Scriptural Evidence that God is One Being
Jesus said
that eternal life was dependent on knowing the Father, the only true God. Jesus didn’t say that Jesus, the Father and
the Holy Spirit were the only true God.
He said the Father was the only true God. And we can’t know the Father as the only true
God unless we actually believe that the Father alone is truly God.
John 17:3,
“And this is life eternal,
that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou
hast sent.”
Jesus said that the greatest
commandment begins with the declaration that God is One, not three in one:
Mark 12:29-30,
“29 Jesus answered, The
first is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one: 30 and
thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy mind, and with all thy strength”.
The most
important commandment, according to Jesus, begins with the knowledge that God
is ONE.
Jesus is
quoting Deuteronomy 6:4-5. Trinitarians
will often claim that the word translated as “one”, which is “echad”,
indicates a compound unity. The primary
verse they turn to in order to justify this is Genesis 2:24. However, when we look at the verse in
context, we can see their argument fall apart.
Genesis
2:21-24 ASV
21 And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall
upon the man, and he slept; and he took one (echad) of his ribs, and
closed up the flesh instead thereof: 22 and the rib, which
Jehovah God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the
man. 23 And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and
flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one (echad) flesh.
When we look
at verse 21 we see that “echad” is used there to indicate one single rib. It is not a unity of multiple ribs. Throughout the Tanakh “echad” is usually used
to simply indicate “one” or “first”.
Using it to describe a unity is the exception, not the rule. In reality “echad” acts very much like the
English word “one”. It in no way, shape
or form implies a unity. It can be used
to describe a unity, but only if the context clearly indicates that.
Jesus’s
conversation didn’t end there. The scribe
he was talking to clearly stated that he understood the word “echad” to mean
that God consisted of one single person, the Father alone.
32 And the scribe said unto him, Of a truth,
Teacher, thou hast well said that he is one; and there is none other but he:
33 and to love him with all the heart, and with all the
understanding, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself,
is much more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices. Mark 12:32-33 ASV
If “echad”
really indicated that God was a unity of three persons, Jesus should have
corrected the scribe. Instead, he
believed the scribe answered correctly and told the scribe he was on the path
to the Kingdom of Heaven.
34 And when Jesus saw that he answered
discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no
man after that durst ask him any question. Mark 12:34 ASV
When Trinitarians say that “echad”
in Deuteronomy 6:4 indicates that God is a unity of three persons, they are
saying that Jesus was wrong. They are
absolutely refusing to believe Jesus.
They prefer to listen to the church leaders instead of Jesus.
Of the Abrahamic religious
traditions, only Christians generally believe that God is a Trinity, rather
than a single being. Jews and Muslims
both consider this a terrible blasphemy.
If God really is a Trinity, then the evidence in scripture should point
to that. And, if God is only one, the
evidence in scripture should point to that.
There are quite a few different
views on exactly how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit form a Trinity. I will not attempt to examine the veracity of
each of these. Rather, I will simply
ask, do the Scriptures point to one person who is God, or three? And, do the Scriptures indicate that God
brought Jesus into existence and gave him his power and authority?
The New Testament was not written to replace or supersede the Old
Testament. The New Testament was written
by people who were firmly grounded in the Old Testament. Christians today tend to read the New
Testament through the lens of their church’s teachings. They search the New Testament for passages
that seem to support what they have been taught. And they ignore or explain away any passages
that seem to disagree with what they were taught. Whereas the writers of the New Testament were
writing from the perspective of someone raised on the Old Testament alone,
namely the Jewish perspective. They
never heard of Catholics, or Methodists, or Presbyterians, etc.
This is something that most people completely fail to grasp the
significance of. There are many passages
in the New Testament that are open to interpretation. I’m sure you could even find a few verses
that could be read in such a way as to support the existence of the Flying
Spaghetti Monster. However, if someone
wrote a book proposing this hypothesis, I doubt many people would even bother
reading it. Why? The reason is that the Flying Spaghetti
Monster is so far outside the realm of what was believed in First Century
Palestine that no historian would even consider the possibility that this is
what the authors of the New Testament meant.
That interpretation is not at all viable because it falls completely
outside the realm of what the authors could have meant.
And this is
one of the key points that people overlook regarding the Trinity. Can the New Testament be interpreted as
supporting the Trinity? Of course it
can! We wouldn’t have so many
Trinitarian Christians if it wasn’t possible.
But, that doesn’t make it a viable interpretation. Jesus and his first followers were Jews. And most of the New Testament was written by
Jews. The New Testament wasn’t written
in some sort of code that the authors couldn’t understand, hiding secrets they
didn’t believe. It was written by First
Century Jews who knew what they believed and wrote their books to convey their
beliefs. So, if we want to know what the
New Testament means, then we must interpret it through the lens of First
Century Judaism. The views and beliefs
of modern Christians are irrelevant here.
Modern Christians are 2000 years removed from the authors and are from a
completely different culture. We must go
back to what the First Century Jews believed and taught. Only then can we begin to fashion the proper
lens through which to interpret the New Testament.
How can we be
sure that the lens of First Century Judaism is the proper lens through which to
interpret the New Testament? Why not a
Greek lens, or a Roman lens? There are
several things that tell us this. First,
Jesus, the disciples, all of the first followers, and even Paul were Jews. This is indisputable.
But, did the
first followers hang on to their Jewishness during the formation of the New
Testament, or did they abandon it?
One religious
historian, Jeffrey Bütz, put it this way:
As abundant evidence has
shown us, after Jesus’ crucifixion his family and disciples continued to
worship together in the Temple in Jerusalem, manifesting no difference from
their fellow Jews except in their belief that Jesus was the Davidic Messiah.
Unfortunately for these harmonious beginnings, Pauline Christianity
increasingly adopted an understanding of Jesus that Judaism could not
ultimately bear: the Hellenistic theological belief that Jesus was literally
God incarnate in human flesh. As the doctrine of the incarnation became ever
more central to Gentile Catholic Christianity, an impassible theological wall
arose between Jews and Christians.
The doctrine of the
incarnation is also the great wall that separates Muslims and Christians. Most
Christians today are completely unaware that Muslims highly revere Jesus and
honor his teachings (they even believe in the virgin birth), but like their
Jewish cousins, the strict monotheism of Islam could never accept the key
Christian dogmas of the incarnation and the Holy Trinity. It is therefore
potentially significant for interreligious dialogue today that one of the firm
conclusions modern research into James has revealed is that neither Jesus’
family, nor the apostles, nor his Jewish disciples, believed that Jesus was
literally God. They believed that Jesus was the Davidic Messiah, “adopted” by
God as his “son” at his baptism by John, but still a human being. That the
earliest Christian doctrine was in no way incompatible with Jewish doctrine is
evidenced above all by the fact that the Jews in Jerusalem continued to accept
Jesus’ followers as fellow Jews; in fact, they saw them as being particularly
rigorous and pious Jews.
It is more than intriguing
that the Muslim understanding of Jesus is very much in conformity with the
first Christian orthodoxy—the original Jewish Christian understanding of Jesus.[1]
Why did this
historian come to such a conclusion? We
have some undisputable facts. First,
Judaism teaches that God is one, indivisible person. As we will soon see, this idea has the
support of the clearest and strongest passages in the Tanakh. Second, mainstream Christianity teaches that
God is composed of three persons in one God.
Third, Christianity came out of Judaism, not the other way around.
This situation
can only come about in one of a few ways.
One is that God taught the Jews that He alone is God for thousands of
years and then suddenly revealed that He is actually three persons in one God. Another is that ancient Jews actually
believed in the Trinity and all of the historical data for this has been lost,
or covered up by historians and archaeologists.
Another is that Judaism and early Christians agreed that God is a
single, indivisible person and later converts to Christianity came up with the
idea of the Trinity. The first
possibility makes God out to be a cruel trickster who made it impossible for
His faithful Jewish followers to accept the idea that this man walking around
was actually one of three persons who were God.
The Second possibility requires the belief in a massive, conspiracy
maintained down through the centuries.
The third possibility, I would argue, is the most rational. This is especially true when you compare
Judaism to the Greco-Roman beliefs the new converts to Christianity came from. Which is more compatible with the idea that
there are multiple persons who are God?
Which has stories of the gods taking on mortal form and even dying? Doctrine should be dictated by Scriptures,
not human philosophy. But, we can use
reason to help us see that the doctrine of the Trinity, in light of
undisputable facts, raises some huge red flags.
It completely contradicts the Jewish faith and everyone agrees that
Jesus and the Apostles were Jews. We
need to carefully examine the Scriptures to see what they actually say.
The question
is, does the Bible support the conclusions of this historian? No one can deny that Jesus and his disciples
were Jews. There are two questions that
must be answered. Does the Bible
indicate that the disciples rejected Judaism in order to form a new
religion? If they didn’t reject Judaism,
then are the doctrines of the Trinity and incarnation taught by Judaism and the
Tanakh (Old Testament)?
If you go from
worshipping the God of Abraham to worshipping the many Hindu gods, you haven’t
grown as a religion with new light. You
have rejected the foundational principles of one religion in favor of
another. In a similar way, changing from
worshipping one person who is God to worshipping three persons is a fundamental
change in religion. This isn’t something
you can say is simply new light given to the disciples. This is a change in what you worship, the
most basic part of any religion.
Judaism has
always taught that God is one person.
The Torah commands the immediate execution of any Jew who suggested the
worship of anyone other than the God of Judaism. If Jesus and the disciples had really taught
that there were three persons who were God and that one of them was this man
walking around, the Jews would have been absolutely justified in killing Jesus
and all of his followers.
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy
son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, that is as thine
own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which
thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 of the gods of
the peoples that are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee,
from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 thou
shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity
him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 but
thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to
death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou
shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away
from Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the
house of bondage. 11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and
shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.
12 If thou shalt hear tell concerning one of thy
cities, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee to dwell there, saying, 13 Certain
base fellows are gone out from the midst of thee, and have drawn away the
inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye
have not known; 14 then shalt thou inquire, and make search,
and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that
such abomination is wrought in the midst of thee, 15 thou shalt
surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword,
destroying it utterly, and all that is therein and the cattle thereof, with the
edge of the sword. 16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it
into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and
all the spoil thereof every whit, unto Jehovah thy God: and it shall be a heap
for ever; it shall not be built again. 17 And there shall
cleave nought of the devoted thing to thy hand; that Jehovah may turn from the
fierceness of his anger, and show thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee,
and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers; 18 when
thou shalt hearken to the voice of Jehovah thy God, to keep all his
commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the
eyes of Jehovah thy God. Deuteronomy 13:6-18 ASV
If we can show
that the disciples didn’t reject Judaism, and the Tanakh (Old Testament)
teaches strict monotheism rather than Trinitarianism, then we must see if the
New Testament can be interpreted as supporting strict monotheism (only the
Father is truly God). If all three of
these conditions exist, then we will have established that the Trinity isn’t
drawn out of the scriptures, but must be read into it.
The idea that
the disciples didn’t reject Judaism as a false religion is readily acknowledged
by mainstream Christians, so I won’t spend too much time on it. There are several things that can quickly
establish this.
For one thing,
the word “Christian” only appears in three verses of the entire New Testament,
Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16.
This shows that they didn’t emphasize differences with Judaism. In fact the last book of the New Testament to
be written still refers to the true followers of Jesus as Jews, not Christians
(Revelation 3:9). There is no such thing
as a separate religion known as “Christianity” in the New Testament. Jesus is the one speaking in Revelation
3:9. He calls the true followers of God
“Jews”, not “Christians”.
The intense
Jewishness if the disciples and early followers can be best illustrated in Acts
chapter 15. First, you need to
understand a fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity. Many Christians believe that one needs to
become a Christian in order to properly follow God. This concept does not exist within
Judaism. Judaism teaches that only Jews
need to follow the Mosaic Law. Gentiles
need to worship God in order to be saved.
However, they only need to follow the laws given to Noah in Genesis
9. The Mosaic Law is binding on the Jews
alone, according to Jewish teaching.
In Acts 15
some members of the Pharisees who followed Jesus were insisting that the
gentiles who were converting needed to be circumcised and follow the Mosaic
Law. Notice this was the Mosaic Law as
taught by the Pharisees, which Jesus said included many unnecessary and
difficult things (Matthew 23:4). The
Bible says that the original Mosaic Law was not difficult to follow (Deuteronomy
30:11, Romans 7:22). When Peter said the
law was difficult to follow, he was echoing Jesus’s criticism of the Pharisaic
interpretation of the law. This debate
nearly tears the community apart. In the
end they decide that the gentile converts would not be required to keep the
Mosaic Law in order to be part of their congregation. Many people read their own ideas into this
incident by saying that the Jerusalem council declared that it was no longer
necessary to follow the Mosaic Law. The
Jerusalem council in Acts 15 only discussed whether or not the gentile
believers needed to follow the Mosaic Law.
It never discussed whether or not Jewish believers needed to follow the
Mosaic Law.
The council
did put four restrictions on the gentile converts (Acts 15:20). First they were required to abstain from
pollution with idols, which was a logical interpretation of the Mosaic Law’s
prohibition against Jews and gentiles living in Israel performing sacrifices
anyplace other than the sanctuary (Leviticus 17:8-9). Second, they were to abstain from fornication. This comes from the fact that the Mosaic Law
forbade Jews and gentiles to commit sexual sins (Leviticus 18:6-26). Third, they were prohibited from eating
strangled animals. This was a logical
interpretation of the Mosaic Law’s requirement that neither Jew or gentile eat
animals that did not have the have the blood properly drained or were killed by
animals or died on their own (Leviticus 17:13, 15). Fourth, they were forbidden to eat blood. The Mosaic Law also forbid both Jew and
gentile to do this (Leviticus 17:10).
The point is that all of these restrictions on the gentiles came from
the Mosaic Law. They cannot be seen as a
replacement of it. Further, verses 21,
22 of Acts 15 inform us that James reminded the Pharisees that these gentile
converts would hear the Mosaic Law preached every Sabbath in the synagogue,
implying that they might still decide to become circumcised. And this is why the Pharisees agreed to the
decision.
In Acts 21:17-26 we get a very
informative commentary on this decision.
Paul returned to Jerusalem and was greeted by James. James informed Paul that there were thousands
of believers in Jerusalem who zealously followed the Mosaic Law. These Jewish believers had heard rumors that
Paul was preaching that the Jews no longer needed to follow the Mosaic
Law. James said that they needed to do
something to demonstrate to the Christians that those rumors were false and
that Paul still followed the Mosaic Law.
James suggested that Paul join several believers who had taken the
Nazarite vow and sponsor their sacrifices.
The Mosaic Law required Jews to go to the temple to perform sacrifices
at the end of the Nazarite vows (Numbers 6:13-21). Part of the reason James suggested this test
seems to result from the fact that Paul had already voluntarily taken the
Nazarite vow (Acts 18:18). However, he
wasn’t able to bring the sacrifices and complete the vow until he returned to
Jerusalem. This would serve as an ideal
test because the Nazarite vow was a purely voluntary part of the Mosaic Law and
Paul had undergone it while in the gentile lands. This would demonstrate Paul’s enthusiasm for
the Mosaic Law. When Paul went with the
believers to the temple to shave their heads and offer the sacrifices, the Jews
rioted, claiming that Paul was teaching that the Mosaic Law was done away with
(Acts 21:27-30). Paul stood trial before
all the chief priests and their council.
He claimed to be a Pharisee (a very strict observer of the Mosaic Law)
and the Pharisees voted to dismiss the charges against him for lack of evidence
(Acts 22:30-23:9). In other words, the
Pharisees found no evidence that Paul was teaching that the Mosaic Law was done
away with.
Hebrews 8 discusses in detail how
the new covenant Jesus established means the old covenant will pass away. Verses 10-13 tell us precisely when the old
covenant will pass away. One of the
indicators that it has happened is that all humans will know God. There will be no need for missionaries.
I believe this establishes quite
well that the Jewish followers of Jesus retained their Jewishness and did not
denounce Judaism as a false religion.
Now, we need to look at what the Tanakh (Old Testament) teaches about
God. The question is, would someone who
had never heard the word “Christian” or seen the New Testament believe that God
was one person or a Trinity? Would
someone from this background find the idea of the Trinity and the Incarnation
acceptable?
[1] Bütz, Jeffrey J. The Brother of Jesus and the Lost
Teachings of Christianity. Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 2005. 186. Print.
