Board index ‹ The Trinity

[Cadet]

so this is the verse I would like to zero in on.

Matthew 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

in order to do this properly we need to examine the original text (the Greek text). Let's pull out some key words from the verse.

strongs notes G3762 oudeis
from G3761 and G1520; not even one (man, woman or thing), i.e. none, nobody, nothing.
-this is the word translated to "no one" as we can see it is neuter in gender and includes "things" not just people. literally means "none, nobody, nothing."

strongs notes G1921 epiginosko ep-ig-in-oce'-ko from G1909 and G1097; o know upon some mark, i.e. recognize; by implication, to become fully acquainted with, to acknowledge.
-this is the word translated to 'knows" part of the definition is to become fully acquanted with.

another translation clarifies this greek word by saying-

"My Father has entrusted everything to me. No one truly knows the Son except the Father, and no one truly knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." - NLT
So Jesus said that nothing knows the son except the father. If the holy spirit was a conscious entity as the third member that is part of the truine God - it would surely also be fully acquainted with the son as well, since it too is God. It would obviously know the son since it is 3rd member of a God the trinity. But Jesus said this is not the case.

First i want to first establish that the "argument from silence" is not able to be applied in this situation.

An extremely simple example of an argument from silence would be If person1 asked me who was at my home, and i responded and said "my father is at home". Then person1 goes and tells person2, "only his father is at home". Person2 argues with them and says "that isn't true", so person1 responds with "well he said his father was at home, he didn't say anyone else was at home!". That would be an argument from silence, since my mother was also at home, just because i didn't include her in my response doesn't mean she wasn't there.

Here is the key word that makes that argument not apply to this verse, it is when Jesus says "no one" or "nothing" knows the son except the father. He is not being silent about who doesn't know the son, he is saying nothing but the father knows. He is directly discluding everything but the father. He literally says no one knows him but the father. If anything "knows" him besides the father - this would be a false statement.

you could say well the angels must know who the son is, and that is why we look at the original greek word and its definition. Part of the definition of the word is to be "fully acquainted with". Yes the angels and demons knew who the son was, but they were not fully acquainted with him. Since only the father is fully acquinted with him. If the angels knew the son like the father did then his statement would be false. Jesus never sinned so his statement must be true. He is obviously explaining that nobody truly knows him except the father. For some reason he did not say that no one knows the son except the father and the holy spirit.

IF Jesus had said, 'the fathers knows the son, and the son knows the father plus also those who he chooses to reveal him to. if I claimed "well he didn't say the holy spirit, so it must not be a conscious entity." THEN it could be stated I was using a faulty argument of silence. But that is not the case here.

Also I would like to throw in some little bonuses.

It has been pretty much completely proven by scholars that a verse that is used to prove the trinity was added later and not part of the original text.

https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8

that situation is explained in the link above by Daniel B. Wallace Ph.D. "His Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan, 1996) has become a standard textbook in colleges and seminaries." This is a well known issue. I am sure most of the readers of the post will already have known about that. Most bibles will not include the verse because pretty much everyone accepts that it was put in thier wrongfully. Just a little strange.

Also the word for "spirit" in this verse -

Gn 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
is a feminine word

in the Greek language the word for spirit is neuter. Neither he or she. in hebrew the word for spirit is actually feminine.

so I am doing this mostly as a friendly debate, im definitely expecting to learn some things from you guys and maybe you can learn some things from me as well as we discuss the issue over time. But from my point of view i believe the trinity can be dis-proven by simply examining the greek words from a single verse.

also to clarify, i would then assume the holy spirit is the power of God. So God consists of the Father and the Son. God uses his holy spirit to move and influence people. It is his power.

because someone got confused in another sub, you need to be able to explain these words right here

"and no one knows the Son except the Father," - the second part is him explaining that only he knows the father and he can reveal the father to whomever he wishes. My argument is about Christ saying nobody truly knows the son except the father. Therefor The holy spirit cannot truly know the son. You could maybe say the son reveals the father to the holy spirit, but if the holy spirit was a conscious co equal being of a trinity, then the holy spirit would not need the son to tell him anything, he is God. In fact that would not make sense at all since Christ was conceived by the holy spirit. If the holy spirit conceived Christ how could he then not know the son? Christ said no one knows the son except the father. The only reasonable answer i see is that the holy spirit is essentially the power of God the father. Not a conscious seperate co equal being of a trinity that is omnipotent God himself.

ONE LAST pre-emptive counter argument.

If you want to try and say Jesus is only talking about people, this is my auto response to that.

So your saying -- no one (people/humans) truly know the son, except the father

see the problem with that is, the father is not people/humans. So he is not only talking about people. The greek word includes literally everything, things are included in the word. This cannot be ignored.

the context includes the father, who is not human, not people. It does not make sense for him to say

"no people know the son except the father
-- because the father is not people/humans. The context includes things outside of people. If he included the father in his context the holy spirit is included in his definition on "no one".

Its getting late, if you like this and want to see more

https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/b ... -a-trinity

Btw I did not magically come up with all this on my own. I learned to pay attention to the hebrew and greek from sources in /r/originalchristianity as well as wondering about this verse. This whole message is all my words, just giving credit to sources, they may not all share my stance, but i believe this argument is pretty solid.

[jimwalton]

My compliments to you on catching this and thinking about it. A passage like this, however, goes much deeper than the surface, and it's only in further research that a conclusion like yours can be shown to be a misunderstanding.

Your cut-and-pastes of the Greek terms are accurate, but not as helpful in this case as they often are or as one might expect them to be. Let's roll through the text.

Jesus starts by answering (responding) to an unknown statement. The Greek in Mt. 11.25 is "At that time Jesus answered and said...", so we know there's some kind of break. In other words, Matthew has pulled in this saying of Jesus for a purpose that doesn't necessarily flow from what was before, but he pulled it in to make a point based on what was before.

What went before was Jesus validating who John was just as John validated who Jesus was (vv. 1-19). It's an important clue to v. 27. In the process Jesus validated Himself to John (v. 4-5: Jesus as the fulfillment of the Isaianic prophecy). Then we get a key to the theme of this section Matthew is assembling: Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of Jesus (v. 6).

Verses 20-24 continue that theme: Those who knowingly reject Jesus despite the evidence will find themselves being judged. Jesus's identity has been validated by testimony and by his miraculous works. To have missed them and to instead reject Jesus instead of accept is inexcusable, given the evidence.

So the section is about the revelation of the Son by the Father as the fulfillment of prophecy, the true Messiah, and the true Son of God. Here's where our section kicks in.

In a section that sounds extremely similar to teachings in the Gospel of John (John chapters 14-17), we are told that the revelation has been clear. These "hidden things" (v. 25) and the "all things" of v. 27 can't refer to an abstract body of theology or philosophy that he got from somewhere, but the very revelation of Himself (Jesus) as the revelation of God Himself. The "all things have been committed to me" can be nothing other than the authoritative position of Jesus as the Messiah, the true Son of true God. We see the exact same thought in Mt. 28.18. He's not talking about knowledge, but about authority.

The view that "all things that have been committed to me" refers to some secret knowledge can only be true if it is here used of the handing down of some teaching from the past, but that theory is surely excluded by "by my Father." So what this verse is talking about is not knowledge, but identity, authority, and position. Jesus in his nature is the revelation of God Himself, since He has the authority and position that only God have. You can find similar thoughts in 1 Cor. 15.24 and Rev. 12.10. Thus the following statements in v. 27 speak of this previously unknown authority and nature of the Son (as part of the Trinity), not of his knowledge of God or God's knowledge of Him. The point of the text is not knowledge, but world dominion.

Using terms of knowledge, the idea of the text is that the Father has elected the Son to be His full revelation on earth (Heb. 1.2), and the Son has acknowledged the Father before humankind (John 14.7-11). It's the role of the Son to represent God in the world and to bring people to a knowledge of Him. Jesus is talking about his authority, position, and role. The Son is the one with the knowledge, the power, and the will to reveal the Father to humankind.

With the incarnation of Christ, God is coming out of the shadows of concealment, so to speak, revealing Himself in the person of Jesus and ushering in the promised time of salvation. The content of the revelation isn't a teaching but a person. Because of Jesus we can know God John 17.25-26), for the Son is the One who knows God with full knowledge.

In other words, the passage is not at all about Jesus having knowledge that the Holy Spirit doesn't have.

I'm sure you'll have a response, and maybe even further questions. I look forward for further dialogue.

[Cadet]

I agree with your 99% of your entire post. Everything you said is entirely in agreement with how I view Jesus and God.

But none of what you say proves this part: "In other words, the passage is not at all about Jesus having knowledge that the Holy Spirit doesn't have." That sentence just came out of nowhere and doesn't relate to the rest of what you said. Where are you getting this from?

We all know Jesus came to reveal the father. We all know Jesus is God. You explained that quite well and i agree.

So.. In your own words. What does this verse (Matthew 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.) really mean?

There is simplicity in Christ. I just want to know what that means to you.

[jimwalton]

> "the passage is not at all about Jesus having knowledge that the Holy Spirit doesn't have" ... Where are you getting this from?

Because the passage is really about identity and authority, not about knowledge. The "things hidden" in v. 25 is the truth about his identity. The "things...committed" in v. 27 is his authority because of his identity. In v. 27 the Father is the source of Jesus's divine appointment and divine endorsement, not of any knowledge Jesus has. Therefore neither are the next 2 phrases about knowledge in the sense of intellect or a database of facts. Jesus is affirming his identity by the testimony of the Father and in return acknowledging the Father's identity and glory by his own affirmation (check out verses like Mt. 3.17; Jn. 14.11; 17.1, 3, 10 etc.). Jesus is not saying anything about him knowing things that the Holy Spirit, as God, wouldn't know. 1 Corinthians 2.10 tells us that the Spirit "searches all things, even the deep things of God," and v. 11 says that the Spirit knows the thoughts of God.

> So what does Mt. 11.27 really mean?

I thought I already explained it, but I'll give it another whack.

God the Father has recognized Jesus (God the Son) as full of Godly authority that belongs to God alone. God considers Jesus to be His revelation on earth, and Jesus identifies Himself directly with God. Jesus, as God, has sovereignty and authority over all creation. He has a name that is above every name. Jesus is claiming equality with the Father—the exact representation of His being. God the Father has acknowledged this about Jesus, and Jesus has acknowledged this about the Father. "If you want to see what God is like, look at Me." God has made Himself known in the person of Christ.

[Cadet]

Well yeah i mean, i believe that to be true.

So when Jesus says none/nothing has this with the son except the father. My point is still valid. The holy spirit is not included in this.

[jimwalton]

It depends what you mean. If by "my point is still valid" you mean that the Trinity is disproved by this verse, no, your point is not valid. Jesus is not claiming He has knowledge that the Holy Spirit doesn't have. What He is claiming is that He is equal to God the Father. But if you are claiming that "the Holy Spirit is not included in this" because Jesus is only talking about His own particular identity, then you are correct.

[Cadet]

this ("What He is claiming is that He is equal to God the Father") combined with this (""the Holy Spirit is not included in this" because Jesus is only talking about His own particular identity, then you are correct.")

[jimwalton]

OK, then, um, we're good? The verse doesn't disprove the Trinity doctrine.

[Cadet]

it clearly does. He is claiming he is equal to God the Father, and said nothing else is.

He said, no one "knows" the son except the father. So your saying that he means they are equal, well the holy spirit is not there, he said its only him and the father.

[jimwalton]

It most clearly does not. Jesus's equality with the Father carries no declaration or even implication that only he is equal with the Father. Jesus is making a statement about Himself and the Father, and the implication of his statement goes no further.

Suppose I go to a store and see a TV on sale. I say, "This price is equal to the price I saw on the Internet." That is true. What it doesn't mean is that this is the only TV equal to that price. It's a statement of equality, not one of exclusivity or uniqueness.