Greetings,
There is no similarity between the Trinitarian’s mystical “three separate persons within one being because they equally share one substance” and a group of people being united in purpose and belief.
Whoever dreamt up this argument does not understand the Trinity nor does he realize that this question and the argument behind it actually destroys the Trinity doctrine. As with every Trinitarian defense, it requires an ignorance from its hearers regarding grammar, context and the definition of words–in this case both of English and Hebrew.
First a little education: Trinitarians attempt to prove that God is three distinct “persons” who actually make only one God by sharing the same substance equally. One of their major “proof texts” for this “composite God” is Deut.6:4 which reads: “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah” according to Young’s Literal Translation. Trinitarians claim that since the Hebrew word for God (ELOHIM) is plural it must indicate multiple entities within the “God.” They further point out that the Hebrew word for one (ECHAD) can be used of a “composite unity” such as Num.13:23 "one cluster of grapes," Gen 2:24 "they shall become one flesh" and Gen. 11:24 "the people are one and they all have one language."
The trouble with these Trinitarian arguments is that they only convince those who are ignorant of Hebrew grammar and don’t bother to do the simplest of research. In other words you have to have Trinitarian blinders on to accept these claims.
First, does the plural word ELOHIM indicate that there are three “persons” within one God?
It’s interesting that when Trinitarians point to the plural ELOHIM they are actually contradicting their own belief. Because ELOHIM means, not "persons," but "gods." So those who argue that this word implies a Trinity make themselves polytheists, because it would mean that there were three GODS in the Trinity.
Grammatically, this Trinitarian claim is rejected by virtually all modern scholars as this quote shows: "The plural form of Elohim has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful idea that it referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among Scholars."—Smith Bible Dictionary. Many other reference works agree: “The Broadman Bible Commentary” 2:214; Milton S. Terry; “Biblical Hermeneutics” p86; “Theological Wordbook of the OT” p93; the “American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures”, Vol. Xxi.; “Girdlestones Synonyms of the O.T.” and many others.
Even more importantly, Trinitarians must ignore Hebrew grammar because when the plural ELOHIM is used with a singular verb and adjectives it ALWAYS denotes a single entity, never a plurality!! This is the case with Deut.6:4; it CANNOT denote a plural entity by the laws of grammar!
So what does the *evidence* show us? That the Hebrew usage does not indicate anywhere that ELOHIM ever means a multi-personal "plurality." The "intensive plural" is common with many Hebrew words, and semantically it NEVER means what Trinitarians what to force it to. As the above quotes show, this argument is not used by anyone who truly respects the evidence. Therefore, the statement "God is a plurality" is a Theological presupposition which has no support in Scripture or Hebrew usage of the word ELOHIM. It's only source is eisegesis: forcing a personal Theology back into the text.
Now, when Trinitarians point to the use of the word one (ECHAD) when it refers to a “composite unity” such as “one cluster of grapes” they are deceiving those who are ignorant of Hebrew grammar. This is because the usual meaning of ECHAD by itself is “numerically one, single, only” EXCLUSIVE of any others (Gen 21:15; 27:38; Lev; 14:10; Josh.23:10; 1Ki. 4:19; Eccl 4:8).
The only time that ECHAD means "several unified into one" or has a "collective sense" is when it is used with "composite or plural modifiers". We see one example of this at Gen.2:24 where it says: "a man...must stick to his wife and they MUST BECOME one flesh." Here we see that "ECHAD" is used with the composite modifiers "must become."
However, at Deut.6:4 there are no such “composite modifiers.” The verse does not read: "Jehovah our God is "3 persons that must become our One Jehovah," or "Jehovah our God is one cluster" or "YHWH and someone else are one God." In the Bible ECHAD used without plural or composite modifiers ALWAYS has the significance of, "single," "individual," and "only" and NEVER indicates a “composite unity.”
Volume 1 of Botterweck's "The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament" makes this statement about ECHAD: "This numeral 'echadh, 'one,' begins the series of ordinary numbers. It is an adjective. It can be used as a cardinal, ordinal, and distinctive number....As a numerical adjective and adverb it takes on meanings such as 'only,' 'unique,' 'prominent,' 'alone,' 'same, uniform,' 'entire, undivided.'– pp. 193, 194
Now, all this can be demonstrated with the English grammar where the Watchtower spoke of the “composite prophet.” Yes, the word prophet is in the singular and it is made up of many men. Yet, the grammar makes it very clear that these men are not a mystically united “one substance” or literally “one prophet.” This is because the context uses composite modifiers such as “a class”, “members”, “they”, “priestHOOD”, “nation”, and “a people.” Further, the word prophet is placed in quote marks which is an explicit indicator that the word is being used in a non-literal sense.
No one in their right mind would ever construe this paragraph to indicate some mystical singular being that is made up of many men. They would have to be completely ignorant of English grammar, definitions, and reality. It is the same with Trinitarian arguments.
Trinitarians can only believe these claims support their doctrine by ignoring the facts of Hebrew grammar and redefining words to fit their belief. That is using the logical fallacy of anachronism. They must force their own later definitions back into the true, original meaning of Bible times.
Yes, Trinitarians believe that they agree with Deuteronomy that there is only one God and not three Gods, but their belief is dependant upon a Trinitarian misinterpretation of the plural ELOHIM and the word “one”.
Further, just like this one, many if not all of the explanations illustrating the Trinity amount to tri-theism. For instance, the common explanations of the Trinity such as “It’s like one man can be a Father, husband, and son” or a “husband, wife and son all having one nature” or “an egg consists of shell, white, and yolk.” All these either fall into the category of tritheistic or modalistic descriptions which are heretical to Trinitarians.
The Trinitarian Alister E. McGrath says of such descriptions: "We are asked to imagine three human beings. Each of them is distinct; yet they share a common humanity...When all is said and done, this analogy leads directly to an understated tritheism." "While Gregory may wish us to think of "Peter, James and John" as different instances of the same human nature, the more natural way of interpreting the illustration is to think of them as three distinct and independent individuals."
Illustrations such as the husband and wife does not support an ontological tri-unity since no one understands them as being "ontologically" the same essence. Illustrations such as the “egg” do not support the Trinitarian of separate “persons” but rather one person who manifests himself in three manners or “modes.” Both considered heresies.
When all is said and done the Trinity remains an unexplainable and incomprehensible “mystery.” It is exactly what Jesus said was wrong with the Samaritans: “you worship what you do not know.” Because of this inherent confusion it is no wonder that Trinitarians themselves must resort to logic and analogies which reasonable people understand as indicating three Gods.
On the other hand, the Bible is very clear: Everywhere in the Bible God is separate and distinct from Christ. Christ is always presented as less than Almighty God (Jn. 14:28; 20:17; Mk.13:32; 1Cor.15:27,28; Rev.3:2,12). At the highest position he will ever attain, Jesus still has a God over him and is "subject" to *GOD* the same way we are "subject" to him.
"Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything."-Robert A. Heinlein
Yours,
Ron Rhoades