, Paul states in like manner that the Father is over His Son.
In another of Yahshua’s statements we find that
the Father is superior in knowledge to the Son, “But of that day and that hour
knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but
the Father” (Mark 13:32). If the Father and Son were equal, why is it
that the Son is not privy to the timing of His own coming? If they are indeed
co-equal, something is amiss here.
In Matthew 20:23 Yahshua is confronted by the mother of
Zebedee’s children about future positions for her sons. In response to her
inquiry, Yahshua clearly shows that the Father is superior, “And he saith unto
them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I
am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to
give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.”
The Father alone prepares
Kingdom rewards. This is not something that the Son can provide. He again
defaults to His Father. If they were equal and of the same being, why is this
honor not bestowed also upon the Son?
In several instances the Messiah stated that he
could do nothing outside of His Father. In response to the Jews’ hatred for
doing His Father’s will, He stated, “…Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son
can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things
soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise” (John 5:19). If the Father and Son shared equal
authority, why then was He limited by what He saw the Father do? Clearly, the
concept of the Father and Son being co-equal is scripturally unfounded.
The Son Is Not Co-eternal with the Father
These passages pose serious
problems — but not the only ones — with the Trinity. The definition of the
Trinity states that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal. This
assertion is another misunderstanding, arising from the Council of Nicea.
John of Patmos wrote the Book of Revelation
under the direction of Yahshua the Messiah. He confirmed that Yahshua was the
first of Yahweh’s creation. “And unto the angel of the assembly of the
Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness,
the beginning of the creation of Elohim” (Rev. 3:14).
The Greek for the word
“beginning” here is arche and means, “a commencement, or
(concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank),”
Strong’s. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words further
defines this word: “…NT:746 means ‘a beginning.’ The root arch primarily
indicated what was of worth. Hence the verb archo meant ‘to be
first,’ and archon denoted ‘a ruler.’” While some will argue
for the latter definition, the primary and most reasonable definition conveys
that Yahshua was the first in the commencement of His Father’s creation. If
Yahshua was created by His Father how then can He be co-eternal with His
Father? Knowing that one existed prior to the other, reason alone would
conclude that a co-eternal relationship between the Son and Father is
illogical.
To further confirm Yahshua’s statement in
Revelation, in Proverbs 8 we find Solomon confirming Yahshua’s
cre-ation, “Yahweh possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works
of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth
was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no
fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the
hills was I brought forth” (vv. 22-25).
The preceding verses speak of
wisdom. Yahshua the Messiah is the personification of wisdom. Solomon here was
not referring to simply an attribute, but to the creation of Yahweh’s Son. The
word “possessed” comes from the Hebrew qanah and is a
primitive root. Strong’s defines this word as, “to erect, i.e. create; by
extension, to procure, especially by purchase (causatively, sell); by
implication to own.” Even though qanah most often refers to
procurement in context of Scripture, the primary meaning in Strong’s is “to
erect, i.e. to create.”
In addition to the aforementioned passages, the
Bible clearly states that only Yahweh, the Heavenly Father, has immortality and
is the only one who ever possessed innate immortality. “Who only has immortality,
dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man has seen, nor
can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting” (1Tim. 6:16). This statement can only apply to Yahweh, the
Father. How can a Son be co-eternal with His Father if only His Father contains
immortality? This is further proof that a co-eternal relationship between the
Son and Father cannot be scripturally established.
The Power of Yahweh
The Nicene –
Constantinopolitan Creed defined the Holy Spirit as, “We believe in the Holy
Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the
Son]. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified…” There are
several contradictions between this creed and the Bible regarding the Holy
Spirit. However, before examining these inconsistencies, let’s first seek to
understand the terms.
The term “Holy Spirit” is
from the Hebrew ruach qodesh. The word spirit is derived from the
Hebrew ruach, occurring 389 times in the Old Testament. That
includes 232 as “spirit,” 92 times as “wind,” and 27 times as “breath” in the
King James Version.
Note the definition of the word ruach:
“The basic meaning of ruach is both ‘wind’ or ‘breath,’ but
neither is understood as essence; rather it is the power encountered in the
breath and the wind, whose whence and whither remains mysterious…2. ruach as
a designation for the wind is necessarily something found in motion with the
power to set other things in motion…The divine designation also apparently has
an intensifying function in a few passages: ruach elohim (Gen 1:2) and ruach yhwh (Isa 59:19)” (Theological Lexicon of the Old
Testament, “Ruach”).
This lexicon states that ruach implies
a power that is within the breath and wind, which is connected to the Name YHWH
or Yahweh. The Holy Spirit is the power emanating from our Father Yahweh. It is
Yahweh’s power that puts all things into motion. It is His power that brings
life into creation. In Genesis 1:2 the Spirit of Elohim “moved” upon the
face of the waters. The word is rachaph in the Hebrew and
means, “to brood (flutter, move, shake).” Yahweh’s power (not an individual)
energized the planet, after which the earthly creation began in earnest.
The Greek word for Spirit
is pneuma, which shares a mirror definition with the word ruach.
“Pneuma; to breathe, blow, primarily denotes the wind. Breath; the spirit
which, like the wind, is invisible, immaterial, and powerful” (The
Complete Word Study New Testament, “Pneuma”).
It can be further demonstrated that the Holy
Spirit is not a separate being, but an inanimate power that proceeds from the
Father. InIsaiah 32:15, 44:3,
and Acts 2:17 the Holy Spirit is described as being
poured. How can a being be poured into another? Titus 3:5-6and Acts 2:33 testify that the Spirit is shed. How can
a being shed itself onto another? The Spirit is also described as something
that can be stirred up, 2Timothy 1:6; quenched, 1Thes. 5:19, and renewed, 2Cor. 4:16. These attributes are far more fitting for a
power than a person.
Father and Son, but No Spirit
In addition to this, there is
another key fact consistent in the New Testament. Paul never addressed the Holy
Spirit in the salutation of his letters, as he did the Father and Son. Notice:
§
“…
Grace to you and peace from Yahweh our Father, and the Master Yahshua Messiah”
(Rom. 1:7).
§
“Grace
be unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father, and from the Master Yahshua
Messiah” (1Cor. 1:3).
§
“Grace
be to you and peace from Yahweh our Father, and from the Master Yahshua
Messiah” (2Cor. 1:2).
§
“Grace
be to you and peace from Yahweh the Father, and from our Master Yahshua
Messiah” (Gal. 1:3).
§
“Grace
be to you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father, and from the Master Yahshua
Messiah” (Eph. 1:2).
§
“Grace
be unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father, and from the Master Yahshua
Messiah” (Phil. 1:2).
§
“…Grace
be unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father and the Master Yahshua Messiah”
(Col. 1:2).
§
“…Grace
be unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father, and the Master Yahshua Messiah”
(1Thess. 1:1).
§
“Grace
unto you, and peace, from Yahweh our Father and the Master Yahshua Messiah” (2Thess. 1:2).
§
“…Grace,
mercy, and peace, from Yahweh our Father and Yahshua Messiah our Master” (1Tim. 1:2).
§
“…Grace,
mercy, and peace, from Yahweh the Father and Messiah Yahshua our Master” (2Tim. 1:2).
§
•
“…Grace, mercy, and peace, from Yahweh the Father and the Master Yahshua
Messiah our Saviour” (Tit. 1:4).
In these twelve passages not
once does Paul mention the Holy Spirit; however, he consistently mentions both
the Father and Son. Is it possible that Paul, one of the greatest apostles in
the New Testament, simply forgot about one-third of a heavenly triunity? Of
course not, Paul recognized that it was not proper to include the Spirit, since
it represents Yahweh’s power and not a sentient being.
Paul is not alone in his omission of the Holy
Spirit. There are two key passages that mention the Father and Son with no
reference to the Holy Spirit. The first is Acts 7:55-56, “But he, being full of the Holy Spirit,
looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of Elohim, and Yahshua
standing on the right hand of Yahweh, And said, Behold, I see the heavens
opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of Yahweh.”
As Stephen was being stoned
for his open rebuke of the Jewish leaders, he saw a vision of the Father and
Son. While Scripture states that he was “full of the Holy Spirit,” the fact is
the Spirit was missing from his supernatural vision. He saw only the Father and
Son. If the Trinity is biblical, why does Stephen see only two heavenly Hosts
in this profound vision? There is no better opportunity to reveal it than in a
sacred visualization of the heavenly majesty, especially at such key times like
these.
In our second example, we find again the Father
and Son present, but the Spirit absent. “After this I beheld, and, lo, a great
multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people,
and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white
robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation
to our Elohim which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb” (Rev. 7:9-10).
If the Trinity were
legitimate and understood by the writers of the New Testament, why is the Holy
Spirit missing in this passage and in so many others where it should be found?
It’s quite simple –no heavenly triumvirate exists in either old or new
testament.
Alvan Lamson, author of The
Church of the First Three Centuries, offers a summation as to the
legitimacy of the Holy Spirit in composing part of a Trinity. “…we must look,
not to Jewish Scriptures, nor to the teachings of [Yahshua] and his apostles,
but to Philo and the Alexandrine Platonists. In consistency with this view, we
maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late
formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the
Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on
Christianity, through the Platonizing Fathers…”
Why the Pronoun ‘He’?
In the New Testament the Holy Spirit is often
referenced with the personal pronoun “he,” “him,” or “himself.” Many will point
to this as proof for the Trinity. For example, in John 14:16-17 Yahshua stated, “And I will pray the
Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for
ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth
him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and
shall be in you.”
The “whom” here refers to the
comforter, which comes from the Greek parakletos, a masculine word
in Greek. Even though the Holy Spirit is described in the both the neuter and
masculine throughout the New Testament, it’s likely that the translators used
the Greekparakletos as an indicator for the gender of the Holy
Spirit. As such, the Spirit has been incorrectly rendered by the masculine
pronoun in the New Testament.
Referring to inanimate
objects in the masculine and feminine is not unusual. We find it in many
languages. For example, in Italian the words for “love,” “sea,” and “sun,” are
masculine and the words for “art,” “faith,” and “light” are feminine. In like
manner, in Arabic, which contains no neuter gender, the words for “book,”
“class,” “street” are masculine while the words “car,” “university,” and “city”
are feminine.
Similarly, Hebrew, a semitic
language that shares many parallels with Arabic, including being without the
neuter gender, has many cases where inanimate objects are rendered in the
masculine or feminine. Masculine examples include the words for “word,” “day,”
and “room.” Instances of the feminine include “land,” “animal,” and “spirit.”
Even though the word for spirit (Heb. ruach) is feminine in the
Hebrew language, Judaism views ruach as an inanimate object,
i.e., wind. Likewise, parakletos is masculine in Greek,
notwithstanding, its usage is neuter. Translators with preconceived ideas about
the Spirit would use “he” when they had no justifiation to do so.
While many follow the pattern found in the King
James Version in rendering the Holy Spirit in the masculine, a few translations
correctly render it in the neuter, including the Diaglott, Rotherham,
Goodspeed, and Literal Concordant. In addition to the above references, there
are three instances in the KJV where it correctly refers to the Holy Spirit in
the neuter. The first is found inMatthew 10:20, “For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit
of your Father which speaketh in you.” Instead of “who,” the translators
correctly used the form “which” in reference to the Spirit. The last two
examples are both found in the eighth chapter of Romans, “The Spirit itself
beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of Elohim…Likewise
the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray
for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with
groanings which cannot be uttered” (vv. 16, 26).
The Meaning of Elohim
In addition to the gender gap, much confusion
over the Trinity has developed from the Hebrew word elohim.
According to theEnglishman’s Concordance, this term occurs 2,597
in the Hebrew text. While it is singular in usage, it can be used in the plural
form, as a collective noun. Strong’s defines this term as, “…plural of OT:433;
gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus,
especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of
deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative.”The Complete
Word Study Old Testament further states, “Elohim; this masc. noun
is pl. in form but it has both sing. and pl. uses. In a pl. sense it refers to
rulers or judges with divine connections (Ex. 21:6); pagan gods (Ex. 18:11; Ps. 88:8); and probably angels (Ps. 8:5; 97:7)…In
the sing. sense it is used of a god or a goddess (1 Sam. 5:7; 2 Kgs. 18:34); a man in a position like a god (Ex. 7:1); God (Deut. 7:9; Ezra 1:3; Is. 45:18 and many other passages,” Lexical
Aids, 430.
The following provide additional evidence for the singular
and plural usages of elohim, beginning with the singular.
Singular:
• “And Elohim said moreover unto Moses, Thus
shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Yahweh Elohim of your fathers, the
Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me
unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all
generations” (Ex 3:15).
• “When Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’
father in law, heard of all that Elohim had done for Moses, and for Israel his
people, and that Yahweh had brought Israel out of Egypt” (Ex. 18:1).
• “Seven days shalt thou keep a solemn feast
unto Yahweh thy Elohim in the place which Yahweh shall choose: because Yahweh
thy Elohim shall bless thee in all thine increase, and in all the works of
thine hands, therefore thou shalt surely rejoice” (Deut. 16:15). The above examples illustrate elohim in
the singular; the remainder provides examples of this word in the plural.
Plural:
• “And they called the people unto the
sacrifices of their mighty ones [elohim]: and the people did eat, and bowed
down to their mighty ones” (Num. 25:2).
• “Lest thou make a covenant with the
inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their mighty ones
[elohim], and do sacrifice unto their mighty ones [elohim], and one call thee,
and thou eat of his sacrifice” (Ex. 34:15).
• “And they forsook Yahweh Elohim of their
fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other mighty
ones [elohim], of the mighty ones [elohim] of the people that were round about
them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked Yahweh to anger” (Judg. 2:12).
Many assume that
because elohim is usually used in the plural, that it must
refer to a Trinity. This is an erroneous assumption by many who attempt to
force the concept of a triad into the Hebrew elohim. Elohim does
not specify a number, only a plurality. It can just as easily mean two heavenly
beings.
Problematic ‘Trinitarian’ Passages
Two New Testament passages are popularly used
to support the doctrine of the Trinity. One is Matthew 28:19: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit” (KJV).
The Jerusalem Bible questions whether the
formula given for baptism here is inspired or liturgical (added later by the
church). The Hebrew version of Matthew omits the verse entirely. And although the
passage is found in the three earliest known Greek New Testament manuscripts,
without any original New Testament manuscripts in existence we have no evidence
to substantiate that the present form of Matthew 28:19 is accurate.
One reason biblical scholars question the
authenticity of this passage is that it conflicts with the actual method used
for baptizing in the New Testament. In all other instances baptism is done only
into the singular name of Yahshua (see Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5;22:16; Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). The Companion Bible makes
special note of this: “To some, perplexity, and even distress, is caused by the
apparent neglect of the disciples to carry out the [Master’s] command in Matthew 28:19, 20,
with regard to the formula for baptism. …Turning to Acts and onwards, they find
no single instance of, or reference to, baptism in which the Triune name of the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is employed. On the contrary, from the very first,
only ten days after the injunction had been given, Peter is found (Acts 2:38) commanding all his hearers including those of
the dispersion to be baptized in the name of [Yahshua the Messiah]” (p. 206,
Appendix 185).
A second reason why biblical scholars are
skeptical of Matthew 28:19 is because of conflicting historical
documents. Eusebius of Caesarea is known as one of the greatest Greek teachers
and historians of the early church. He lived approximately between the years of
270 CE and 340 CE. In citing Matthew, Eusebius omitted the Trinitarian formula
found in Matthew 28:19. “The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius
quotes Matthew 28:19, 21
times, either omitting everything between ‘nations’ and ‘teaching,’ or in the
form ‘make disciples of all nations in my name,’ the latter form being the more
frequent” (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).
The Jewish New Testament Commentary says,
“Although nearly all ancient manuscripts have the trinitarian formula,
Eusebius, the Church historian, who may have been a non-trinitarian, in his
writings preceding the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E., quotes the verse without
it. Most scholars believe the formula is original, but papers by Hans Kosmala
(‘The Conclusion of Matthew,’ Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, 4
(1965), (pp. 132-147) and David Flusser (‘The Conclusion of Matthew in a New
Jewish Christian Source,’ ibid., 5 (1966-7), pp. 110-119) take the opposite
view” (note on Matt. 28:19, p. 86).
Obviously, Eusebius did not recognize the
current form of Matthew 28:19. Instead of quoting the phrase, “in the name
of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” he most often used the
phrase, “in my name,” which would agree with all other accounts of baptism in
the New Testament.
The Encyclopedia of Religion and
Ethics, p. 380, further reveals that Justin Martyr, another church
father, was also possibly ignorant of the present form of Matthew 28:19. “Justin Martyr quotes a saying of Christ as a
proof of the necessity of regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah
and apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the
triune formula. This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the
traditional text of Matthew 28:19.”
The second passage in question is 1John 5:7. “For there are three that bear record in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.”
Most biblical scholars will admit that 1John 5:7 was a late addition to the New Testament.
In other words, this passage is not found in the oldest Greek New Testament
manuscripts.
Note the following on 1John 5:7: “During the controversy of the 4th cent. over
the doctrine of the Trinity the text was expanded – first in Spain ca. 380, and
then taken in the Vulg. – by the insertion: ‘There are three that bear record
in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.’
A few late Greek manuscripts contain the addition. Hence it is passed into the
KJV. But all modern critical editions and translations of the NT, including
RSV, omit the interpolation, as it has no warrant in the best and most ancient
manuscripts or in the early church fathers” (The Interpreter’s One-Volume
Commentary on the Bible, note on1John 5:4-12).
The Jerusalem Bible note on 1John 5:7-8 says, “Vulg. vv. 7-8 read as follows
‘There are three witnesses in heaven: the Father the Word and the
Spirit, and these three are one; there are three witnesses on earth: the
Spirit the water and the blood’. The words in italics (not in any of the early
Greek MSS, or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg.
itself) are probably a gloss that has crept into the text,” 1 John 5:7.
There should be no question regarding the
faulty rendering of 1John 5:7-8. Historically, along with modern scholarship,
it is freely admitted that this passage is a later addition to the original New
Testament manuscripts. This passage, along with Matthew 28:19, cannot be used to establish the doctrine of
the Trinity.
From both the inspired Word
of Yahweh and biblical scholarship, the error of the Trinity is exposed. It is
freely admitted through historical and present scholarship that the Trinity was
not established during the time of the Apostles, but took an additional three
hundred years to become firmly established in the church. This occurred at a
time when the church was assimilating many people of pagan beliefs, most of
whom held to a Trinity teaching in their heathen background.
Like so many beliefs
practiced by mankind, the Trinity was developed through syncretized theology
from various religions, and not from the inspired Word.
Modalism (Oneness)
In addition to the Trinity,
there is another doctrine that developed during the first few centuries of the
early Church. It was called “Modalism” or “Sabellianism” and emphasized that
there was only one mighty one. Those who held to this belief rejected the
Trinity. According to author Wayne Grudem, “Another term for modalism is
‘modalistic monarchianism,’ because this teaching not only says that God
revealed himself in different ‘modes’ but it also says that there is only one
supreme ruler (‘monarch’) in the universe and that is God himself, who consists
of only one person,” Systematic Theology, p. 242.
The online Catholic
Encyclopedia states, “The Monarchians properly so-called
(Modalists) exaggerated the oneness of the Father and the Son so as to make
them but one Person; thus the distinctions in the Holy Trinity are energies or
modes, not Persons: God the Father appears on earth as Son; hence it seemed to
their opponents that Monarchians made the Father suffer and die. In the West
they were called Patripassians, whereas in the East they are usually called
Sabellians. The first to visit Rome was probably Praxeas, who went on to
Carthage some time before 206-208; but he was apparently not in reality a
heresiarch, and the arguments refuted by Tertullian somewhat later in his book
‘Adversus Praxean’ are doubtless those of the Roman Monarchians”
(newadvent.org, “Monarchians”).
A modern version of Modalism
is “Oneness.” This doctrine is a cornerstone of the Pentecostal faith and other
charismatic groups. It’s also believed by many in today’s messianic movement.
Like Modalism, they accept only the singleness of G-d. They emphatically state
that the G-d of the Bible presented himself in different “modes” at different
times. In the Old Testament He was the Father; in the New Testament (prior to
the giving of the Spirit) He was the Son and lastly; on the day of Pentecost
appeared as the Holy Spirit. Along with the Trinity, they also reject the
Messiah’s preexistence, which will be discussed at length later.
The Pentecostal Oneness movement arose in the
early 1900s from a desire to follow Acts 2:38, baptism into the singular name of the
Messiah. While most Oneness advocates accept Matthew 28:19, they reinterpret the passage as referring to
the singular name of the Son. The movement soon broke away from its parent
church, the Church of God, and formed an independent Oneness denomination. The
movement then merged with the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World. Since they
emphasized the singleness of “Jesus,” they were also called by the name “Jesus
Only,” implying their rejection of the Father and Holy Spirit.
The two largest Oneness Pentecostal
organizations today are the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World and the United
Pentecostal Church International (UPCI). According to the UPCI statement of
beliefs, “There is one God, who has revealed Himself as our Father, in His Son
Jesus Christ, and as the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is God manifested in flesh.
He is both God and man. (SeeDeuteronomy 6:4; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 2:9; 1Timothy 3:16.)”
Does Scripture show that the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are simply different modes existing at separate
times in history? As we have already seen in our discussion of the Trinity, the
Father and Son are distinct; they are neither co-equal nor co-eternal.
Passages Cited for Oneness
We will now look at some of the common passages
used by those who advocate the oneness doctrine. One of the most cited isDeuteronomy 6:4, also known as the Shema. It states, “Hear, O
Israel: Yahweh our Elohim is one Yahweh.”
While there is debate as to the meaning of this
passage, the word “one” can be interpreted two ways. The first is as a single
being. In this case it refers to the Father. The second way is as a collective
noun. The Hebrew for “one” is echad, meaning, “…united, i.e. one;
or (as an ordinal) first,” Strong’s. In Genesis 2:24 this word is used to express the
relationship of a husband and wife. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and
his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Clearly,
the word echad here doesn’t refer to one being, but to one in
unity. The same relationship exists between the Father and Son. They are not
one being, but one in mind and goal. This is likely what the Shema conveys.
Another passage cited in support of Oneness
is Deuteronomy 32:39, “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is
no mighty one with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither
is there any that can deliver out of my hand.” This passage is simply
expressing the omnipotence of our Father in heaven. There is nothing in this
passage indicating that the Father and Son are one.
A third and very common reference is Isaiah 9:6, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son
is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be
called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty El, The everlasting Father, The Prince
of Peace.” This is a prophecy of the Messiah when He will reign as King in the
millennial Kingdom. Many who promote Oneness point to the title “everlasting
Father.” As the Restoration Study Bible note reads,
“This literally means, ‘Father of eternity.’ However, The Chaldee renders this
passage, ‘The man abiding forever’; The Vulgate as, ‘The Father of the future
age.’ The Jews understand the term ‘father’ in a variety of ways, including: as
a literal father, a grandfather, a ruler, or an instructor. Since the context
seems to refer to the Messiah, perhaps, this would be better rendered,
‘everlasting ruler’ or ‘instructor.’ Yahshua will both rule and instruct
mankind in the Millennium and for all ages to come (Isa. 11:1-5; Mic. 4:1-2).”
No Other El
The next three claims for the
Oneness teaching are related and found in Isaiah. We will therefore refer to
them together:
• “O Yahweh of hosts, Elohim of Israel, that
dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the Elohim, even thou alone, of all
the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth” (Isa. 37:16).
• “Ye are my witnesses, saith Yahweh, and my
servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand
that I am he: before me there was no El formed, neither shall there be after
me. I, even I, am Yahweh; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared,
and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange elohim among you:
therefore ye are my witnesses, saith Yahweh, that I am El. Yea, before the day
was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work,
and who shall let it? Thus saith Yahweh, your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel;
For your sake I have sent to Babylon, and have brought down all their nobles,
and the Chaldeans, whose cry is in the ships. I am Yahweh, your Holy One, the
creator of Israel, your King” (Isa. 43:10-15).
• “I am Yahweh, and there is none else, there
is no Elohim beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they
may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none
beside me. I am Yahweh, and there is none else” (Isa. 45:5-6).
Those who maintain the
oneness of Yahweh will typically say of these passages:
• Yahshua the Messiah did not
preexist.
• Yahweh alone formed man
from the womb.
• Yahweh alone made the
earth.
• Yahweh alone stretched
forth the heavens.
In short, Yahweh created all
things without the presence of Yahshua the Messiah. From these verses one can
see how they might come to these conclusions; however, as with most points of
study there is another possible explanation. This passage is not expressing the
literal act of creation but the Father’s authority.
In Exodus 3:14 the Father revealed Himself as the great
“I AM,” conveying His ultimate superiority to all creation, including His Son,
Yahshua the Messiah. In this light all that is done is the result of Yahweh’s
greatness, regardless of whether He is the active force involved. It is for
this reason that He alone receives the recognition for the creation of the
heavens and earth, as we find here in Isaiah.
This is no different from
notable historical figures like Alexander the Great or Nebuchadnezzar claiming
complete credit for their empires. In truth, probably neither Alexander the
Great nor Nebuchadnezzar ever laid a brick, but it was by their authority and
power that they built their kingdoms and as a result received full
acknowledgment for their grand achievements.
A scriptural example can be found with King
Solomon and the building of the temple. “So Solomon built the house, and
finished it. And he built the walls of the house within with boards of cedar,
both the floor of the house, and the walls of the cieling: and he covered them
on the inside with wood, and covered the floor of the house with planks of fir.
And he built twenty cubits on the sides of the house, both the floor and the
walls with boards of cedar: he even built them for it within, even for the
oracle, even for the most holy place…And the oracle he prepared in the house
within, to set there the ark of the covenant of Yahweh…So Solomon overlaid the
house within with pure gold: and he made a partition by the chains of gold
before the oracle; and he overlaid it with gold. And the whole house he
overlaid with gold, until he had finished all the house: also the whole altar
that was by the oracle he overlaid with gold” (1Kings 6:14-16, 19, 21-22).
This passage gives all credit
to Solomon as the builder in every phase of temple construction. Does it mean
he was out there with gloves and hammer chipping away at stones while sweating
in the hot sun? No, Solomon was just overseeing and directing the construction.
Yet, he received full credit for the work. Similarly, Yahweh also oversaw
creation of the universe and justifiably received all credit. In both cases
each was acknowledged for the accomplishments but the actual work was carried
out by others.
What ‘One’ Means
The New Testament passage most often used to
support the Oneness doctrine is John 10:30. Yahshua states there, “I and my Father are
one.” Was He referring to one in being or one in unity? Dr. E.W. Bullinger
states, “Gr. hen. Neut., one in essence, not one person…” (Companion
Bible, John 10:30). Barnes Notes further
clarifies, “The word translated “one” is not in the masculine, but in the
neuter gender. It expresses union, but not the precise nature of the union. It
may express any union, and the particular kind intended is to be inferred from
the connection.”
Again, John 10:30 speaks of one in mind and purpose.
Yahshua provides many illustrations of this unity in the New Testament. One of
the clearest is John 17, where He is praying to His Father prior to
His impalement. “And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified
in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I
come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given
me, that they may be one, as we are” (vv. 10-11).
The word “one” here is the same word in John 10:30. According to Yahshua, in the same way we believers
are one, the Father and Son are one. Are we all one person? Obviously not! As
we find from the Apostle Paul, we are one in conviction and heart: “Fulfil ye
my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of
one mind,” Philippians 2:2.
Consider the following:
• “Yahshua saith unto them, My meat is to do
the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work” (John 4:34).
• “Then answered Yahshua and said unto them,
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he
seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son
likewise” (John 5:19).
• “Then said Yahshua unto them, When ye have
lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do
nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things” (John 8:28).
• “For I have not spoken of myself; but the
Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I
should speak” (John 12:49).
Clearly Yahshua is not stating that He and His
Father are the same being, but simply that they are one in mind and heart. As a
son follows the instructions of his father, Yahshua followed the instructions
of His Father Yahweh. He repeatedly said that He did not come to do His own will,
but the will of the Father. They cannot possibly be the same individual!
See Luke 22:42; Matthew 26:39;John 5:30; 6:38.
Another passage that is commonly used to
support Oneness is John 14:6-7: “Yahshua saith unto him, I am the way, the
truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known
me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and
have seen him.” Some will make the claim from this passage that Yahshua and His
Father are the same individual; however, this passage would again be better
understood as being one in goal and mind. As previously noted, just as a son
obeys and shares the same interests as his father, the Son shares the same
interest, desire, motivation, and character as His Heavenly Father.
The Son’s Authority
Another approach used by Oneness advocates is
the testimony found in John 20:28: “And Thomas answered and said unto him, My
Master and my Elohim.” As referenced in the foregoing discussion on elohim,
while this term most often refers to Yahweh, it can also denote false deities
(both male and female), angels, and mankind. In essence, it refers to an
exalted position. Thomas here was not confusing the Son with the Father, but
was simply conveying the Son’s high-ranking position, keeping in mind that this
was after Yahshua’s resurrection.
In another passage, Peter states, “Therefore
let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that Elohim hath made that same
Yahshua, whom ye have impaled, both Master and Messiah,” Acts 2:36. The word “Master” is translated “Lord” in the
KJV. It comes from the Greekkurios and means, “…supreme in
authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by implication, Mr. (as a respectful
title),” Strong’s. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words defines
this term as, “…properly an adjective, signifying ‘having power’ (kuros) or
‘authority,’ is used as a noun, variously translated in the NT, ‘Lord,’
‘master,’ ‘Master,’ ‘owner,’ ‘Sir,’ a title of wide significance, occurring in
each book of the NT save Titus and the Epistles of John. It is used (a) of an
owner, as in Luke 19:33, cf. Matt 20:8;Acts 16:16; Gal 4:1; or of one who has the disposal of anything,
as the Sabbath, Matt 12:8; (b) of a master, i.e., one to whom service is
due on any ground, Matt 6:24; 24:50; Eph 6:5; (c) of an Emperor or King, Acts 25:26; Rev 17:14; (d) of idols, ironically,1 Cor 8:5, cf. Isa 26:13; (e) as a title of respect addressed to a
father, Matt 21:30, a husband, 1 Peter 3:6, a master, Matt 13:27;Luke 13:8, a ruler, Matt 27:63, an angel, Acts 10:4; Rev 7:14; (f) as a title of courtesy addressed to a
stranger, John 12:21; 20:15;Acts 16:30; from the outset of His ministry this was a
common form of address to the Lord Jesus, alike by the people, Matt 8:2;John 4:11, and by His disciples, Matt 8:25; Luke 5:8; John 6:68; (g) kurios is the Sept. and NT representative
of Heb. [Yahweh] (`LORD’ in Eng. versions), see Matt 4:7; James 5:11, e. g., of adon, Lord, Matt 22:44, and of Adonay, Lord, 1:22; it also occurs for
Elohim, God, 1 Peter 1:25.”
Similar to the word elohim,
the Greek kurios refers to positions of power or authority.
This not only includes the Father and Son, but also authority within family and
society. As such, there is nothing in this word’s definition that would imply
that the Son and Father are one in being. Akin to the previous example, this
passage is simply expressing the Son’s elevated position.
Paul’s fourth chapter of
Ephesians is also used by advocates of the Oneness teaching: “There is one
body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Master,
one faith, one baptism, One El and Father of all, who is above all, and through
all, and in you all” (vv. 4-6).
Do we finally see evidence
here for Oneness? No. Paul is conveying six key truths, none of which shows
that the Father and Son are the same being. Note:
• There is only one body, which the Son
presides over (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23; Col. 1:18, 24);
• There is only one spirit, referring to the
Holy Spirit, the power proceeding from our Father Yahweh (1Cor. 12:4);
• One Son, Yahshua is the
Messiah and Master;
• One faith, the same faith given and delivered
to Abraham (Gal. 3:29);
• One baptism, i.e., into the singular Name of
Yahshua the Messiah (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27); and
• One El and Father, only our Heavenly Father
is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent (Gen. 21:33; 2Chron. 2:6; Ps. 147:5;Jer. 23:24; Heb. 1:12).
While these passages provide
insight into the nature and activities of the Father and Son, they are silent
in support of the Oneness teaching. Nowhere in his writings does Paul
forthrightly state that the Father and Son are one being. This concept isn’t
only missing here, but is also counter to his message, as he makes a
distinction between our Master Yahshua and His Father Yahweh, the Creator and
El of this grand universe.
Paul writing to young Timothy states, “For
there is one Elohim, and one mediator between Elohim and men, the man Messiah
Yahshua” (1Tim. 2:5). Oneness adherents will also use this to
support their view. However, Paul shows a distinction between the two beings.
If Yahshua the Messiah is the mediator between His Father and man, how is it
possible that He is also the Father? Such reasoning is not only unscriptural,
but also irrational.
Writing again to Timothy, Paul speaks of a
great mystery pertaining to our Father Yahweh. “And without controversy great
is the mystery of holiness: Elohim was manifest in the flesh, justified in the
Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
received up into glory” (1Tim. 3:16). Many believe that Paul is confirming here
that the Father and Son are the same being. This passage is used by advocates
of both the Trinity and Oneness teachings.
“Manifest” is derived from
the Greek phaneroo and means, “…to render apparent (literally
or figuratively),” Strong’s. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon states,
“to make manifest or visible or known what has been hidden or unknown, to
manifest, whether by words, or deeds, or in any other way.” This word conveys
making something known or visible. The Father was made visible in the flesh
through His Son, Yahshua the Messiah. Paul confirms this in the first chapter
of Colossians: “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath
translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption
through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the
invisible El, the firstborn of every creature” (vv. 13-16).
The phrase “invisible El” refers to the Father.
Yahshua, the son of Yahweh, was created in His Father’s image and therefore
represented His Father on earth. Does this mean that the Father and Son are the
same being? It must be remembered that mankind too was created in Yahweh’s
image, Genesis 1:26. If Paul’s statement in Colossians 1:16 proves that the Father and Son are one
being, then we also must be one being with the Father, as Scriptures declare
that we were created in His image as well! (Gen. 1:27).
The Alpha and Omega
The phrase “Alpha and Omega”
is also frequently employed to confirm the oneness of the Father and Son. It
appears four times in the book of Revelation and depending on the context,
refers to both the Father and the Son. The words “Alpha” and “Omega” are the
first and last letters in the Greek alphabet, respectively.
Chapter one contains the
first two occurrences, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending,
saith Yahweh, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty…I was
in the Spirit on Yahweh’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a
trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last…” (vv. 8, 10-11).
From the context, this is describing our Father Yahweh.
The third example is found in
chapter 21, “And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the
beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of
the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I
will be his Elohim, and he shall be my son” (vv. 6-7). With the reference here
to Elohim and the promise of becoming his “sons,” this third also refers to the
Father.
Chapter 22 contains the last and final
instance, “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every
man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the
end, the first and the last” (vv. 12-13). Unlike the previous, this last
example likely refers to Yahshua the Messiah. Yahshua will come at the end of
the age and reward those who were faithful (Matt. 16:27; 24:30; 25:1-13; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27; Acts 1:9-11; Rev. 1:7). According to Paul in1Corinthians 15:23-28, the Father cannot come until Yahshua defeats
all enemies, including death.
What is the purpose for the
phrase, “Alpha and Omega”? This term is likely the result of rabbinic
influence. According to Barnes’ Notes, “Among the Jewish
rabbis it was common to use the first and the last letters of the Hebrew
alphabet to denote the whole of anything, from beginning to end. Thus, it is
said, ‘Adam transgressed the whole law, from “Aleph ( ) to Taw ( ).”’ ‘Abraham
kept the whole law, from “Aleph ( ) to Taw ( ).”’”
Speaking about Yahshua, Paul
states, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are
in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or
principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he
is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the
body, the assembly: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in
all things he might have the preeminence.”
According to Paul, through
Yahshua all things were created and consist. It’s important to recognize that
Yahshua was the active, creative agent behind all “thrones,” “dominions,”
“principalities,” and “powers.” As such, He is the beginning and end of all
things within this universe, the visible and invisible. Does this imply though
that the Son is the same being as the Father? Of course not! As Yahshua did the
will of His Father in the New Testament, the same was true in His preexistence.
Yahshua is the manifestation of all that His Father is. All that He does
reflects upon His Father. It’s for this reason that the phrase “Alpha and Omega”
complements the Father, even in reference to the Son.
Contradictory Passages
Numerous passages show a clear distinction
between the Father and Son. Possibly the greatest hurdle of those who promote
the Oneness doctrine involves Yahshua’s death and resurrection. After our
Savior was horrifically beaten and tortured on the tree, Scripture indicates
that he died. Matthew 27:50 clearly states that He “yielded up the
spirit.” As seen earlier, the word “spirit” is from the Greek pneuma and
refers to “a current of air, i.e. breath…” Strong’s. The Hebrew equivalent
to pneuma is ruach. Strong’s defines this word as,
“wind; by resemblance breath….”
When we die our Spirit returns to Yahweh (Eccl. 12:7), our con-sciousness ceases to exist (Ps.146:4; Eccl. 9:10) and our bodies lie dormant in the grave
awaiting the resurrection (Dan. 12:2, Matt. 27:52; 1Thess. 4:13-15). If our spirit or breath returns to Yahweh at
death, where then did Yahshua’s breath return, if He and the Father were one?
Equally perplexing, being that the Son was dead and unconscious in the grave,
is who resurrected Him three days later? Peter confirms that Yahweh resurrected
Yahshua, Acts 2:32. If Yahweh and Yahshua are one, this means
that Yahweh resurrected Himself from the grave even while dead.
Some attempt to explain these contradictions by
claiming that Yahshua never died, but descended to the depths of Hades where he
preached to the wicked. The fact is, if He never died we are without a Savior.
Hebrews unequivocally states that a complete death was required by our Savior
if we are to have life everlasting: “But Messiah being come an high priest of
good things to come by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with
hands, that is to say not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and
calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having
obtained eternal redemption for us… And for this cause he is the mediator of
the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the
transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might
receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there
must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of
force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the
testator liveth” (Heb. 9:11-12, 15-16).
Yahshua confirms His own death in Revelation 1:18, “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and,
behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of the grave and of
death.”
The word “dead” here comes from the Greek nekros and
according to the Thayer’s literally refers to “one that has breathed his last,
lifeless.” Based on Hebrews and Yahshua’s own testimony, there should be no
doubt that our Savior literally died and was in the grave (heart of the earth)
for three full days and three full nights, as He prophesied inMatthew 12:40. On a side note, this would make His
traditional time in the grave impossible. Based on the biblical record, He was
placed in the tomb Wednesday evening and resurrected late on the Sabbath
(Saturday before sunset).
In addition, it must be
asked, if Yahweh and Yahshua are one, how did the world survive for the three
days and three nights while they lay unconscious in the grave? To state that
the Father resurrected Himself and that Yahweh was absent for three days and
three nights makes no sense and contradicts the very core of Scripture!
One might also ask who Yahshua cried out to
when he stated, “…Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My El, my El, why
hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46). Yahshua is calling out here to His Father.
If the Father and Son are one, does this mean that He was calling out to
Himself?
What about those instances
where Yahshua prayed to the Father, both in public and private. If He and the
Father were one being, what was the point? Was it for public show or
self-affirmation? Certainly neither. Yahshua was not praying to Himself but to
His Father in heaven.
Consider two more illustrations. Yahshua
in Matthew 22:44 said, “Yahweh said unto my Master, Sit
thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Is Yahshua
sitting on His own hand? As a final example, Yahshua confirms that only the
Father knows the timing of His Coming, “But of that day and hour knoweth no
man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only,”Matthew 24:36. If the Father and Son are one being, how is
it possible that the Father has information that the son lacks? Was Yahshua
simply telling a fib? Of course not; He was confirming the fact that is
apparent from cover to cover and that is that He and His Father are not the
same being. These passages along with the other examples confirm that the
belief in Oneness is not only unfounded scripturally, but escapes reason and
logic.
The Word Became Flesh
Even though the Son is distinct and not
co-eternal with the Father, Scripture confirms that He existed prior to His
birth at Bethlehem. There is no passage of greater importance regarding His
preexistence than the first chapter of John, “In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim. The same was in the
beginning with Elohim. All things were made by him; and without him was not any
thing made that was made…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and
we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of
grace and truth” (John 1:1-3, 14).
Who represents the “Word”
here? In verse 14 the “Word” is identified as the only begotten of the Father.
This can refer only to Yahshua the Messiah. Does the “Word” in verse 1
correspond to the “Word” in verse 14? There are those who argue that the word
in verse 1 refers to the “plan of Yahweh,” while the word in verse 14 refers to
the manifestation of that plan, i.e., Yahshua the Messiah. The problem with
this view is context. It’s clear here that there is only one “Word” and that is
the Messiah.
This passage could be rendered, “In the
beginning was the Messiah, and the Messiah was with Elohim, and the Messiah was
Elohim.” Here is evidence that the Messiah was with Yahweh in the beginning.
There are some who struggle with John 1:1, which states, “…the Word was Elohim.” Some
have interpreted this as John confirming the equivalence of the Father and Son;
validating that the Father and Son are either co-equal or co-eternal or perhaps
both.
Proper understanding begins
with the Greek word for “elohim,” i.e., theos. This word refers to
“a general name of deities or divinities” (Thayer’s). From the Old and New
testaments we find that this term along with its Hebrew equivalent, elohim,
contains a wide application and applies to both the Father and Son. Based on
the meaning of theos, this passage could be rendered, “…the Messiah
was a ‘Mighty One.’” John is not confusing the Father and Son. He is simply
confirming that in the beginning the Son was with His Father as a “Mighty One.”
Having established who this
“Word” represents, let’s now move on to the meaning of verse 3. It says there
that all things were made by Him. The Word, i.e., Yahshua, was the one who
created all things. This includes the atom, one of the smallest units of matter
known to man, as well as the vast galaxies in this universe.
To summarize, we find three
facts in this passage: (1) The “Word” represents Yahshua the Messiah, (2)
Yahshua was with His Father in the beginning and (3) all things were made
through the Messiah. To remove the Messiah’s preexistence is to remove His
presence with His Father and His pivotal role at creation.
Existed Before
In Yahshua’s eye-opening prayer in John 17:5 we find Yahshua Himself declaring His own
preexistence as He prepared for His imminent death: “And now, O Father, glorify
thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the
world was.”
The key word here is “was.”
It is derived from the Greek einai meaning, “to exist”
(Strong’s). Thayer’s offers a similar definition, “to be, to exist, to happen,
to be present.” Based on the Greek, Yahshua is asking His Father to provide Him
the same glory that He had before the world existed. The Messiah here offers
irrefutable confirmation of his preexistence. He declares that He had glory
with His Father, indicating His exalted state, before the world existed. This
is the same message found in the first chapter of John.
Similar to the previous example, in John 8:56-58 the Messiah confirms that He existed before
Abraham. “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was
glad. Then said the Jews unto him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have
you seen Abraham? Yahshua said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Before Abraham was, I am.”
Before we consider verse 58, the critical verse
here, we must understand the context of this passage. Though this passage
speaks in the present tense, the context clearly refers to the past. In verse
58, Yahshua makes the remarkable statement, “….before Abraham existed, I was.”
What was He actually saying here? The meaning is once again revealed in the
Greek. The word “was” comes from the Greek ginomai. Strong’s defines
it as, “to cause to be, i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being).”
Thayer’s adds, “to become, that is, to come into existence, to begin to be, or
to receive being.” The phrase “I am” comes from the same Greek word for “was”
in John 17:5, i.e., einai. Additionally, The
Complete Word Study New Testament, under its Lexical Aid, provides this
definition: “to be, to exist, have existence or being.”
The Messiah confirms here
that before Abraham came into being that He Himself existed or was present.
John the Baptist also confirms the Messiah’s
preexistence, “John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, this was he of whom
I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me”
(John 1:15). The word “before” here is the Greekprotos.
Strong’s defines this word as, “foremost (in time, place, order or
importance).” This statement by John clearly refers to time and not to order of
importance. This is evident from John’s earlier statement, “He that cometh
after me.”
Those who know the genealogy might be saying,
but wait. John the Baptist’s mother, Elisabeth, conceived six months before
Mary (Luke 1:26). How then was Yahshua before John? This is
explained only through His preexistence. He existed in heaven with His Father
prior to being born as a man.
I Came from Above
In addition to these examples, Yahshua also
noted in several passages that He came down from heaven. One is John 3:13, “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but
he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”
Yahshua states that He came
down from heaven. The phrase “came down” is the Greek katabaino,
meaning “to descend” (Strong’s). Thayer’s offers additional detail on the
meaning: “the place from which one has come down.” Yahshua confirms that He
came down or descended from heaven. Based on the Greek, no other interpretation
would apply. For this statement to be true our Savior would have had to first
exist in heaven prior to His human birth.
An analogous passage can be found in John 6:38, “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine
own will, but the will of him that sent me.” The phrase “came down” is derived
from the same Greek word found in John 3:13, katabaino. The Messiah confirms
once more that He came down or descended from heaven. For this to be possible,
He would have had to preexist. In verse 62 Yahshua went on to say, “What and if
you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” Scripture states
that after Yahshua’s death and resurrection that He ascended into heaven (Acts 1:11).
In John 8:23 Yahshua provides proof for His previous
existence by drawing a contrast between Himself and mankind. “And he said unto
them, You are from beneath; I am from above: you are of this world; I am not of
this world.” The Messiah provides witness here to His place of origin. He
states that while man was from beneath and of this world, that He Himself was
neither. If Yahshua was not from beneath or of this world, from where did He
commence? The only clear conclusion is that He had His beginning in heaven. The
fact that Yahshua also stated that He was from above further solidifies this
fact.
So from multiple passages we find the same
message, the Messiah came down from or existed in heaven prior to his human
birth. He also confirms that no man has gone to heaven which is corroborated in
both Old and New testaments (Gen. 3:19, Job 14:2, Ps. 103: 14-16, 146:4, Eccl. 9:10, 12:7, Dan. 12:2, Acts 2:29-34).
Image of the Invisible El
Paul in Colossians 1:14-17 not only confirms Yahshua’s preexistence,
but also explains His role in the Old Testament: “In whom we have redemption
through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the
invisible El, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things
created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,
whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things
were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all
things consist.”
The subject here is clearly Yahshua. In verse
15 Paul states that Yahshua is the image of the invisible El, referring to the
Father. The Messiah in John 6:46 confirmed that no man had seen the Father
except for the Son. Scripture also corroborates that the Father cannot be seen
and is invisible (1Tim. 1:17, Heb. 11:27).
Paul states here that Yahshua
is the image of His Father. Is he referring to Yahshua’s past existence with
His Father prior to the world or His present existence as a man? From the next
few verses we find that he’s referring to His past existence, which confirms
that He was the image or representation of His Father in the Old Testament.
In verse 15 Paul states that
Yahshua is the firstborn of every creature. The word “firstborn” is derived
from the Greek wordprototokos. Both Strong’s and Thayer’s define this
word as “firstborn.” They offer no other definition. The KJV also translates
this word as “first begotten.” The meaning of prototokos is very
specific. It forthrightly describes Yahshua as the firstborn of every creature.
To ensure that we have a full
understanding of this passage, we must not neglect the word “creature.” This
word is derived from the Greek ktisis. Strong’s defines it as, “original
formation.” Thayer’s offers a similar definition, “creation, that is, a thing
created; used of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation.” Based on
the Greek, Paul is validating that Yahshua was the firstborn of every original
formation of creation.
He goes on to further explain that not only was
Yahshua the firstborn of every creature, but also that through Him all things
in the heavens and on earth were created. The word “created” in verse 16 is
from the Greek ktizo. Strong’s defines this word as, “to fabricate”
or to “create.” As we saw from John 1:3, it was by the Messiah that all things in
heaven and on earth were created.
Paul’s last point here is
important. Paul states that by Him, Yahshua, all things consist, speaking about
the creation of the heavens and earth. If Yahshua was not present at creation,
how then would all things consist by Him? This would make no sense unless
Yahshua was both present and active at creation.
Present in the Beginning
As noted, Yahshua again validates His
preexistence in Revelation 3:14, “And unto the angel of the assembly of the
Laodiceans write, These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness,
the beginning of the creation of El.” This passage states that Yahshua was the
“beginning” of Yahweh’s creation. This word is derived from the Greek arche.
Strong’s defines this word as, “a commencement, or (concretely) chief” as it
pertains to time. Thayer’s offers a similar definition: “(1) beginning, origin;
(2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series,
the leader; (3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active
cause; or (4) the extremity of a thing; used of the corners of a sail.”
As seen from these sources, the Greek arche has
two definitions: (1) origin, beginning or commencement and (2) chief in importance.
While both definitions would apply to Yahshua, the first is much more likely
based on Colossians 1:15, where Paul states that the Messiah is “the
firstborn of every creature.” Yahshua verifies here by His own testimony that
He was the beginning, origin, or commencement of Yahweh’s creation.
Understating this point is paramount. To ignore this truth is to disregard the
remarkable contribution Yahshua had as the origin or active cause of Yahweh’s
creation.
More extraordinary evidence of Yahshua’s
preexistence is found in Luke 10:17-18: “The seventy-two returned with joy and said,
‘Master, even the demons submit to us in your name.’ He replied, ‘I saw Satan
fall like lightning from heaven’” (NIV).
Satan was once in heaven, but because of his
rebellion was cast out. The Old Testament also speaks of Satan’s fall from
grace in the past tense (Gen. 3:14; Isa. 14:12; Ezek. 28:12-15). Yahshua said here that He witnessed this
event. If Yahshua did not preexist, how is it possible that He witnessed
Satan’s fall from heaven? Without being present, this would have been
impossible. The only reasonable conclusion is that Yahshua was actually there
when Yahweh ousted Satan from heaven, thus confirming Yahshua’s existence prior
to Bethlehem.
Yahshua the Rock
In 1Corinthians 10 we find Paul confirming Yahshua’s
presence in the Old Testament. He states, “Moreover, brethren, I would not that
you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all
passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in
the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same
spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and
that Rock was Messiah” (vv. 1-4).
Yahshua as the “spiritual
Rock” had a unique relationship with Israel. He followed, meaning accompanied,
Israel through the wilderness. The Old Testament calls Him “the Angel of
Yahweh.” A clear connection exists between the “spiritual Rock” and the Angel
of Yahweh in the Old Testament.
We find a second parallel between Yahshua and
the Angel of Yahweh. As Israel symbolically drank of this “spiritual Rock,” we
find in the New Testament that Yahshua declared that He was the living waters:
“In the last day, that great day of the feast, Yahshua stood and cried, saying,
If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believes on me, as
the scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” (John 7:37-38).
In both Old and New
testaments Yahshua symbolized spiritual waters. This further reinforces the
connection between the Angel of Yahweh and the Messiah’s presence and activity
in the Old Testament.
Solomon Confirms the Savior’s Preexistence
As seen earlier, Solomon in Proverbs 8:22-31 chronicles Yahshua’s preexistence and active
role in creation. “Yahweh possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his
works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the
earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no
fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the
hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the
fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the
heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he
established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his
commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him,
as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always
before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were
with the sons of men.”
Some will say this passage
refers not to Yahshua, but to Yahweh’s wisdom. They will refer to verse 12 to
validate this assertion, where Solomon was inspired to write, “I wisdom dwell
with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.” The challenge with
this belief is that the person in verse 22 was “possessed,” literally meaning,
“to erect, i.e., create,” Strong’s.
To erect or create something conveys that the
thing at one point did not exist. Therefore, to state that this refers to
Yahweh’s wisdom would be to claim that Yahweh at one point was without wisdom.
A much more likely interpretation is that the preexistent Messiah is meant.
This would not only harmonize with Revelation 3:14, but also corroborate with all other New
Testament passages referring to the Messiah’s presence before Bethlehem.
Before moving on, Proverbs 8:30 offers a key truth. It again states,
“Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing always before him.” The phrase “one brought up” comes from the
Hebrew amown. Brown Driver and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon defines
this Hebrew word as, “an artificer, an architect, a master workman, a skilled
workman.” Within the context, this phrase would be better rendered “master
workman,” as found in most modern translations.
Yahweh possessed (i.e.,
created) Yahshua before His works of old. This includes before the existence of
the earth (v.26) and heavens (v.27). In verse 30, as previously noted, Yahshua
was with Yahweh, His Father, as a master workman. This phrase connotes the
integral contributions of the preexistent Messiah. As Solomon produced the
blueprints and plans of the temple and hired the best workman to complete the
construction, we find the same relationship here between Yahweh, the great
architect, and Yahshua, His master workman.
Solomon provides another contribution to the
Messiah’s preexistence in Proverbs 30:4. He writes, “Who has ascended up into heaven,
or descended? who has gathered the wind in his fists? who has bound the waters
in a garment? who has established all the ends of the earth? what is his name,
and what is his son’s name, if you can tell?” (Prov. 30:4).
This passage is referring to
the creation of the heavens and earth. This is a key point. In closing, Solomon
asks, “What is His Name, and what is His Son’s Name?” The question leads to one
conclusion: both the Father and Son existed and were present at creation.
Elohim Created
This relationship may also be found in Genesis 1:1, where we read, “In the beginning Elohim
created the heaven and the earth.” As previously mentioned, the word Elohim is
singular, but is often used in the plural, expressing more than one mighty one.
Based on the context of Genesis chapter one,
this word undoubtedly refers to more than one mighty one. This can be seen from
verse 26, where Scripture states, “Let us make man in our image.” Similar
language is found in Genesis 3:22; 11:7. The
question is, who is the “us” mentioned here? Based on Proverbs 8:22-31, John 1:1-3, and Colossians 1:15-16, the “us” likely refers to the Father and Son,
showing evidence once more of both the Father and Son at creation.
As a side note, Genesis 1:1 literally reads, “In the beginning
Elohim, Aleph Tau, created . . . .” The Aleph and Tau represents the first and
last letters of the Hebrew alphabet and is a sign of the direct object in
Hebrew grammar. This may also depict the presence of both the Father and Son at
creation. As previously noted, a parallel exists with several passages in
Revelation, where both the Father and Son are referred to as the Alpha and
Omega.
Angel of Yahweh
Another intriguing parallel concerning the
pre-existent Messiah is found in the Angel of Yahweh. Exodus 23:20-21 reveals several similarities between
these two figures: “Behold, I send an Angel before you, to keep you in the way,
and to bring you 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.”
Three significant comparisons are found here
between the Angel of Yahweh and the New Testament Messiah. They both required
obedience (Ex. 23:21 and Matt. 28:20), had authority over sin (Ex. 23:21 and Matt. 9:6), and contained Yahweh’s Name (Ex. 23:21and Matt. 1:21). As noted, this angel is likely the
“spiritual Rock” that Paul referred to in 1Corinthians 10:4.
No other being corresponds based on the context
of these two passages. This angel can be found in other important roles, three
of which we will cover now. The first is referred to by Deacon Stephen in the
New Testament. In Acts 7:38 Stephen confirms that Moses received the
law from an angel: “This is he [Moses], that was in the assembly in the
wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our
fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us.”
The word angel here is from
the Greek aggelos meaning, “a messenger; especially an
‘angel’” (Strong’s). Thayer’s offers a similar definition: “a messenger, an
envoy, one who was sent, an angel, a messenger….” In contrast, Yahweh, the
Father, the exalted El, is neither an angel nor a messenger. Both are far below
His exalted status.
How does this correspond to the Old Testament?
“And Yahweh said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel,
You have seen that I have talked with you from heaven” (Ex. 20:22). How do we reconcile this passage with what
Stephen said in Acts? The one who likely gave the commandments to Moses was the
Angel of Yahweh, corresponding to the preexistent Messiah (1 Cor. 10:4) and the active agent of creation (John 1:1). In the two remaining examples, this point
will become clearer.
In Genesis 22 we find Abraham on the brink of
sacrificing his son Isaac, in which he was stopped by a mysterious figure. “And
the angel of Yahweh called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, And
said, By myself have I sworn, saith Yahweh, for because thou hast done this
thing, and hast not withheld your son, your only son” (Gen. 22:15-16).
A passage akin to Genesis 22 is Exodus 3:2, 4:
“And the angel of Yahweh appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst
of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush
was not consumed… And when Yahweh saw that he turned aside to see, Elohim
called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he
said, Here am I.”
In both of these passages we
find one being called the “angel of Yahweh” and “Yahweh.” The narrative clearly
shows that this is the same being. From the culmination of evidence, this
likely refers to the active Word or preexistent Messiah acting on behalf of His
Father.
Before continuing, it’s important to clarify
several crucial points. The Word, Angel of Yahweh and the Yahweh who spoke and
interacted with mankind was not the Father, but the Son conveying the intents
and words of His Father. This is comparable to when Yahshua spoke and acted on
behalf of His Father in the New Testament (John 1:18; 4:34; 5:19; 6:38; 7:16; 8:15-19, 28-30; 14:6). As
noted earlier, Scripture does not support a duality between the Father and Son.
The Father is greater than the Son (John 10:29;14:28; 1 Cor. 11:3) and “one” only in mind and purpose (John 17:22), not in being.
Yahweh of the Old Testament
We now lack only one
remaining piece of this puzzle. In several Old Testament passages we find
“Yahweh” appearing and interacting with man. For the reasons stated above and
one additional reason, which will now be explained, this cannot be the Father.
Scripture expressly states that no man has seen or heard the Father:
§
“No
man hath seen Yahweh at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom
of the Father, he hath declared him” (John 1:18).
§
“And
the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. You have
neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape” (John 5:37).
§
“Who
only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto;
whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting” (1Tim. 6:16).
§
“No
man hath seen Yahweh at any time. If we love one another, Elohim dwelleth in us,
and his love is perfected in us” (1John 4:12, 20).
Yahshua, Paul, and John all state that no human
has seen or heard the Father. Considering this, how can we explain those
instances of when Yahweh appeared before man? For example, how can we explain
when Yahweh appeared before Abraham in Genesis 18:1-3: “And Yahweh appeared unto him in the plains
of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up
his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he
ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And
said, My Master, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray
thee, from thy servant.”
Genesis 19:1 identifies the two men with Yahweh as
angels. The question remains, who was the “Yahweh” who appeared before Abraham?
Since Scripture declares that no man has seen the Father, this cannot be the
Father. From the weight of evidence, this probably represents the Son, the
active Word (Heb. Debar, Gk. Logos). To extend this
mystery further, Genesis 19:24 reveals two beings with the name Yahweh:
“Then Yahweh rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh
out of heaven.” We find here one Yahweh on earth, the same Yahweh who appeared
before Abraham, and a second Yahweh in heaven. The Yahweh on earth likely
represents the Son and the Yahweh in heaven represents the Father. We find that
the Son rained fire and brimstone from the Father, not from Himself.
In the New Testament Yahshua testified that He
could do nothing without His Father (John 8:28). As found here, this New Testament principle
held true in the Old Testament. All things within this universe come from the
Father, including His active Word, the preexistent Messiah. Yahshua’s presence
before Bethlehem is well documented in both Old and New Testaments. The most
important of this evidence is from the Messiah Himself. He declared in several
passages that He was with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1), that He descended from heaven (John 3:13), that He existed before Abraham (John 8:56) and that He had glory with the Father before
the world was (John 17:5).
In summary, while the
identity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has been a long standing debate
throughout the history of the Church, Scripture is clear on the following
facts:
§
The
word “Trinity” and its concept is absent from the Old and New testaments.
§
The
notion of the Trinity is not new, but goes back to the start of civilization.
§
The
Trinity doctrine was not firmly established until over 300 years after the
Messiah.
§
The
codification of the Trinity was motivated from political pressure.
§
The
Father is greater and superior to the Son.
§
The
Holy Spirit represents the power of the Father, not a third of a Trinity.
§
The
Father and Son are not one in being, but one in mind and goal
§
While
the Messiah is not eternal, He preexisted as the active Word, i.e., logos.
As mankind ponders the nature
of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it’s important that we study and confirm
the truth behind this crucial subject. This begins by letting go of
preconceived thoughts and biases and acknowledging the pages of Scripture as
the sole source of authority. Only through a forthright look at the Word can we
decipher and break through 2,000 years of man’s tradition.
Why the Pronoun ‘He' for the Holy Spirit?
In the New Testament the Holy Spirit is often referenced with t he personal pronoun “he,” “him,” or “himself.” Many will point to this as proof for the Trinity. For example, in John 14:16-17 Yahshua stated, “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” The “whom” here refers to the comforter, which comes from the Greek parakletos, a masculine word in Greek.
Even though the Holy Spirit is described in the both the neuter and masculine throughout the New Testament, it’s likely that the translators used the Greek parakletos as an indicator for the gender of the Holy Spirit. As such, the Spirit has been incorrectly rendered by the masculine pronoun in the New Testament.
Referring to inanimate objects in the masculine and feminine is not unusual. We find it in many languages. For example, in Italian the words for “love,” “sea,” and “sun,” are masculine and the words for “art,” “faith,” and “light” are feminine. In like manner, in Arabic, which contains no neuter gender, the words for “book,” “class,” “street” are masculine while the words “car,” “university,” and “city” are feminine.
Similarly, Hebrew, a Semitic language that shares many parallels with Arabic, including being without the neuter gender, has many cases where inanimate objects are rendered in the masculine or feminine. Masculine examples include the words for “word,” “day,” and “room.” Instances of the feminine include “land,” “animal,” and “spirit.” Even though the word for spirit (Heb. ruach) is feminine in the Hebrew language, Judaism views ruach as an inanimate object, i.e., wind.
Likewise, parakletos is masculine in Greek, notwithstanding, its usage is neuter. Translators with preconceived ideas about the Spirit would use “he” when they had no justification to do so. While many follow the pattern found in the King James Version in rendering the Holy Spirit in the masculine, a few translations correctly render it in the neuter, including the Diaglott, Rotherham, Goodspeed, and Literal Concordant.
In addition to the above references, there are three instances in the KJV where it correctly refers to the Holy Spirit in the neuter. The first is found in Matthew 10:20, “For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” Instead of “who,” the translators correctly used the form “which” in reference to the Spirit. The last two examples are both found in the eighth chapter of Romans, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of Elohim…Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered” (vv. 16, 26).
Why the Pronoun ‘He' for the Holy Spirit?
Even though the Holy Spirit is described in the both the neuter and masculine throughout the New Testament, it’s likely that the translators used the Greek parakletos as an indicator for the gender of the Holy Spirit. As such, the Spirit has been incorrectly rendered by the masculine pronoun in the New Testament.
Referring to inanimate objects in the masculine and feminine is not unusual. We find it in many languages. For example, in Italian the words for “love,” “sea,” and “sun,” are masculine and the words for “art,” “faith,” and “light” are feminine. In like manner, in Arabic, which contains no neuter gender, the words for “book,” “class,” “street” are masculine while the words “car,” “university,” and “city” are feminine.
Similarly, Hebrew, a Semitic language that shares many parallels with Arabic, including being without the neuter gender, has many cases where inanimate objects are rendered in the masculine or feminine. Masculine examples include the words for “word,” “day,” and “room.” Instances of the feminine include “land,” “animal,” and “spirit.” Even though the word for spirit (Heb. ruach) is feminine in the Hebrew language, Judaism views ruach as an inanimate object, i.e., wind.
Likewise, parakletos is masculine in Greek, notwithstanding, its usage is neuter. Translators with preconceived ideas about the Spirit would use “he” when they had no justification to do so. While many follow the pattern found in the King James Version in rendering the Holy Spirit in the masculine, a few translations correctly render it in the neuter, including the Diaglott, Rotherham, Goodspeed, and Literal Concordant.
In addition to the above references, there are three instances in the KJV where it correctly refers to the Holy Spirit in the neuter. The first is found in Matthew 10:20, “For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.” Instead of “who,” the translators correctly used the form “which” in reference to the Spirit. The last two examples are both found in the eighth chapter of Romans, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of Elohim…Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered” (vv. 16, 26).