Archives

For this child I prayed

The characters in these early chapters of 1 Samuel are at once vividly and yet simply drawn. We feel as though we really know Elkanah and Hannah, Eli and Samuel — that their sorrows and joys are much like ours. As in the lovely book of Ruth, we observe that the greatest virtue can (and often does) flourish in a spiritual “wilderness”. We see in the righteous women of these times a quiet and subtle strength which often surpasses the strength of the men. The faith of Ruth or of Hannah moved mountains and altered the landscape of the Divine plan.

“Now there was a certain man… of the hill country of Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah” (1Sa 1:1). Elkanah was a Levite and a descendant of Korah (1Ch 6:33-38). His name means “God-acquired”, suggesting two possible interpretations:

  1. All his possessions were acquired from God, or
  2. he was acquired by God, and his possessions were a stewardship. In either case Elkanah’s name highlights the lesson of this story: it is about possessions and how they may be used in the service of God.

“And he had two wives… Hannah and Peninnah” (1Sa 1:2). How many sad memories of domestic unrest this verse evokes: Sarah and Hagar, Rachel and Leah, the households of David and Solomon. “Hannah” signifies grace or favor; “Penninah”, coral or pearl. The two women picture the extremes of inward and outward adorning (possessions again!); their characters and subsequent actions reflect their names.

A Domestic Triangle

This domestic triangle was accustomed to go up yearly to worship at Shiloh. There abode Eli (“alah”, to ascend) the priest with his sons Hophni (“handful”? — either of incense or of stolen offerings, it matters not) and Phinehas (“mouth of the serpent” — wise and subtle, yet also destructive).

“The Lord had shut up her (Hannah’s) womb” (v 5). So often we have witnessed the barren women in the Divine plan. Is God unmerciful to deny good things to His servants? Let us recognize that God often works through the adversity of His children, and there is no ultimate evil for those who conform to His will.

“And the adversary (‘she’ of v 7, no doubt Peninnah) provoked her sore” (1Sa 1:6). Peninnah had all things: children and social rank and satisfaction and probably wealth — yet she gave no glory to God. By comparison, Hannah had very little (a barren woman was a reproach and a pitiable creature), yet she recognized herself as acquired by God. Therefore her problems were His and she was not alone in her distress. “She prayed to the Lord, and wept sore” (v 10). There was no retaliation, but a turning of the other cheek, a casting of her burdens upon a greater Power. She knelt in the court, outside the veil of the holy place, sensing that her prayer of faith would pierce the heavy curtains and find its way to the golden mercy seat.

Her beautiful and delicate prayer (v 11) and her later song of triumph (1Sa 2:1-10) must have been the constant study of the young maid Mary a thousand years later; we hear Hannah’s spiritual daughter prophetically in every word that flows from this godly woman: “Behold Thy handmaid… look upon my affliction… remember me, and give me a manchild” (1:11). Even to this day the whole creation groans in affliction (Rom 8:22), waiting (though it knows not) for the manchild who sits at the right hand of his Father. How great will be the joy of the world when he returns: “Sing, O barren… cry aloud… for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth… thy maker is thy husband, and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel… great shall be the peace of thy children” (Isa 54).

God-acquired or Self-made?

“If Thou wilt give me a manchild, then I will give him unto Thee” (1:11). That very thing that Hannah wanted most, she promised to give away. Do we feel the same about our possessions? Do we view ourselves as “God-acquired”, or as “self-made” men and women? Do we ask what we can do for our Father, or rather what He can do for us? Do our prayers often seem unanswered? If so, then James’ devastating rebuke may be for us: “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts” (James 4:3).

“Hannah spake in her heart; her lips moved, but her voice was not heard; therefore Eli thought she was drunken” (1Sa 1:13). We may sadly infer from Eli’s thoughts that prayer was less frequent than sin at God’s House; Eli knew of his sons’ adulterous (and probably drunken) consorts (2:22), and no doubt thought this woman one of them. But Eli should have been slower in judging appearances. We gain an insight into the character of the righteous timid priest: he was severe when he should have been gentle (with Hannah), possibly hoping to compensate for his gentleness when he should have been severe (with his sons). He was a parent with love but no firmness, no discipline. We may imagine his love shriveling year by year, as his seed in the face of his feeble protests were transformed by their natural inclinations into the seed of the serpent.

Hannah, by a soft and wise answer, turned away the misdirected wrath of Eli. Such foresight and meekness prepared the way for Eli’s later reception of Samuel as a young child, and this in turn prepared the way for God to work through the young child at Shiloh.

But Hannah, although properly meek before the old man, was not indifferent to his shortcomings: “Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial”, she said (1Sa 1:16). We detect a subtle rebuke: Why are you so anxious to criticize my “sin”, when the true offspring of Belial are your own sons? (1Sa 2:12).

Here again is the undercurrent of faith in this remarkable woman: Hannah knew of Eli’s sons and their deeds; they were a public reproach to Israel. She had prayed for a son, a gift from God, so that she might give him to God. At a previous time, when Israel cried for deliverance (Exo 2:23-25), a faithful woman had cast her son upon the waters (Exo 2:2,3; Heb 11:23), trusting in God to protect and use the goodly child for His purposes (Ecc 11:1). Now Hannah visualized her son-to-be as another Moses, a deliverer of his people from bondage and corruption:

“The Lord will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me (Moses)” (Deu 18:15). The first of such great prophets and successors of Moses was Samuel, as Peter later explained (Acts 3:22-24; Jer 15:1; Psa 99:6).

“All Her Living”

Like the widow with her two mites, Hannah gave away all that she had when she brought the weaned child to Shiloh. Here is the challenge of possessions: We must not hold back — whether it be time, money, effort, or children. A slave can own nothing! What, after all, can “riches” mean to a man or woman “acquired” by God? What “riches” are there for them but the riches of God’s grace and favor? Let us vow from this time forward we will hold nothing back; we will retreat from our responsibilities no further, we will hide behind silly excuses no more. “Render to God the things that are God’s”; all of life belongs to the Source of Life.

What we “lose” will be repaid many-fold: Hannah sacrificed one child and received five more (2:21), while not really losing the first. In Samuel she received “an hundredfold” (Mat 19:29). Of Hannah the words might have been written: “She that sows in tears shall reap in joy. She that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing her sheaves with her” (Psa 126:5,6). Eli by his tolerance and weakness built his “house” unwisely; “And great was the fall of it” (Mat 7:27). His sons were “precious seed” cast thoughtlessly to the wind, and one day it was too late to redeem them. We naturally inquire, “Did Eli ‘love’ them too much to tell them ‘No’?” (2:29; 1Ki 1:6). Eli’s work was wood and stubble and it perished (2:34; 1Co 3:12-15), yet Eli himself may be saved “so as by fire”.

“The sin of the young men was very great… but Samuel ministered before the Lord” (1Sa 2:17,18). The elderly and broken-hearted Eli saw in the faith of Hannah and the young child a second chance for himself and the nation. Eli accepted a just rebuke from God (2:30-32) and gave over his declining years, not to frustration and sorrow, but to the education of the young prophet through whom God was now to speak (2:35). “He must increase; I must decrease” — it is a difficult role for any man to assume, especially a high priest. (The arrogant priests of Christ’s day would not accept God’s judgements and step down from their seats; consequently, not only did their house perish, but they themselves were lost.)

“Asked of God”

Finally we come to Samuel, the “Asked-one of God”; we marvel anew at the wondrous works of God. What a great purpose the sorrow of one barren woman played in His plan! To remedy a great evil in Israel, God chooses no grown man; His ways are not our ways; a thousand years is as a day in His sight, and He seldom hurries. Instead, the Almighty prepares through necessary affliction a special mother, and then causes a special and cherished son to be born. In God’s own good time, as the precious seed sprouts and ripens to harvest, deliverance comes. The thankful mother, lost among the thousands of Israel but at one with her God, nourishes at her breast the destiny of her people. With his mother’s milk and loving care, the child receives also her simple faith in God. It is for only a few short years, but it is enough. Together they wait for the time to visit Shiloh. May we say with Samuel, “Speak, Lord, for Thy servant heareth” (1Sa 3:9).

“Oh, give me Samuel’s ear, The open ear, O Lord, Alive and quick to hear Each whisper of Thy word; Like him to answer at Thy call, And to obey Thee first of all.”

Let us conclude by remembering Hannah once more, for she is surely the central character in this story. We can perhaps appreciate best the depth of love and self-sacrifice and knowledgeable faith in this extraordinary woman by recalling her statement to Elkanah:

“I will not go up (to Shiloh) until the child be weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the Lord, and there abide forever” (1Sa 1:22).

Can we not lovingly discipline our children so that we control wisely their passing whims (as Eli did not), and prayerfully direct their eternal destinies (as Hannah did)? Then will parents and children both abide in the house of God forever.

For whom Christ died (CMPA)

“FOR God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). “And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ… and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1Jo 1:3-7). (Scriptural quotations in the text are either AV or RV.)

Why then should it be that of all things that have divided brethren over the years, the most deep-seated and long-lived controversies have centred upon the nature of the act which revealed the love of God, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the true meaning of fellowship? The answer is twofold. First, brethren have in all sincerity, and rightly, insisted that seriously inadequate ideas about the Atonement can be no proper basis for a fellowship built upon “our common salvation”. Although John speaks of walking in light or darkness as the test of fellowship which God applies, the darkness of the understanding does also alienate from the life of God. Secondly, however, understanding has often been clouded by the use of non-scriptural phrases, or even words of scripture abstracted from a context, to be bandied about in discussion. The truth is that slogans are a counterfeit coinage in the exchange of Scriptural ideas. So phrases like “clean flesh”, “free life”, “defiled Christ”, and even the hyphenated phrase “sin-in-the-flesh”, carrying their own emotional overtones, not to mention shades of meaning, for different people who use them, have degraded the discussion of a majestic theme into a wrangle and barred the way to a common understanding of Scriptural truth.

One thing is certain. If it pleased God in His love to give His Son to die for us, it was to inspire us to love in our turn: for the Father, and the Son, and one another. We shall not have begun to understand the mystery of the death of Christ, no matter how exact our knowledge of the facts, if what we know leaves us with any will to bite and devour one another. The most elementary first principles of the meaning of the death of our Lord will have passed us by if in any way our acquaintance with it allows us to breathe out threatenings and slaughter against one another, or unsubmissively to go about to establish our own righteousness. The sufferings of Christ teach us not only truth, but a frame of mind: for they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh, with its affections and lusts. Paul is writing in the shadow of the cross when he writes: “Use not your freedom for an occasion to the flesh, but through love be servants one to another.” (John 3:16 ; Rom 5:8 ; 1Jo 4 :11; Phi 2:5; Gal 5:13-26; Rom 10:3; Acts 9:1.)

Another thing is no less certain. If God could foreshadow the offering of His Son in terms of many different sacrifices, and prefigure his work by means of an elaborate Tabernacle, and of priests in robes of intricate design, then we shall not be able to express the work he did in a set phrase or two of our own making, and suppose that we have comprehended it all. If the New Testament can speak of the death of Christ in relation to us as though it were the ransoming of slaves, or the crucifixion and burial of his friends as well as himself, or being washed clean by sprinkling of his blood, or the making and sealing of a covenant, and in other ways yet, any simple statements we might make on this subject, even when they are true and helpful, must inevitably leave much unsaid. It follows from this that any knowledge we have at any time on this subject should continue to grow as our experience, both of life and of the Word of God, becomes deeper and richer, and new needs call forth new understanding. (Much of Exo-Num, and the summaries in Heb 1-10; Mat 20:28; Rom 6:1-11; Col 2: 11-l5; Heb 9:11-14; 12:24; 9:20; Col 1:24.)

A third thing is as sure. The cross of Christ will not be so hard to receive that only the learned in the Law can profit from it. There is enough in its scope to occupy all our hearts and minds for all our life: there is meaning enough in a simple and faithful acceptance of its call to give us grace and peace from that point on, and teach us love and forbearance with one another. No words of ours, however true, will exhaust the riches of a subject so vast:

“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?” (Rom 11:33-34).

Our Need and Helplessness

We must start at this point, for otherwise we shall have no conception of what redemption means. We shall have no real understanding of what it is from which we seek deliverance. Even worse, we might be looking for the wrong thing: forgiveness without strings and without real repentance, or even a sort of legal bargain which will grant us righteousness without real effort or response from us.

The Bible is very plain. Of the nature of Adam after he fell there is no doubt. In the day that he sinned he was condemned to death. From that moment he was as good as dead. “By one man sin entered into the world and death by sin.” All of us, save One, actually do sin and all, without any exception at all, are faced with the urge to do so, which is part and parcel of our fallen nature.

History shows it: the Fall of Adam was followed by the murder of Abel, and then by the multiplication of wickedness which arose from the indulgence of “every imagination of the thought of man’s heart”. (Gen 3; Rom 5:12; 3:23; Heb 4:15; Gen 4; 6:5.)

Precept shows it too: the last quotation was almost a statement of what man’s heart is like, and immediately following the Flood God pronounces that “the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth”, a very plain statement of where sin springs from, stating equally plainly that we are not only tempted to sin from without: the temptation is there, powerful and urgent within. As James puts it, “Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lusts, and enticed.” The same root source of all our sinning is found in Jeremiah’s statement, “The heart of man is deceitful above all things, and it is desperately sick.” Paul makes the terrible statement that God gave hardened sinners over “in the lust of their own hearts” to all the evils to which they were abandoned. His picture of himself as of a man striving (so long as he was without Christ) helplessly against sin that dwelleth in him, unable to resist that which his enlightened conscience taught him to hate, is that of a man whose own desires war in his members against the will of God (like “your lusts that war in your members” of James). It leads him to the conclusion that good laws can never make a man good, because they are “weak through the flesh”. And to Paul the flesh is a term which denotes the natural man, whose natural works he lists as “fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, heresies, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like” (that expressive etcetera at the end revealing that there is no limit to the things of which the natural man is capable, and to which he is by nature disposed). (Gen 8:21; Jam 1:14; Jer 17:9; Rom 1:24, and throughout Rom 1-3; 7:1-24; 8:3; Jam 4:1; Gal 5:19-21.)

We need only the Lord Jesus’ own confirmation of our position. And this he provides when he rejects the idea that defilement comes from outside, and tells us quite plainly whence come all our promptings to evil:

“That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornication, thefts, murders, adulteries, coveting, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness: all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man” (Mark 7:1-23).

So there we have our human nature: through no fault of our own each one of us inherits desire contrary to the will of God. This is the “law of sin in our members”. When we indulge it we actually commit sin. Our nature can only be like that of Adam after the Fall; nor can it be said that terms like “clean” or “undefiled” are in accord with the Scripture teaching set out above. So long as this nature is with us we are unfit for the Kingdom of God. That is why a man needs to be born again, and why the Lord Jesus Christ died and rose again to make this possible. (John 3:3-5; Gal 5: 21; 1Co 6:10.)

Like Unto His Brethren

Of course, the Lord Jesus Christ was born Son of God, as well as Son of man. And a very important thing it is that God was his Father. Yet it is vital to establish that the Lord’s bodily nature was like our own, temptations and all. It is very readily done: he was made of a woman made under the Law; he was made in the likeness of men; because the children whom he came to redeem are of flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same, he was made in all points like his brethren; he was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh. No distinction is ever made between the fleshly nature of the Lord and that of the rest of men: and therefore, having shown what this heritage implies in the way of temptation for us, we have already shown it for the Lord too. Those same desires which are strong in us, and which we fail to resist, were strong in him also. (Gal 4:4; Phi 2:7-8; Heb 2:14; 2:17; Rom 8:3.)

So, notwithstanding his divine sonship, he learned obedience by the things that he suffered. He was tempted in all points like ourselves. It was with strong crying and tears that he endured his trials. No matter by what means they came to him in the wilderness, his temptations, the desire for food, for popularity and for power, were keenly felt in his heart and had to be rejected. When meditating entirely within himself he could contemplate the possibility of seeking escape from his hour rather than glorifying the name of God. He knew the attractiveness of deliverance from his foes with the help of twelve legions of angels, and needed to put aside the thought. Being a man he needed the conscious and continuous discipline of emptying himself, taking on himself the form of a servant, becoming and remaining obedient, even unto the death of the cross. His temptations were so like our own that, as our High Priest, he draws constantly upon the recollection of his own trials as he resisted temptation, and so can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, able to succour them that are tempted because he suffered under temptation himself. (Heb 5:8; 4:15; 2:18; Mat 4:1-11; John 12:27; Phi 2:5-8.)

Even though he did no sin, and all his words and deeds were pure from his youth up, he was not prepared to allow men to call him good, as with the inherent and unassailable goodness which belongs to God. When he used the word we translate “perfect” about himself, it was only of what he would become as a result of his death and resurrection. When the Letter to the Hebrews uses the same word three times about him, it is again what he had achieved by his death. God made him perfect by suffering; being made perfect he became the Author of eternal salvation; the word of God’s promise appoints the Son as priest, perfected for evermore. The Bible recognizes throughout the weakness of the Son of God in the days of his flesh, and places in his reliance upon the Word of God and upon the strength he sought from Him the credit for his victory: ”The Lord is at my right hand, therefore I shall not be moved.” (Mark 10:17-18; Luke 13:32; Heb 2:10; 5:9; 7:28; Psa 16:8.)

When Paul speaks of Jesus as coming “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (or flesh of sin), or “in the likeness of men”, he cannot be understood as meaning that Jesus’ make-up resembled these things, but was in reality different. In both cases he clearly means that, though our human nature left to itself had failed to overcome sin, when God sent His own Son born in the same human nature the victory was achieved. That the Lord’s fleshly nature was that of Adam after he fell, is seen in the fact that he offered up prayers “with strong crying and tears, unto him that was able to save him from death: and was heard in that he feared. Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.” There is no need to rush to the Lord’s defence as though there were any discredit to him in having been born with a nature prone to sin. This was his lot, which he accepted and overcame. Far greater was the triumph of battling against sin in a body where a fallen nature was entrenched, than would have been the case had he commenced in innocence with a human nature unspoiled by heritage from Adam. And far greater was his brotherhood in affliction, and now in mediation, with his brethren, when we acknowledge that he conquered that very nature, with all its urge to turn away from God, which we know in our own consciences so well. There is real meaning in the words “to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” when this is acknowledged; and in the fullest possible sense he destroyed the devil through death on the cross when, after the pattern of the serpent which Moses lifted up in the wilderness, he finally put away the power of sin from himself, and became the priest who can lead us in ultimate victory over the same power. (Rom 8:3; Phi 2:7; Heb 5:7-8; 9:26; John 3:14; Num 21:9.)

Yet though the Lord had our nature, to brandish when speaking of him the words “defiled”, “cursed”, or “condemned”, is both unseemly and beyond the warrant of Scripture. No defiled word or deed ever escaped him, and it were far better to concentrate on his behaviour (“who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth”), in spite of the limitations which he shared with us all. And though it is true that fleshly nature is unfitted for immortality or for eternal fellowship with God, it is foolish to speak as though the beloved Son was estranged from his Father by his nature. All the evidence of his life, his prayers, his Father’s commendation (at baptism, transfiguration and close to the time of the cross) is that he and his Father shared the closest communion, save for the briefest necessary moment on the cross itself. During his mortal life the Son was loved and cherished by his Father. No doubt it would have been otherwise had he turned aside to fulfil the lusts of the flesh, but this he never did. And as we trust through his work that we, now in this time, may be regarded as sons of the Father despite the weakness and proneness to sin which still exists in our members, we should rejoice in the Father’s help and companionship for the Son in his struggle against sin, rather than invent an estrangement which corresponds to nothing real in the Gospel record of the relationship between the Father and his beloved Son.

The only association of the idea of a curse with Christ is in connection with the curse of the Law where Christ is spoken of as having “become a curse for us”, a reference, neither to his nature nor to any failure to keep “all things which are written in the book of the law to do them”, but to the manner of the death by which he glorified God.

If the word “condemnation” is used at all in relation to our Lord, we must carefully guard against the misunderstandings which this term could introduce. Like us, our Lord Jesus was subject to infirmity and mortality, as his mission required. But no condemnation which would imply guilt or God’s displeasure can be affirmed of the beloved Son of the Father. Jesus was unique among men in that his constant submission to the will of God ensured unbroken fellowship with his Father. (1Pe 2:22; Mat 3:17; 11:27; 17:5; John 3:35; 11:41,42; 12:28; Gal 3: 10-14.)

This, of course, brings us to the point where we must consider the Father’s part in the work of His Son. Jesus was like us in his fleshly nature: and this he successfully overcame, so that at his death “the prince of this world” could come and find nothing in him. All this had been kept at bay while he lived, and all the weakness of flesh was now to be destroyed in his death. Yet, as no man had the right to make himself a priest, so has no man the right to make himself a saviour. Only God could appoint the man and the time. No man left to himself can achieve spotless righteousness. So, of necessity, when righteousness was achieved, it had to be by one given unfettered access to God, who chose of his own free will to accept it (“Not my will, but thine, be done”). Sonship of the Father conveyed an insight, an intimacy with his God, an unequalled knowledge of what was in man, fitting him eminently to be the Saviour — if only he would choose to be so. It conveyed peculiar temptations, too, such as other men do not know (for which of us would make himself a laughing stock by trying to turn stones into bread? or commit suicide by throwing himself unsupported from great heights? or think of snapping his fingers to make the world his kingdom? Yet all these things were possible to him, and with hard travail, and by constant trust in his Father, were rejected). Sonship of God did not make him sinless, but it did make sinlessness possible. And when all was done, it was plain to all concerned that the work was a work of God, without whom sinlessness could not have been achieved. In asking His righteous Son to die, the Father showed how the power of sin could be brought to an end. In granting him life when he had died, He showed that the victory was won indeed, and in appointing him a mediator for his brethren He made accessible to us, through him, all the blessings which he was sent to bring. (John 14:30; Heb 5:4-5; Luke 22:42; 4:1-13.)

A Merciful and Faithful High Priest

We have purposely kept words like sacrifice, atonement, and priest to a minimum. This is not because they are either unimportant or irrelevant, but because many of our difficulties arise from a failure to remember that the fundamental thing in the purpose of God was always intended to be the coming, life, death, resurrection, ascension, and return of the Lord Jesus Christ. All the types and shadows pointed to him, and were there because of that. He was what he was, and did what he did, because this was the purpose of God in him, and not because of what the types said. They did nothing to take away sin; it was impossible that they ever could. They helped men to remember that sin was real (“a remembrance made every year”) and they pointed to the time when it really would be conquered. So in the providence of God they were made available to do the best that pictures and symbols can do to point to the real thing.

And so we see the Lord Jesus Christ risen from the dead and seated at the right hand of God. He has overcome for himself the power of sin and has been granted endless life as the proper outcome. He has taught us the reality and the power of sin, and bids us surrender in baptism all our confidence in ourselves. This baptism joins us with the message of his cross, and teaches us that our old man must be crucified with him with its affections and lusts, and then buried with him. It joins us also with the hope of his new life, giving us an introduction into the presence of the Father through him, and telling us that, just as the Father forgives our past sins as a whole, when we surrender in baptism, so He is active through His Son in hearing our prayers for forgiveness, and for spiritual help now. And that Son is the more able to help from the knowledge of temptation and its power, which he faced and defeated in his life and finally in his death. Our acceptance of the cross is the acceptance of the righteousness of God — and also of His grace and love; it is the acceptance of the helplessness of our nature — and also of the way of help through Christ; it is the thankful receiving of forgiveness and reconciliation — and also the promise that sin may be forgiven yet, and the man of God progressively strengthened unto all good works.

It is, moreover, the joining together in one body by the cross of diverse people, of many races and different temperaments, called upon to make real in their life of fellowship the love of Christ, who, having loved his own which were in the world, loved them to the end. It is a topic not for strife but for endless contemplation in growing wonder. Its very humiliation, which the Lord endured first and which Paul commends to us (“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus”), makes it imperative that our new calling be fulfilled in love and forbearance one of another. And if we should find it needful to debate and to instruct, then, on pain of our own rejection before God, it must be in a spirit which would never willingly, through any folly, or arrogance of ours, endanger the salvation of him, of anyone, for whom Christ died.

COMMITTEE OF THE CHRISTADELPHIAN

July, 1971

Forsaken

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Psa 22:1).

These words are quoted by Jesus as he hung on the cross (Mat 27:46; Mar 15:34; Luk 24:44). But was this literally true? Was Jesus actually abandoned by his Father? The answer must be: “NO!”:

  1. In quoting Psa 22, Jesus switched from the Hebrew azavtani (which means “forsaken me”) to the Aramaic sabachthani (which may mean “entangled me”: the same word occurs in Gen 22:13 for the “thicket” in which the sacrificial ram was found). So perhaps this should be read: ‘My God, my God, thou hast [an assertion, not a question!] ensnared and provided ME as the sacrificial victim!’

  2. If Jesus were abandoned by his Father, then the vivid and twice-repeated type of Gen 22 — which is suggested by the above — is quite misleading! “They went both of them together (the Father and the Son)” (Gen 22:6,8). The Father went with the Son to the cross (cp Rom 8:31,32, which is citing Gen 22:12).

  3. The idea that God abandoned His Son is so important, if true, that it ought to be supported by more than one solitary verse.

  4. Psa 22:24 is explicit that Jesus was NOT left without divine help.

  5. The emphasis of such passages as Psa 18:4-17 is so strong as to require not desertion, but actually its very opposite.

  6. Other Messianic psalms speak of alarm or doubt such as is natural to human weakness (Psa 94:17-19, RV mg; Psa 71:9-12; 73:13,17,21,22; 42:5; 116:11). As lesser mortals experience a sense of loneliness and helplessness, so also must have Jesus. But in neither their case nor his was it true.

  7. “I will never leave thee nor forsake thee” was spoken to the first “Jesus” (Joshua: Jos 1:5), and applied to those in Christ (Heb 13:5). Then, is it conceivable that the servant is greater than his Lord?

  8. Psa 22:1 may carry the meaning: ‘Why does my God LET IT APPEAR to these my enemies that I am utterly forsaken?’ This is the very idea in Isa 49:14,15.

  9. Jesus cites “My God, my God, why have… ” as simply a reference to the psalm itself, to call the attention of those nearby to the whole of the psalm that was being fulfilled before their eyes.

  10. Other possibilities? Ever since Gethsemane, there had been no angels to strengthen or sustain him.

  11. Or… Jesus felt the removal of the Holy Spirit.

Gaal: redeemer

The Gaal/Redeemer

The Heb word gaal, or goel, has been translated “kinsman” (Num 5:8), “avenger” (Num 35:12), “revenger” (Num 35:19-27), “kinsfolk” (1Ki 16:11), “redeemer” (Job 19:25), “near kinsman” (Rth 2:20; 3:9), and “deliver” (Psa 119:154).

When God Himself proclaims Himself to be the Redeemer, He announces that He will become “next of kin” to those whom He will save. How did the great Creator become near of kin to us? By manifesting Himself in the flesh (2Co 5:19-21; Rom 8:3), through the birth of a Son who will bear the image and stamp of His character, while at the same time being a man.

Redemption of a Land Inheritance

The Land belongs to God, and individual Israelites never really owned it (Lev 25:23), though they were given the exclusive right to it so long as they kept the law. If a man fell into debt, and had to mortgage the land he inherited, it became the duty of the Gaal to purchase it, so as to retain possession of it in the family (Lev 25:23-27). On the year of Jubilee, however, the land which had passed out of the hands of the inheritor, reverted back to him; and therefore was redeemed by God Himself (Lev 25:9,10). Meanwhile, the Gaal acted on behalf of God.

The Land of Promise, which passed into the hands of strangers when Israel was taken into captivity, shall be redeemed by the true Gaal: God manifested in His Son (Psa 74:2; Isa 52:9).

Redemption of Slaves

If an Israelite, through poverty or any other reason, were sold into slavery to a stranger, it was the duty of the Gaal to redeem him, and thus restore him to freedom (Lev 25:47-53).

Through sin, man finds himself in bondage to the law of sin and death (Rom 7:3; 8:2), and utterly unable to redeem himself (Psa 49:7,8). But God, the Gaal of Israel, having manifested Himself in flesh in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, assumes the position of near kinsman, and so the price of redemption is paid (1Pe 1:18,19; 1Co 6:20; 7:23).

Preserver of the Family

The next of kin also had the duty of preserving the family by marrying the widow of a deceased brother if he had died childless (Deu 25:5-10). Under such a law, the continuity of the family was maintained, even though its continuance may have been threatened by folly or disaster. The duty of Preserver of the Family is clearly linked with the duty to redeem the land inheritance. Boa, acting as the Gaal, made it possible for Ruth the alien to have fellowship with Israel, and a covenant relationship with God.

The Lord Jesus, as Gaal, has done likewise for us who are Gentiles (Eph 2:11-13; 3:6).

“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say ‘No’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope — the glorious appearlng of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to REDEEM us from all wickedness, and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good” (Tit 2:11-14).

(Adapted from HPM)

Gal, overview

Author: Paul

Time: AD 49

Summary: The letter to the believers in Galatia focuses on the divisions that Jewish Christians were causing among new Gentile converts. These “Judaizers” were trying to convince the Gentiles that they needed to be circumcised and to keep the ritual law in order to be saved. Paul argues that both Jew and Gentile alike enjoy in Christ complete salvation. Reliance on the Law was only a bondage to death and could not produce life-giving freedom, as only Christ could grant that freedom. Paul was showing that all legalistic variations of the Gospel are perversions of it and should be shown as such.

Judaizers: It could not have been easy for any Jew to ignore the things that he had been taught from childhood, especially fundamental things like circumcision, the observance of special feasts and the offering of sacrifices. Only the spiritually-minded, who had been taught by the Law of their own sinfulness and had come to understand their need for a redeemer, would have been ready to make the transition to Christianity.

Those who had kept the Law as a duty of conscience would have seen change as a betrayal of all their principles. Also, they would have seen it as forsaking all the privileges of their race. They would have assumed that the good things promised were theirs by keeping the rituals and they would have vigorously opposed any individual or sect that threatened their inheritance. It is not surprising therefore that the Jews posed a very real threat to the early ecclesias.

There was a class of Jew, however, who wanted a foot in both camps. He wanted the benefits of Christianity but wanted to avoid the wrath of the ritualistic Jewish elders. These Jews taught that Christianity was of the Jews and therefore it was necessary for its adherents to observe the Law and to be circumcised.

Indeed there was a decided reluctance in the early church to preach to the Gentiles at all. Although Jesus had told his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, it still required a special vision to Peter and the gifts of the Holy Spirit to certain Gentiles before they were accepted as candidates for baptism. Even then, after a special council held at Jerusalem, it was recommended that certain aspects of the Law should be observed by the Gentiles, for they said, “Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogue every Sabbath day.”

Of course these stipulations were only a temporary measure. The limitations were given for peace in the early church and not as an essential for salvation. It should be noted that the counsel given did not include circumcision (Acts 15:14,29).

Thus a group of Jews known as Judaizers arose. From the Biblical records, it would appear that wherever Paul established an ecclesia, they would follow and would teach the necessity for circumcision. They are mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles and in most of the epistles of Paul but in none so prominently as in his letter to the Galatians. It was in Galatia they seemed to have had most success; so much so that Paul was discredited and the gospel seriously threatened. Paul feared for the ecclesias and was roused to set the record straight. Accordingly, his attack upon Judaism was dauntless and devastating.

Key verse: “We, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified” (Gal 2:16).

Outline

1. Introduction: Gal 1:1-9
a) Greetings: Gal 1:1-5
b) Purpose of letter: Gal 1:6-9
2. Paul’s defense of his apostleship: Gal 1:10 – 2:14
a) Paul called by God: Gal 1:10-24
b) Paul accepted by apostles: Gal 2:1-10
c) Paul opposes Peter at Antioch: Gal 2:11-14
3. Salvation by faith not law: Gal 2:15 – 4:31
a) Justified by faith in Christ: Gal 2:15-21
b) The Galatians’ experience at conversion: Gal 3:1-5
c) Experience of Abraham: Gal 3:6-9
d) Curse of the law: Gal 3:10-14
e) Promises before the law: Gal 3:15-18
f) Purpose of the law: Gal 3:19-25
g) Sons not slaves: Gal 3:26 – 4:11
h) Personal appeal: Gal 4:12-20
i) Allegory of Hagar and Sarah: Gal 4:21-31
4. The life of liberty and faith: Gal 5:1 – 6:10
a) Exhortation to freedom: Gal 5:1-12
b) Liberty is not license: Gal 5:13-15
c) Life by the Spirit, not by the flesh: Gal 5:13-26
d Doing good to all: Gal 6:1-10
5. Conclusion: Gal 6:11-18

Gambling

Why should a Christadelphian avoid gambling?

First, its motive is a bad frame of mind: greed, or covetousness. And there are lots of passages about that.

Second, gambling exemplifies a bad principle, that is, that wealth should be dependent on “chance” and not on services rendered (the sweat of the brow, figuratively). Does God bless the throw of the dice, or the spin of the wheel? Or the speed of one horse versus another (Psa 147:10)?

The third charge against gambling concerns its bad social effects. The gambler’s loss often leads to suffering for his wife (or — perhaps — her husband) and children; debt sometimes follows, and then theft or other illegal activities in an attempt to recoup the losses.

I suppose all of the above can be a ‘tough sell’, since the word itself does not occur in the Bible.

But the Bible does refer, unfavorably, to the gods “Fortune” and “Destiny”. Kind of like “Lady Luck”!:

“But as for you who forsake the LORD and forget my holy mountain, who spread a table for Fortune and fill bowls of mixed wine for Destiny” (Isa 65:11, NIV).

The NIV capitalizes both of these. They are proper names.

Apparently, both “Fortune” and “Destiny” were pagan gods. Some commentators will point out that “Fortune” (Heb “Gad”) was a Syrian deity of good fortune, and that “Destiny” (Heb “Meniy”) was another deity of Canaan.

Lady Luck actually IS the Roman goddess Fortuna. Fortuna was the patroness of gamblers, and so a favorite of soldiers. She survived into the middle ages as “Dame Fortune”, who dished out good and bad luck at random, using a device rather like a roulette wheel or “wheel of fortune” to pick recipients or victims.

Is gambling forbidden in scripture? While we may understand that it is wrong to play the lottery or to gamble, is there any scriptural proof that these practices are forbidden?

This issue is not one that is easy to resolve with a “thus saith the Lord”. There are scriptural approaches and we will do our best to provide you with some direction on the subject. I will relate my comments only to minor activities such as lotteries and raffles. I am confident that no reasonable brother would attempt to justify an addiction to the evils associated with high stakes gambling.

Covetousness?

One of the factors involved in this discussion is motivation. Why do we gamble? What is our real objective? It may be that the desire to be a winner in “Powerball” is rooted in covetousness. The master has seen fit to address this common weakness of the flesh in these words: “Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth” (Luk 12:15).

This instruction was not unique. It was included in the ten commandments: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s” (Exo 20:17).

We are also instructed by the Apostle Paul: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1Co 6:9,10).

Covetous is a word that means: “desiring more, eager for gain”. It is a word that can easily be applied to gambling, which incidentally means to “risk loss in order to gain an advantage”.

The same message is presented again in Col 3:2,5: “Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth… Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry.”

The word “covetousness” in this verse relates to avarice and greediness. “Concupiscence” means to desire, to long for or lust after. These are both characteristics which we are told to mortify — to destroy in our flesh. If our gambling is motivated by covetousness, or evil concupiscence, then it is clearly forbidden. The answer for each of us is in a honest self examination of our own heart.

Liberty?

On the other hand, it can be argued that the purchase of lottery tickets and or certain forms of gambling are harmless. Some are convinced that these matters should be treated as one of those Rom 14 issues. We are told in that chapter to “let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom 14:5). “Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth” (v 22).

For those who choose gambling as one of their own forms of liberty, the Apostle Paul has this recommendation: “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any” (1Co 6:12).

In 1Co 10 he repeats this advice with an addition: “Everything is permissible — but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible- but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others” (1Co 10:23, NIV).

We do have certain freedoms in Christ. All of these liberties must be exercised with caution. Our personal freedom may adversely affect our brother, concerning which we read: “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak” (Rom 14:21). “But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak” (1Co 8:9).

In another example, Peter tells us concerning our freedoms that we should have our “conversation honest among the Gentile… As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God” (I Peter 2:12,16).

Who do we Trust?

There are some other factors that should be considered in this discussion. When we gamble, (with a portion of the blessing that God has given to us), we may be placing our trust in the wrong place. Are we hoping for great gain from the devices of the princes of this land? We are told: “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish” (Psa 146:3,4).

We know where we ought to place our trust: “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding” (Pro 3:5). If we desire to increase our goods, then we should “Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine” (Pro 3:9-10).

The master adds this instruction: “Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek): for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof” (Mat 6:31-34).

Not my Will?

Our attitude ought to be consistent with that of our master, who in his greatest need could say, “nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42). We would be stretching the point, if we were to attempt to apply his example to our greed. Should we say to the Lord, “Please let me win the lottery, nevertheless, thy will be done”? James reminds us that “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts” (Jam 4:3).

We may not have considered that the will of the Lord is a key factor in this discussion. In the casting of lots, (which does have a scriptural basis), we are told that the successor to Judas was chosen in this manner: “And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen… And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles” (Acts 1:24,26).

For further evidence of this principle, we read in Pro 16:33: “The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD” (“every decision is from the LORD”, NIV).

It seems incredible indeed, that we can almost convince ourselves that God will bend His will, to be consistent with ours, when we have placed our hopes for the fulfillment of our dreams on the mammon of unrighteousness.

Conclusion

It is difficult for us to make the positive conclusion that forms of gambling such as the lottery are forbidden. Each of us must look into our own hearts to determine what our own motivation and practice will be. At the same time we are to be careful not to judge the heart of another man’s servant — “to his own master he standeth or falleth” (Rom 14:4).

We conclude with this suggestion: “Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another” (Rom 14:19).

[Adv]

Also, see Lesson, Addiction.

Gen 1:26, “Us”

The helpful note in the NIV Study Bible (a Trinitarian Bible, by the way!) on Gen 1:26 points out that God involved His angels in some way with creation. Angels, when they appear, look like men (Gen 18:2). Both man and angels bear a resemblance to God Himself.

“When angels appear in the OT they are frequently described as men (Gen 18:2). And in fact the use of the singular verb in v 27 does in fact suggest that God worked alone in the creation of mankind. ‘Let us create man’ should therefore be regarded as a divine announcement to the heavenly court, drawing the angelic host’s attention to the master stroke of creation, man. As Job 38:4,7 puts it: ‘When I laid the foundation of the earth all the Sons of God shouted for joy’ (cp Luk 2:13,14)” (WBC).

“The OT can scarcely be used as authority for the existence of distinctions within the Godhead. The use of ‘us’ by the divine speaker (Gen 1:26, 3:32, 11:7) is strange, but it is perhaps due to His consciousness of being surrounded by other beings of a loftier order than men (Isa 6:8)” (AB Davidson, Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 3:205).

“From Philo onward, Jewish commentators have generally held that the plural in Gen 1:26 is used because God is addressing his heavenly court, ie, the angels (cf Isa 6:8). From the Epistle of Barnabas and Justin Martyr, who saw the plural as a reference to Christ, Christians have traditionally seen this verse as foreshadowing the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author” (WBC).

“The fanciful idea that Elohim referred to the Trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what the grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God” (SBD).

“Early dogmaticians were of the opinion that so essential a doctrine as that of the Trinity could not have been unknown to the men of the OT… No modern theologian… can longer maintain such a view. Only an inaccurate exegesis which overlooks the more immediate grounds of interpretation can see references to the Trinity in the plural form of the divine name Elohim, the use of the plural in Gen 1:26 or such liturgical phrases as three members of the Aaronic blessing of Num 6:24-26 and the three ‘holy’s’ of Isa 6:3” (Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge 12:18).

“The plural form of the name of God, elohim, in the Hebrew Scriptures has often been adduced as proof of the plurality of persons in the Godhead… Such use of Scripture will not be likely to advance the interests of truth, or be profitable for doctrine… The plural of elohim may just as well designate a multiplicity of divine potentialities in the deity as three personal distinctions, or it may be explained as the plural of majesty and excellency. Such forms of expression are susceptible of too many explanations to be used as valid proof texts of the Trinity” (M Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics 587).

Whenever “elohim” refers to the one true God, it is always accompanied by singular verbs, although the word “elohim” itse is plural. Whenever “elohim” refers to more than one false god, it is accompanied by plural verbs. This is significant. Grammatically, “elohim” refers to the one true God only, although the word is plural. If the reason “elohim” is used of the true God is to indicate He is more than one, plural verbs would have to be used.

For example, in the first verse of the Bible, the third person masculine singular verb “bara” (“created”) is used with “elohim”. Since the verb is singular, it is required that He who did the creating is singular. In this case, the only option left to explain the plural form of “elohim” is that “elohim” refers to the fullness and intensity of the attributes of God. [This then may be an example of the rather common Hebrew phenomena: the plural of majesty — in this case “GODS” or “MIGHTY ONES”, plural, would signify “The Greatest of All (Gods, or Mighty Ones)!”]

In Exo 32:4, where “elohim” is used of a plurality of false gods, the verb “brought… up out is third person common plural. The plural verb demands that “elohim” be referring to more than one false god. Although in this case only one golden calf was made, it was considered a representative of the Egyptian gods.

In Deu 4:28 a series of third person masculine plural verbs, “see,” “hear,” “eat,” and “smell,” are used to describe the inabilities of false gods (“elohim”). This demonstrates that if the intention of “elohim” is to indicate more than one, plural verbs will be used. If the intention of “elohim” is to indicate only one, singular verbs are used.

When the inspired Greek of the NT quotes from an OT reference where “elohim” is used of the one true God, the Greek “theos” is singular (as in Psa 45:6,7 and Heb 1:8,9). When the NT quotes an OT reference in which “elohim” refers to people or false gods, the plural form of “theos” is used (as in Psa 82:6 and John 10:34-35; Exo 32:1 and Acts 7:40).

The Greek languages does not use plurals in the same way as the Hebrew (that is, to indicate intensity, fullness, and plurality of attributes). Since both the Hebrew and the Greek are inspired, if the point of “elohim”, when used of the true God, was to indicate God is more than one, the Greek would use the plural form of the noun. The fact that the Greek uses the singular “theos” where the Hebrew scriptures use the plural “elohim” of God Himself, is more than sufficient to prove that He is One, not three.

In Psa 45:6, “elohim” is used of the Messiah alone. There is only one Messiah, but the plural noun is used to indicate his immeasurable majesty. (And of course, no Trinitarian would try to argue that the Messiah himself is more than one person!)

In Gen 1:26, “elohim” (plural) said (third masculine singular), “Let us make (first person common plural) man (noun masculine singular) in our image (“image” is a masculine singular noun with a first person common plural suffix), after our likeness (“likeness” is a feminine singular noun with a first person common plural suffix).”

Grammatically, the words, “make,” “us” and “our” in this verse cannot refer to “elohim” alone, for the verb connected with “elohim” (“said”) is singular. If God had intended here to include only Himself in His address, He would have used a singular verb and pronouns. If God actually consisted of more than one person, we would expect to see the plural form of “make” and the plural pronouns “us” and “our” — but in this case, the verb “said” would be plural as well (which it is not the case in Gen 1:26.)

Johannes Drusius (a 16th Century Protestant professor of Oriental languages at Oxford University) recognized the weakness of the standard Trinitarian argument from the Hebrew word elohim: “In ‘Elohim created’ it is thought that a mystery is concealed and that a plurality of persons is implied. For what reason? Because a plural noun is construed with a singular verb. This is partly true and partly false as to the sense. For when ‘elohim’ is spoken of one, its significance is singular, being used of the one God everywhere and of an individual angel, calf, idol and man.

“And our opinion is demonstrated by other arguments. Both Jerome and Procopius call it a noun of the common number, because it is used of one God and of a plurality. But if this is true, and of this there cannot be any doubt, the argument drawn from the number falls to the ground; for when employed of an individual, what child would say that this noun has ever a plural sense?

“Who would affirm that there are various cities of the names of Athenoe, Theboe Salonoe, because these are each spoken of in the plural number? Who would deny that there is one supreme heaven, which the apostle terms the third and David the heaven of the heavens, because in Hebrew it is called shamayim in the dual form, or as preferred by Jerome in the plural? Who would infer that there are many darknesses because in Latin the corresponding word is not employed in the singular number? (tenebrae).

“There is equally a mystery — but which no one recognizes — in the plural baalim (lords). This word is sometimes used of one lord and having a singular sense; as well as in adonim (lords) when said of the One God.

“Because I have written that the noun ‘elohim’ does not from its termination signify the Trinity, I am accused of being a Unitarian Arian, when my adversaries should rather be called Sabellians (Modalists) since they make the holy sprit the spirit of himself and say that Christ was self-begotten and what is very absurd constitute a plurality in individual persons.

“For though they do not say so expressly, yet all of this necessarily results from their opinion. So true it is that ‘when fools fly from one fault they run into the contrary.’ And when unlearned men avoid errors they fall into others.”

Drusius’ argument was later vindicated by another great Orientalist –Wilhelm Gesenius:

“The language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in ‘elohim (whenever it denotes one God)…. [This] is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute” (such as a singular adjective or verb).

For more information on the subject, consult Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, pages 396-401, 1909 edition.

The Trinitarian interpretation, therefore, is totally inconsistent. It requires us to accept that the word “us” denotes a plurality of creators (whereas the Trinitarian dogma teaches that only one person — Christ — was responsible for creation), and when we get to v 27 (where the Creator is referred to in the singular form), this entire argument implodes in a puff of logic.

Observe:

  1. Trinitarians take the “God” of v 26 as a reference to one person of the Trinity.
  2. Trinitarians take the “God” of v 27 as a reference to all three persons of the Trinity.

This is a wantonly inconsistent hermeneutic. In order to be consistent, v 27 would have to say, “So God created man in their own image. In the image of God created they him; male and female created they them” (corresponding to the “us” of v 26). This would confirm that more than one person is referred to by the singular use of “God” in v 27. It would certainly lend support to the Trinitarian reading. And yet, we find that in both cases, singular pronouns are used.

Trinitarians cannot claim that the word “he” in v 27 is used to denote the Godhead as a whole, without (a) running contrary to Trinitarianism, and (b) contradicting their own argument from v 26.

As some Trinitarian exegetes have realized, the “plurality of persons” argument simply does not do justice to the text:

“Early dogmaticians were of the opinion that so essential a doctrine as that of the Trinity could not have been unknown to the men of the OT. However, no modern theologian who clearly distinguishes between the degrees of revelation in the Old and New Testaments can longer maintain such a view.

“Only an inaccurate exegesis which overlooks the more immediate grounds of interpretation can see references to the Trinity in the plural form of the divine name Elohim, the use of the plural in Gen 1:26, or such liturgical phrases of three members as the Aaronic blessing of Num 6:24-26 and the Trisagion (qv) of Isa 6:3.

“On the other hand, the development of Christology and, later, of the doctrine of the Trinity has undoubtedly been influenced by certain passages of the OT” [The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), Vol 12, page 18].

The grammar of Gen 1:26 itself demonstrates that when God (the singular “Elohim”) spoke, He included someone else in His statement. But to whom did He speak? The Jews believe that in Genesis 1:26 God addressed His angels when He said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” It was not a literal invitation, for only God Himself was responsible for the creation of man — but it was a reference to persons other than Himself.

Standard authorities — yes, even Trinitarian authorities — confirm the point. Thus:

  • “The OT can scarcely be used as authority for the existence of distinctions within the Godhead. The use of ‘us’ by the divine speaker (Gen 1:26; 3:32; 11:7) is strange, but it is perhaps due to His consciousness of being surrounded by other beings of a loftier order than men (Isa 6:8)” (Davidson, AB, Hastings Dictionary of the Bible).
  • “I do not find the difficulties raised against the view that God was consulting the angels compelling… When angels appear in the OT they are frequently described as men (Gen 18:2). And in fact the use of the singular verb in v 27 does in fact suggest that God worked alone in the creation of mankind. ‘Let us create man’ should therefore be regarded as a divine announcement to the heavenly court, drawing the angelic host’s attention to the master stroke of creation, man. As Job 38:4,7 puts it: ‘When I laid the foundation of the earth all the Sons of God shouted for joy’ (cp Luk 2:13,14)” (Wenham, Gordon, Word Biblical Commentary on Genesis).

This interpretation of Genesis 1:26 is (a) consistent with the text in a way that the Trinitarian “plurality of God” interpretation is not, and (b) compatible with both Jewish Unitarianism and modern Biblical Unitarianism. It is the most reasonable interpretation, and it is the most logical interpretation.

A popular alternative to this view is the idea that God referred to himself in the language of royalty (known as the pluralis majestatis.) Writing in his Hebrew Grammar, Gesenius advances the following explanation:

“Greatness, especially in a metaphorical sense, as associated with power and sovereignty, is plurally expressed. Hence, there are several nouns which are used in the plural as well as the singular, to denote Lord or God (Pluralis majestaticus vel excellentioe), eg Eloah. God is scarcely found in the singular, except in poetry; in prose; commonly elohim; adon, lord, old form of the plural adonai, the Lord, kat exochen (God), shaddai, the Almighty.

“Often the idea of greatness is no longer associated with the form, the mind having accustomed itself to contemplate the powerful in general as a plural. Another example of the plural majestatis is the use of we by Deity in speaking of Himself (Gen 1:26; 11:7; Isa 6:8) and by kings. The German language has it not only in this latter case, but in addressing a second person by Ihr and Sie. This plural is also found in modern Arabic and Persian.”

The problem for Trinitarians who take Gen 1:26 as a reference to the alleged “plurality” of God, is that:

  • only four passages in the entire Bible can be advanced in support of this argument (and in one of those, we are expressly told that God is surrounded by His angels),
  • if God had intended to reveal Himself as a “plurality”, it is peculiar that He didn’t make it clearer, and
  • there is simply not enough consistency in the argument itself, let alone the Biblical data.

No Trinitarian has ever succeeded in explaining why God attempted to “prove” His alleged “plurality” by referring to Himself in plural form within the meager scope of a pitiful four verses, which, if taken as a reference to plurality, flatly contradict the grammatical consistency that we find elsewhere in the Bible. (David Burke)