Did the First Century Jew Believe in the Trinity

[alon]

The doctrine of the Trinity is not clearly found in the Bible. It was inferred from many different scriptures by Christianity, and says:
* Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One God, separate beings making up a Triune Godhead
* Coequal in power and glory, they are the same in essence
* The Son is obedient to the Father, and the Spirit is obedient to both

There is an argument out there that this would have been acceptable to the first century believers, a.k.a. the Nots’rim. These believers were almost all Jews; and later believers would have included Gentiles in the process of conversion to Judaism. Most Jews of the first century would have been more concerned with the ideas of how to live holy lives before Elohim than with specific doctrinal issues.

While I could agree with that as it is stated, I think it is misleading. Yes, the average Jew probably was not concerned with “doctrine.” They just wanted to live their lives in peace and be holy before their God. However the leadership which set halacha telling them how to do this most definitely would have been concerned with doctrine! Moreover, during that time there were many radicalized sects being formed which would indicate that the average Jew of the time of Yeshua and the Shaliachim were becoming more interested in doctrinal issues.


It is also argued that the Jews of this time and before thought of God in similar terms. They are said to have believed that the “Son of Man” was one day going to be set up eternally on a throne of glory. The prophet Nathan did tell of this:

2 Samuel 7:12-16 (ESV) When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.’”

However it is not clear how this was to be. Is it a future kingdom where the descendants of Melech Dovid will rule in righteousness forever, or is this a Messianic prophecy about one man who will rule forever? This was hotly debated by the Rabonim; however I doubt the average Jew had direct access to the debates or the results. Their information, if they got it at all would have come tangentially.

Daniel spoke of “The Son of Man given His kingdom:

Daniel 7:13-14 (KJV) I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

This sounds much more like ha’Moshiach being given an eternal throne. However it still could be interpreted that as a man, only his lineage would rule forever.

Yeshua referred to Himself as “The Son of Man:”

Matthew 19:28 (ESV) Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

John 12:23 (ESV) And Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.”

Even these statements do not say “I am going to rule forever.” In fact, I don’t think it is clearly stated that the Messiah (the Christ) will Himself reign forever until Revelation, some 60 years after Yeshua:

Revelation 11:15 (ESV) Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.”

If this is the case, then I would argue that the average Jew, including the Nots’rim did not think in these terms. Many may have wondered, but still by the original theory put forth with which I agreed in part, these people were more concerned with living holy lives than in debating these deeper doctrinal issues. There were however many warnings in the Kethuvai Shaliachim (Apostolic Writings) about divisiveness; which would indicate that their may have been doctrinal debates among the many sects coming together to make up this new sect of the Nots’rim. One such warning from Rav Sh’ul was:

Galatians 5:15 (ESV) But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.

It is not clear whether this was meant just for the religious leadership or for the body as a whole. Definitely the first and probably the latter to some extent is what I expect. So at least some doctrinal issues were important to first century believers. But again, being Jews once the leadership set these down as halacha the debate was over. They would have acted as they were instructed, and matters of doctrine were decided and done with.


Finally it is put forward that the Ruach HaKodesh was seen as God’s power made manifest. As such the first century Jew, and especially the Apostles would have had no problem with this. While I agree that if you just say it like that they might say “Well, obviously our history has many such instances.” However this does not mean they would have seen the Ruach as a separate entity, part of a Trinity. In fact, I think they would have rejected that idea out of hand!

Devarim 6:4 (OJB) Shema Yisroel Adonoi Eloheinu Adonoi Echad.

Deuteronomy 6:4 (ESV) “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

This has been at the core of Judaism’s beliefs since the days of Avraham and before, going all the way back to Noach and Adam before him! I do not think Judaism ever could or would accept the idea of a Triune God. Three separate persons of a Godhead was and is to them polytheism, as it is to true Meshiachim.

This does not mean Abishter cannot manifest Himself in these and other ways, as He did throughout the Bible. However I believe that these manifestations are the act of an all powerful Creator who can bend the natural laws He set in place to His will when, where and how He desires. He could sit on the Mercy seat and inhabit the Holy of Holies, all the while still filling the universe with His presence. He was the burning bush, the brazier and torch, the fire on the mountain and the still small voice; yet still God in His heavens. And He was the Son who died and was raised, the Ruach who descended at the Son’s tevilah (baptism), and the Father who again never left His throne in all of this. All manifestations of One God.

That is what I think the Nots’rim believed. And it is what I and most serious Meshiachim believe today.

Dan C

[Elizabeth]

I don't think they believed in the trinity, but they had to believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as it's spoke of in scriptures and they would have been baptizing people in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. What stands out to me is that it didn't seem to throw them. Judaism today must also on some level believe in the Spirit or at least accept it if they believe their own scriptures as it is wrote throughout.

So the Spirit is a part of G-d or all of G-d, or both?  I don't see that issue being addressed in Judaism.  Perhaps it was so assumed in the past, they never felt the need to do so, or  perhaps it is because they no longer see the Spirit being manifested as they once did.  Regardless, I can only assume it was simply accepted enough not to cause them any great difficulty throughout most of their history.  In other words, the Spirit of G-d was just a given aspect of G-d.

So G-d manifesting Himself as man is the big issue, and that is clearly one we can't back down on. We say Messiah is the Son of G-d and Yeshua spoke to that in Mathew 22:45 so again they have something to explain away that seems to continue to go unaddressed. That to me is the difference as nothing I read in their recognized scriptures prevents me from believing in a Spirit that is of and from G-d the Father.  Further, given that their entire history revolves around a G-d whose motivation for acting and interacting is to simply exist with them, the question in my mind becomes what would G-d not do to exist with you? He is G-d and He needs nothing from us and simply asks for our praise, loyalty, and dependence that He be glorified for the sake of future generations and as a witness. Yeshua answers every need, prayer, and overcomes every limitation about how we can be acceptable to truly interact and relate to G-d, which is His fundamental will. He provides us His spirit through the work of His Son to be glorified for the sake of His will. Again, we have nothing to offer Him, except what He gives and so we are humbled and He is the source of all goodness and glory and we come to Him in truth and righteousness. That's the whole point and the whole end.

I don't know. I just get a bit defensive when people start trying to take away what I know I need. I don't believe in the "trinity". It's Christianity trying to explain away something they can't understand, and fit it into pagan ways like they did most everything else. However, I know that G-d provides what we need and I do believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit because that is how I interact with G-d. I am convinced we need Father, Son, and Spirit, which is why He gave them to us. I also believe we see manifestations of Yeshua throughout the Torah, Psalms, and Prophets as well.  There is nothing inconsistent or new about these manifestations of One G-d if we read the scriptures in the truth through G-d's Spirit, which is the same way the men of G-d such as Moses wrote the scriptures. From the beginning we have depended on G-d to accomplish anything and everything, and so why is there a debate about it now? Simply because of the way Christianity has tried to define what G-d has given in man's terms, and because of the backlash we are naturally going to get from Judaism regarding most of what we believe. Christianity has made the concept of Father, Son and Spirit an easy target, but that doesn't mean we should abandon a truth of G-d at the expense.

Here's what I am saying, as my thoughts spin, let's not sacrifice a gift of G-d simply because we can't understand it or because it doesn't fit with what Judaism wants to believe.  If there is no Spirit, how would Judaism explain even just the writing of scripture?  If G-d is G-d and His one desire is to dwell with us, why wouldn't He become man to do so?  Maybe our ideas don't fit what they want to believe, but they are not inconsistent with what scripture teaches and to accept the truth of G-d, Judaism is going to have to rethink what they believe including the revelation of G-d.  Perhaps the revelation of Father, Son and, Spirit as a provision of G-d to HIs people based on our needs and limitations would help in that.  G-d gives us what we need.  I won't explain it away, but I will acknowledge it is about my limits and need and not His ability.

We have Father, Son, and Spirit not because G-d is limited but because our ability to interact with Him is. Moses couldn't see His glory, David couldn't build Him a house, and Israel couldn't keep the commandments well enough to establish His eternal Kingdom. To all of these we say Yeshua, the Messiah, the Son of G-d Who gave us His Spirit because we need it. "Not by power or might, but by the Spirit of G-d." (Zechariah 4:6)  "Would that all the L-rd's people were prophets and that the L-Rd would put His Spirt upon them." ( Moses in Numbers 11:29).  Praise G-d He answers prayers, and Yeshua is the answer to them. " I Myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I Myself will make them lie down, declares the L-rd G-d." (Ezekiel 34:15)

And you know what, because Yeshua is G-d, He also did away with idolatry just as prophesied as we seek the salvation of G-d by G-d.  We truly wait and desire the One true G-d with all our hearts in complete dependence on Him according to His commands. Why would G-d make Himself so dependent on man as to wait on us to get it right enough for Him to be able to act and accomplish His will? It seems like scripture is one big example of why He won't, and for the sake of His will, can't.  We are to depend on G-d, not the other way around.  Yeshua is simply the ultimate example of our total dependence on G-d as we wait for only Him and the ultimate illustration of our need.

There is order found in how G-d has chosen to relate to us in Father, Son, and Spirit. Somehow, it answers a lot of needs on a spiritual level and organizes our priorities as it keeps G-d first in our heart and mind and brings us close to Him without it being anything about us or what we can do. In the meantime His requirements of holiness and humility are also met as He is our righteousness and He humbles us in that we can't be righteous apart from Him. Then you find true love in this undeserved acceptance that propels a desire to serve Him out of love and gratitude.  Ultimately the purpose of keeping the commandments is met, and there is a higher level of worship in fellowship with G-d. Again, pointing us right back to the fundamental will and purpose of all G-d does for and gives to us. 

We don't limit G-d by simply accepting what He gives to us, unless we think it somehow defines the limits of what He can do.  I think that is the issue with the trinity.  However, if we understand that G-d has consistently humbled Himself on our behalf in the fact that He forgives, seeks, and interacts with us; then Father, Son and, Spirit are simply another example of His character and grace.  He is a G-d who simply gives of Himself and always has for the sake of those He knows, chooses, and loves. It may be hard to understand or wrap our minds around Father, Son, and spirit, but isn't it that way with every miracle?  Though we can't understand it or how He does it, it seems to me that it should not be inconsistent with what Judaism should know about G-d, Who He is, and what He is willing to do.

[alon]

Elizabeth, I agree with everything you are saying. However the issue of the Trinity is not that the Nots'rim couldn't see these as manifestations of Elohim. It is that the concept of the Trinity is presented as "God in Three Persons." When you break your God into three distinct persons you no longer have One God, I don't care how you explain it. Three distinct "persons" of a Godhead is polytheism, not monotheism.

Now when seen as three of the many manifestations of a loving God who chooses to interact with His creation in the physical world in which they were made and serve, then Father Son and Spirit are to most Meshiachim wholly acceptable. Whether mainstream Judaism accepts this or not is not the point. Most won't. We do accept these as the primary ways in which God has chosen to interact with us now and in the future. Yeshua will return and reign with us in the Olam Haba. The Ruach ministers to us today. And the Father is always on His throne. 

As you pointed out,this is nothing new. The Spirit was here from the first when it is said it hovered above the waters at creation. Yeshua we believe was here every time God appeared as a man to those heroes of the TNK; in the fiery furnace and with Avraham as the other two messengers went to retrieve Lot and his family. And at what time did not the Father fill the universe, holding all together with His will? 

God is not a bush, a torch, a cloud, a storm or a pillar of smoke and fire; all of which He has appeared to man as. Yet no one says they are separate parts of a Godhead. Why then make Yeshua and the Ruach HaKodesh into separate beings? That God loves us enough to invest a part of Himself in those ways in order to interact with us should be enough.

The main thing I see here is we need to be more like those first century Jews and concern ourselves with how we are to live set apart to His service. And yes, we were given the perfect example in Yeshua, and the Ruach helps us to do this. But I don't need to agree with Christianity in order to make Messianism more palatable to them. And this is what I think is going on with those who argue as they have that the Nots'rim would agree to a Trinity. The fact is they didn't! The term didn't even exist until the church father Tertullian (145-220 CE) invented it. So the idea probably grew before this, but its acceptance was a late 2nd and 3rd cen thing of the church. Nowhere is it recorded the Nots'rim ever in their 1600 + years ever accepted it. They believed in Yeshua and His eternal deity. They believed in the power of the Ruach HaKodesh. And they certainly believed in the Father. But a Trinity- I don't think so!

Dan C

[Elizabeth]

Agreed, I would say any time we try to make what we believe more palatable to Christianity or Judaism we are making a mistake and probably adding to or taking away from Scripture.

Honestly, I never gave much thought to the "trinity" even as a Christian because it never did make sense, yet I still had G-d so I just didn't worry about it. I also don't really worry so much about Christians coming into our faith. If they are true believers they have the Spirit and G-d will lead them into the truth and Yeshua can make them stand. (Romans 14:4) I worry more about Jewish people because at this point they are separated from G-d and so don't have the same grace to be lead to the truth in spite of wrong doctrine as those of us who have Yeshua and His Spirit. Therefore, my response was more about how does Father, Son, and Spirit fit into a scriptural understanding of G-d as a whole.

As far as defending what we believe. We believe in Father, Son, and Spirit because that is how G-d revealed Himself to us. As you pointed out, there are Hebrew scriptural references to each manifestation that at least would have to cause Jewish people to try to do similar kind of explaining we find ourselves being held accountable for. Anyone who tries to hold G-d down to the confines of what is logical will eventually have to concede they can't if they truly believe in Him, what He has done, and what He plans to do. So it's a stalemate, and at some point you simply have to accept that in faith we believe. In my mind, it becomes then more about His character, plans and promises and how Yeshua answers them all perfectly.

It is probably a good idea to follow suit with earlier believers as you pointed out and not try to explain how He is Father, Son, and Spirit. That's where Christianity has caused a problem because the idea of the "trinity" is so easy to attack based on Scripture itself. However, based on G-d's character, I think we can clearly explain the why. That's nothing new either considered in the context of the whole of scripture. We can also point out as you did, that Yeshua and His disciples never taught about a trinity. He taught about a Oneness with G-d repeatedly that clearly follows suit with the Hebrew Scriptures.  I think I understand your aversion now. If people would just let G-d's Word stand, it would speak for itself. Instead we have to explain away human error and confusion while trying to sort out our own. Praise G-d for His Spirit and that Yeshua Himself is our teacher.

"All your children shall be taught by the L-RD, and great shall be the peace of your children." Isaiah 54:13

[Questor]

Oct 11, 2017 17:21:33 GMT -8 alon said:

The doctrine of the Trinity is not clearly found in the Bible. It was inferred from many different scriptures by Christianity, and says:
* Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One God, separate beings making up a Triune Godhead
* Coequal in power and glory, they are the same in essence
* The Son is obedient to the Father, and the Spirit is obedient to both

There is an argument out there that this would have been acceptable to the first century believers, a.k.a. the Nots’rim. These believers were almost all Jews; and later believers would have included Gentiles in the process of conversion to Judaism. Most Jews of the first century would have been more concerned with the ideas of how to live holy lives before Elohim than with specific doctrinal issues.

While I could agree with that as it is stated, I think it is misleading. Yes, the average Jew probably was not concerned with “doctrine.” They just wanted to live their lives in peace and be holy before their God. However the leadership which set halacha telling them how to do this most definitely would have been concerned with doctrine! Moreover, during that time there were many radicalized sects being formed which would indicate that the average Jew of the time of Yeshua and the Shaliachim were becoming more interested in doctrinal issues.

I agree...I sincerely doubt that people were trying to find out exactly who was what within the Nots'rim. Certainly it would have been of interest to those Greeks coming from a polytheistic mindset whether Yeshua was YHVH, or part of YHVH...as opposed to both at the same time. I would imagine that the apostles simply quoted the necessary references to branch and seed, and left it at that, while also making it plain that 'The Prophet' was discussed in detail in the Scriptures as being pre-existant to our creation.

The argument persisted, however, as those Gentiles attempted to wrap their minds around a single, all-powerful G-d who could be everywhere at one in many guises...if he chose, and was. The Eastern Church up through the 5th Century was arguing bitterly over a 'One' concept of G-d as in Judaism, and a 'Two' Concept of G-d as in the dualist Babylonian derived theology...and hardly anyone, except in Rome, bothered about separating out the Ruach haKodesh. And since the Ruach is both within and without Believers, I don't really see the Ruach as entirely separate from G-d or man.  Certainly, Sha'ul taught a great deal about the Ruach working in us, but I find no real mention of the Ruach's physical existence except by Yeshua to Nicodemus, and then only by the Ruach's effect on existence, such as knowin the Ruach is active even as one cannot see the wind, but sees the grain bend beneath the power of the wind.

It is also argued that the Jews of this time and before thought of God in similar terms. They are said to have believed that the “Son of Man” was one day going to be set up eternally on a throne of glory. The prophet Nathan did tell of this:

2 Samuel 7:12-16 (ESV) When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.’”

However it is not clear how this was to be. Is it a future kingdom where the descendants of Melech Dovid will rule in righteousness forever, or is this a Messianic prophecy about one man who will rule forever? This was hotly debated by the Rabonim; however I doubt the average Jew had direct access to the debates or the results. Their information, if they got it at all would have come tangentially.

Since Samuel is speaking to David of Soloman, and the fact that Soloman would have sons to succeed him, how is this particularly about ha'Moshiach...except the 'forever' part?  And that is a guarantee that the throne would endure, even as Israel would.

Daniel spoke of “The Son of Man given His kingdom:

Daniel 7:13-14 (KJV) I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.


This sounds much more like ha’Moshiach being given an eternal throne. However it still could be interpreted that as a man, only his lineage would rule forever.

I think interpreting the 'Son of Man' coming in the clouds with glory for an everlasting kingdom does not seem naturally human, but supernaturally so, else ha'Moshiach would have to marry, and beget sons, for how is ha'Moshiach, a supernaturally provided ha'Moshiach to raise up heirs without a 'Daughter of Man', of equally supernatural sources? I admit that Yeshua might wish a family, except are we not that?


Yeshua referred to Himself as “The Son of Man:”

Matthew 19:28 (ESV) Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

John 12:23 (ESV) And Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.”

Even these statements do not say “I am going to rule forever.” In fact, I don’t think it is clearly stated that the Messiah (the Christ) will Himself reign forever until Revelation, some 60 years after Yeshua:

Revelation 11:15 (ESV) Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.”

If this is the case, then I would argue that the average Jew, including the Nots’rim did not think in these terms. Many may have wondered, but still by the original theory put forth with which I agreed in part, these people were more concerned with living holy lives than in debating these deeper doctrinal issues. There were however many warnings in the Kethuvai Shaliachim (Apostolic Writings) about divisiveness; which would indicate that their may have been doctrinal debates among the many sects coming together to make up this new sect of the Nots’rim. One such warning from Rav Sh’ul was:

Galatians 5:15 (ESV) But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.

It is not clear whether this was meant just for the religious leadership or for the body as a whole. Definitely the first and probably the latter to some extent is what I expect. So at least some doctrinal issues were important to first century believers. But again, being Jews once the leadership set these down as halacha the debate was over. They would have acted as they were instructed, and matters of doctrine were decided and done with.

The Nots'rim might have accepted the halacha, but it is plain the incoming Greeks has definite problems divorcing themselves from polytheistic tendencies, particularly with the Roman and Greek gods being forever paraded around them, and pushed at them.

Finally it is put forward that the Ruach HaKodesh was seen as God’s power made manifest. As such the first century Jew, and especially the Apostles would have had no problem with this. While I agree that if you just say it like that they might say “Well, obviously our history has many such instances.” However this does not mean they would have seen the Ruach as a separate entity, part of a Trinity. In fact, I think they would have rejected that idea out of hand!

Indeed! As I referenced above, even in the 5th century they were fighting the idea of a duality, much less a trinity...which is simply a convenient way of describing the matter to people who knew nothing of Judaism.

Devarim 6:4 (OJB) Shema Yisroel Adonoi Eloheinu Adonoi Echad.

Deuteronomy 6:4 (ESV) “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

This has been at the core of Judaism’s beliefs since the days of Avraham and before, going all the way back to Noach and Adam before him! I do not think Judaism ever could or would accept the idea of a Triune God. Three separate persons of a Godhead was and is to them polytheism, as it is to true Meshiachim.

This does not mean Abishter cannot manifest Himself in these and other ways, as He did throughout the Bible. However I believe that these manifestations are the act of an all powerful Creator who can bend the natural laws He set in place to His will when, where and how He desires. He could sit on the Mercy seat and inhabit the Holy of Holies, all the while still filling the universe with His presence. He was the burning bush, the brazier and torch, the fire on the mountain and the still small voice; yet still God in His heavens. And He was the Son who died and was raised, the Ruach who descended at the Son’s tevilah (baptism), and the Father who again never left His throne in all of this. All manifestations of One God.

That is what I think the Nots’rim believed. And it is what I and most serious Meshiachim believe today.

Dan C