What the Bible Talks About When It Talks About God (part 10)

Note: This post is meant to be read after reading part 1 of this series, where I lay some groundwork and introduce some important concepts. I would also advise reading the other preceding parts, but this is not completely necessary.

The Trinity

As we've been exploring the way the concept of God develops and changes throughout the Biblical texts, I wonder if there have been audience members sitting in their office chairs with sullen looks, wondering when, oh when will I talk about the Trinity?

And I wondered if I even should talk about it. Because I'm no longer convinced that it even appears anywhere in the Bible - at least not in the way tradition insists it does.

This is a subject that the popular Bible scholar Dan McClellan has repeatedly returned to in his videos - such as this one, or this one. In one of my favorite videos of his where he talks about this, he points out that there is a "fundamental incoherence" of the Trinity, and he explains what this incoherence is with the illustration of a math problem. And in this math problem, it is like saying:

a is the Father
b is the Son
c is the Holy Spirit
g is God
a + b + c = g
a = g
b = g
c = g
a ≠ b
b ≠ c
a ≠ c 

And this does not make mathematical sense, nor does it make sense in light of the way persons or substance have ever been understood. 

 

And I can recall wrestling with this concept as a child, and questioning elders about it, and these sorts of conversations would always seem to end with something along the lines of "well, this is just one of those mysteries that you have to accept through faith."

Or, hear me out here, what if it's one of those things that authoritarian men came up with after the Bible was written and then enforced when the Church got in bed with empire in the days of Constantine and started using governmental authority to punish heresy?

But some of you will insist: the Trinity is in the Bible. Except many of the "proofs" for this concept are based on fundamental misunderstandings of what the original author was trying to say in the language in which these passages were originally written.

One of the passages people often point to as "proof" of the Trinity is John 1:1-5, which I discussed in part 8 of this series as part of my discussion on "Logos" and the connections to the Jewish literature on Lady Wisdom. And hopefully, through that discussion, some of my readers have already caught on to the fact that modern Christians who are unfamiliar with the connections between this passage and some of the things Philo said about Logos will already be seeing how taking this passage as equating Jesus with God misunderstands the passage. Because for John, Logos is the Wisdom of God, the argument of God, the reason behind the order of the universe, and it was the first creation, which means that equating it with God is a misunderstanding of what John is saying. 

But oh, you say, verse 1 of the passage says that "the Logos was with God and the Logos was God." Except that people who make this argument don't understand the original Greek and what is going on here. Because you have to understand that in Greek, there are definite articles but there are not indefinite articles. Meaning: in English, we have definite articles like "the", and we have indefinite articles like "a book" or "a tree". Greek does not have indefinite articles. So when we read John 1 in the original Greek, it says that "the Logos was with the God [ton theon] and the Logos was divine [theos]." Now, note here - theon and theos are the same word, but different cases - theon is the form used when the word is the direct object in a sentence, and theos is the form used when the word is the subject of the sentence. And Bible scholars have noted that when they look at the ways this word is used in this time period by many different authors, it can mean "God" or it can simply mean "divine" - as in, "a god", or someone or something that is godly/god-like. So it is important that in this verse, the author switches from using the definite article ton when referring to God in the first part of the verse, and leaving out the definite article in the second part of the verse.

So then some people will retort: well Jesus definitely claims to be God in John 8:58 when he says "before Abraham was, I am." And here they are interpreting this as Jesus using the divine name that was revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14. But there's a big problem with this - when Jesus says "I am" here, it's just a commonly used Greek phrase for saying things like "that's me", or "that was me" - ego eimi. And furthermore, when you examine the first known Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible - the Septuagint - and look at Exodus 3:14, you see God telling Moses that his name is "I am who I am", and the Greek here is ego eimi ho on. And then later in the verse, when God says "tell them I am sent you", the words used here are not ego eimi but are ho on. So here, God seems to be telling Moses that the divine name Moses should use is not ego eimi, but is ho on. And Jesus does not use the words ho on, he just uses a very common Greek phrase that identifies oneself as the one who did a thing or was in a place. And to illustrate how important this is, when Jesus heals a blind man in the next chapter of John, and the people in his town are asking "isn't this that blind man who sits and begs?" The blind man replies in verse 9 "ego eimi", translated as "I am he", and no one ever seems to argue that this means that the blind man is God.

So then, some may come back to John 8:58 and say that because Jesus seems to be claiming eternality or preexistence, it implies he is God. But that is not necessarily the case. Again, returning to part 8 of this series, recall that Philo claims that the High Priest is the preexisting Logos, "by means of whom the universe arrived at creation." And this does not mean that Philo believes every High Priest who has ever lived was a person of the Trinity, with the same being/substance (homoousion) as God. But also, this verse doesn't necessarily imply preexistence, either - because if we go back to the context, we see that in verse 56, Jesus is arguing that the prophecy that the messiah would come from Abraham's line was about him (Jesus) - so this statement may simply be a statement that Jesus as messiah was preordained since the beginning of time, and is not a statement of eternal existence on Jesus' part.

So then some will continue the argument by turning to the story in John 10:22-40, where Jesus says that "the Father and I are one" in verse 30, and then verse 31 it says that the Jews responded by picking up stones to stone him. Surely [they argue] this proves that he was claiming to be God, since the Jews responded this way? 

But what about the way Jesus responds to this? Because after the Jews pick up the stones to kill him, and then explain that they feel that Jesus is committing blasphemy and making himself God, it says in verses 34-36:

Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled—can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

Note two things about this response - first, Jesus quotes Psalm 82 here, which we covered as a proof for polytheistic thought within Judaism in part 2 of this series. And secondly, note how Jesus clarifies here that he has never "made himself God" as the Jews are accusing him of in this passage, but rather - Jesus argues - he has only claimed to be God's Son. Note that this demonstrates that for the writer of John, while being "God's Son" implies a special relationship with God that includes "one-ness" with God, it is not the same thing as being equal to God.

Furthermore, if "the Father and I are one" is indeed a claim of being one of the members of the Trinity, then what does it mean when Jesus prays in John 17:21-22 "that they may all be one... [a]s you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us", and then repeats the request that "they may be one, as we are one"? Does this mean that Jesus is praying that the disciples would become members of the Trinity [thus making the Trinity the Quadrinity and then the Quintinity and so on and so forth]?

Or is it possible that the writer of John simply has a different conception of divinity - perhaps one closer to the panentheistic formulation that we discussed in the last section of this series?

Perhaps, when considering formulaic language such as the Trinity, one should hold these words and concepts loosely - recognizing that if one is trying to talk about the infinite, sacred, and holy ground of all Being that has existed before time itself, then one must recognize that all language one uses to attempt to explain such a thing fails? Because if the divine is limitless, then surely any limited language one tries to use will fail to capture such a thing?

I remember years ago, I had a co-worker that I thought I would witness to - I thought I would try to bring him to salvation. This happened just as I was only beginning to ask some questions about my own faith that were starting to reshape it. And I remember that I had a conversation with him about faith, and in response, he lent me a copy of Living Buddha, Living Christ, by the Tibetan monk Thich Nhat Hanh. And there is a chapter in the book where he writes about the Holy Spirit - and this had been a concept I had never really grasped as a child. But for the first time in my life, I felt like I understood the Holy Spirit - all because of a Buddhist monk. And in this chapter of the book, Thich Nhat Hanh talks about breathing exercises and meditative phrases used to help the practitioner develop a sense of living in the present moment, and compassion for others and for all of nature around us. And I think back on the concept we talked about in the last part of this series where I mentioned that the Hebrew word for "spirit" is ruach and the Greek is pneuma (from which we get English words like pneumatic), both words which mean "breath" or "wind". 

https://lisagawlas.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/your-breath-of-life/

In this chapter, Thich Nhat Hanh writes:

The most precious gift we can offer others is our presence. When our mindfulness embraces those we love, they will bloom like flowers. If you love someone but rarely make yourself available to him or her, that is not true love. When your beloved is suffering, you need to recognize her suffering, anxiety, and worries, and just by doing that, you already offer some relief. Mindfulness relieves suffering because it is filled with understanding and compassion. When you are really there, showing your loving-kindness and understanding, the energy of the Holy Spirit is in you.

And later on in the same chapter, he writes:

Discussing God is not the best use of our energy. If we touch the Holy Spirit, we touch God not as a concept but as a living reality. 

And then, near the end of the chapter, he writes:

Our true home is in the present moment. The miracle is not to walk on water. The miracle is to walk on the green earth in the present moment. Peace is all around us—in the world and in nature—and within us—in our bodies and our spirits. Once we learn to touch this peace, we will be healed and transformed. It is not a matter of faith; it is a matter of practice. We need only to bring our body and mind into the present moment, and we will touch what is refreshing, healing, and wondrous.

What if, instead of turning Trinity into a credal statement that Christians must bow before and recite whether it makes sense to them or not, the real point of it all was for Jesus to show his disciples a Way - the Way of compassion, through which the presence of the Divine becomes a living reality in the present moment?

The Trinity, Creeds, and the major problem that's killing the church

To those of you who've been wondering about my inactivity on the blog - I've been slowly working on a massive project.  This is a project that will probably be bigger than my hell project and most likely even bigger than my Satan project.  To give you an idea of how big this might end up being, I had about 50 pages of notes for my Satan project before I wrote it, and I have over 100 pages for this one.  I think this project will be called "Judaism and the Mystical Christ", to wet your appetite.

But in the meantime, I wanted to write some quick thoughts I had on a phenomenon that upsets me.  I've written before about the statistical phenomenon dubbed the "Rise of the Nones", as well as writing a post about what I felt at the time was The Greatest Problem Western Christianity Faces.

What I want to write about now is building on those ideas.  To put it very simply, I think the issue that's really at the heart of just about all of the Church's problems (and when I say "the Church" here I'm talking about the church universal) is the idea that what we call "beliefs" are the most important thing that determines whether a person is good or not.  And the reason I put "beliefs" in quotes is because I think that the way we use this word today - speaking of ideas that one insists with their mouth (or keyboard) to be true whether or not they can back that up with reasoning or any kind of scientific evidence - is a distortion of what the word originally meant.  The original meaning of the word was "to be-love" (coming from the Old English "be loef", which meant to hold dear).  And we can illustrate the difference between the modern meaning and the pre-modern meaning of this word by thinking of the simple difference between believing someone and believing in someone.  Believing in Jesus means that we believe that the way he lived is a demonstration of "the Way" - the way which will heal the problems the world faces.  This is very different from insisting on ideas about Jesus.

But we've hammered into people's heads that what being Christian is all about is insisting on ideas - even if you act like a jerk when you do it.  Having the right ideas is what separates the good and the bad - or to put it the way a certain documentary is titled, "Good People Go to Hell, Saved People Go to Heaven".  This is, to put it bluntly, complete bullshit.  Insisting that right ideas is what separates the good from the bad is like saying: the sun is approximately 92,955,807 miles from the earth, and anyone who disagrees, quotes a different number (even if it's off by a single digit), or didn't know this fact is a bad person.

And Jesus couldn't have cared less if you had all the right ideas.  This is demonstrated by the fact that in the parable of the sheep and the goats, the only difference between the sheep and the goats was in the way they treated other people - not their ideas!  Jesus told another parable to demonstrate how a "neighbor" acted in which the person who best demonstrated this way of life was a Samaritan - someone of another religion!  Not only that, but someone that the majority of the Jews of Jesus' day would have considered an enemy!  If he told that story today, I daresay it would be called "the Good Muslim"!  And Jesus said that the defining characteristic of someone who was his disciple was love!  Jesus also said that the entirety of scripture was summed up in love (see Mt. 22:40), so if you want to still insist that theological ideas are important, than you're going to have to demonstrate to me how those ideas make you more loving before I'll accept that you've got the right ideas. 

This whole idea of "the Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it" has got to go - it's unrealistic and turns people into jerks, as well as lifting up ignorance and thoughtlessness and pretending that this is righteousness and intelligence.  What we call "the Bible" says things in a translation of a translation of a version of a collection of documents that have all gone through many many revisions and often we have no clue who wrote these things down in the first place (the statement you are looking at may not have even been a part of the original document); we interpret these sayings through our modern lens which all too often distorts the original meaning and intention of the sayings as they would have been heard within their historical context; and that definitely doesn't settle it - there's plenty of room for discussion.

I've seen this problem at work in the reactions on various web forums to an article recently published by Pastor Mark Sandlin - reactions like being told he's a heretic, isn't a Christian, etc.  In this article, Sandlin outlines some problems with the doctrine of the Trinity - mainly that there is no place in the Bible that even explicitly states this idea.  Oh, you might point out that in certain translations of the Bible, I John 5:7-8 says "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit" - but this was a later modification made by overzealous translators who wanted to "settle" this debate.  The phrase was added in during the debate within the church, and all the original version talked about was "the Spirit, the water, and the blood".  This shows you what length people will go to in order to win an argument about ideas, and it's disgusting to be honest. 

It's actually interesting to look into the history of the debate over the doctrine of the Trinity and find out just how ugly this history was!  You find out ugly little details like how the Emperor Constantine was pushing the church to come to a decision as soon as possible and exclude anyone who didn't agree with this idea, and he really didn't care what side won - he just wanted a unified church, in order to make it easier for him to control his empire.  You find out that during the debates over these issues, people were not only excommunicated from their church, but thrown out of their towns!  Character assassinations were rampantly used in order to make these expulsions easier to justify.  Secret meetings were held and people were kept from attending these by military force.  During the course of a debate over an issue, sometimes a bishop would say one thing, then later on say the opposite, and then insist this was what they had been saying all along.  This history is ugly!

Let me put this to you bluntly - believing in the Trinity or not has no bearing on whether you're a good person.  The way you treat other people does.  You want to believe in the Trinity, that's fine!  But don't think that this gives you a license to immediately dismiss people who don't!  You need to hear them out - actually listen to them and pay attention to their arguments, particularly if they've been well thought out - before you gently and humbly tell them you disagree with them.  And when you're doing that, make sure you've got a plan of action for explaining why you disagree with someone, and it better not be full of logical fallacies like appeals to authority and tradition!  Use evidence and logic!  And if you're going to use scripture or other writings, be open to considering other ways of interpreting ancient language - metaphor is not a bad word and is a device that was used all the time by ancient writers!

Please notice that I haven't said that I don't believe in the Trinity.  I would actually claim belief in the Trinity for myself, though I want to be given a chance to explain what I mean by the Trinity and explore the imagery, showing how a certain way of thinking about it meshes well with modern scientific views - and this is a topic I plan to explore in my upcoming series "Judaism and the Mystical Christ".  But I'm so tired of seeing people jump on the views of others and use them as a litmus test for "Christianity" without being willing or able to defend - using scientific methods of any kind - the reasons why their own views are correct!  I've had it with this refusal amongst Christians to use the brains that they supposedly believe God gave them!


The Problem with the Creeds
I think the issue I have been outlining is exasperated by the fact that the creeds reinforce this idea that the most important thing for a Christian is to affirm certain ideas.  It is astounding to me that the Apostle's Creed and Nicene Creed - and many churches have all their members say one of these every single Sunday - say absolutely nothing about Jesus' life and/or teachings!  They focus completely on affirming the Trinity and Jesus' divinity - neither of which are doctrines that Jesus himself taught!  These were not issues which he felt had to be pressed!  There were much more important issues at hand as far as Jesus was concerned, and yet his followers seem to think that following him means insisting that these doctrines are more important than the life he led which demonstrated the principles he taught!  And I don't hear many people questioning why these creeds that we say every Sunday do this - and I find that very, very disturbing!

As far as the Nicene Creed and the Apostle's Creed are concerned, the only reason Jesus lived was so that he could die!  They say he was born of a virgin (and that's questionable, unless you take it metaphorically) and then he died - that's it.  Nothing in between.  Born then died.  It's as if nothing else about Jesus mattered!

This is why I think modern churches should write their own creeds.  This is what the Maasai people did in 1960 when the missionaries who came to them realized that the language of the creeds had different meanings within their culture - meanings that didn't necessarily convey what the creeds were supposed to be about.  This isn't the only instance of an African tribe writing their own creed, either - I've read that South Africans as well will use the phrase "eldest brother" instead of "only son" or "only begotten son" about Jesus, because in their culture an only son was not as high of a social status as an eldest brother.  To them, an only son is an isolate, whereas an eldest brother was someone you had access to.

Missionaries tend to recognize that when you are a stranger in a strange land, you have to use the people's language the way they use it rather than insisting that they learn to understand you.  And they also recognized that because we are not living in the context in which the creeds were written, there may be other issues which are more important in our time.  The creeds were written as a response to debates that were going on inside of the church at the time, and so they were a way of enforcing the idea that the "true orthodox" were separated from the false believers by certain ideas - namely how one conceives of the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity.  But defining a "Christian" this way is not how Jesus defined the marking characteristics of his disciples - as I've mentioned earlier in this post!  So why should we continue to reinforce this idea Sunday after Sunday?  I think that if you're going to say a creed, at least put something in there about Jesus' life! 

Below is an English translation of the Masai Creed I've mentioned.  Besides the fact that it actually mentions some things about Jesus' life, I also appreciate that it mentions that God created out of love, loves the world and every nation and tribe, and wants Man to be happy in the world.  It also mentions in the final section that a Christian is supposed to live according to love - which you should already know is a must have for any creed in my book.  I'm not saying that this creed should become the new thing - I'm saying it should be considered as each church seeks to define their own statement of belief.  I'm saying we should stop exclusively saying creeds that were written hundreds of years ago in order to strike the final blow of a long and costly debate between factions of the church, and start trying to define what the important issues of being a follower of Jesus are in our context.


The Maasai Creed
We believe in the one High God, who out of love created the beautiful world and everything good in it. He created Man and wanted Man to be happy in the world. God loves the world and every nation and tribe on the Earth. We have known this High God in darkness, and now we know Him in the light. God promised in the book of His word, the Bible, that He would save the world and all the nations and tribes.

We believe that God made good His promise by sending His Son, Jesus Christ, a man in the flesh, a Jew by tribe, born poor in a little village, who left His home and was always on safari doing good, curing people by the power of God, teaching about God and man, showing the meaning of religion is love. He was rejected by his people, tortured and nailed hands and feet to a cross, and died. He lay buried in the grave, but the hyenas did not touch him, and on the third day, He rose from the grave. He ascended to the skies. He is the Lord.

We believe that all our sins are forgiven through Him. All who have faith in Him must be sorry for their sins, be baptized in the Holy Spirit of God, live the rules of love and share the bread together in love, to announce the Good News to others until Jesus comes again. We are waiting for Him. He is alive. He lives. This we believe. Amen.