Elohim is the plural Hebrew word used in verses like Genesis 1:1 and 1:26, the latter being where it says that God exclaimed, "Let us make mankind in our image." Working backwards from the assumptions of tradition, evangelicals might believe that this is direct confirmation of the classical Trinity, as Trinitarianism is a popular misconception about Christianity inside and outside of the church. Their pastor or friend or some irrationalist author likely made the claim that God is "three in one" first, perhaps presenting some misinterpreted passages and their non sequitur conclusions--though many Trinitarians I have met do not even remember any verse when pressed that is in relevant to exploring the matter--and then the casual evangelical accepted it.
The word "us" could be God (Yahweh, or the Father) referring to himself without signifying either an additional personality within himself--as conventional Trinitarianism requires--or addressing other beings. This would be like the so-called "royal we" or more casual nosism. If God is addressing other beings here, it still would not have to be the case that he is addressing Christ, whom John 1 says created the cosmos alongside the Father, though it says nothing of whether Jesus existed past eternally like Yahweh. Genesis does not clarify when angelic creatures like the once-great cherub of Ezekiel 28, likely Satan, were brought into existence. Genesis 1 says that God created the physical universe (or universes if there is a multiverse), and John 1 says Yahweh created nothing that Christ did not contribute to.
Still, this does not mean that angels were not already formed and that they did not also participate in some way in bringing about the cosmos. However long it was between the creation of humankind and the introduction of human sin, at least the serpent was already present (3:1), something identified with Satan much later (Revelation 12:9). Even if the Bible did teach conventional Trinitarianism, which would actually require that this part of Christianity is false since three persons being one and one person being three without multiple personality disorder is logically impossible, the plural language of Genesis 1:26 would not in any way point directly to this. Plural pronouns can mean all sorts of things that do not have to do with the Trinity, and more importantly, the Trinitarianism of evangelicals and mainstream historical Christians is logically impossible.
Does the Bible teach this contradictory notion elsewhere? On the contrary, it affirms the metaphysical distinction between the Father and Son. Jesus did not know when he would return while saying the Father did (Matthew 24:36), which could not be true if they were the exact same being. He submitted his will to that of the Father (Luke 22:39-44), which is again impossible if he is just the same as Yahweh. A person cannot submit their will to their own will since that is already what it is! Christ also distinguished between himself and God (Mark 10:17-18 with the rich young ruler), just as New Testament writers in other books do, such as Paul in places like 1 Timothy 6:13-16 and Philippians 2:5-11. God could not have elevated Christ to the status Paul describes in the latter if they were already the same being, which by necessity means Christ would already have had that status.
Also, Genesis 1:27, in the same chapter that first mentions Elohim, says that God created humans in his image, not in "their" image. Genesis 1 says nothing which logically necessitates a teaching of conventional Trinitarianism, and it is perfectly consistent with the later explicit doctrine of the Bible that the Father and the Son are absolutely not the same divine entity. In fact, for the most part, the New Testament is what clarifies that Jesus is not the same as Father whom he serves. There is no classical Trinity taught in the Bible. Jesus and the Father are one in purpose (John 10:30), not the same mind in a metaphysical sense (10:29). As Jesus says right before John 10:30, the Father is greater than he is, which could not be the case otherwise!
No comments:
Post a Comment