It is often assumed that the doctrine of the Trinity –
the idea that there is one being of God that is comprised of three eternal and
co-equal divine persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit – is something that is revealed
only in the incarnation of the Son, between the penning of the Old and New
Testaments. The New Testament, then, serves as the written record of the
revelation of the Trinity, in the incarnation of the Son in the person of
Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentacost. While it is
certainly true that the expression of the Trinity reaches its climax in the New
Testament, few Christians are aware that one can find evidence of divine
plurality – and even of there being three divine persons – throughout the Old
Testament as well. The purpose of this article series is to highlight the
continuity of the Old and New Testaments with respect to the nature of God.
Before we delve into the evidence, however, why is this
an important subject for Christians to consider? I believe that it is important
for a few reasons. Firstly, the gospel is fundamentally Trinitarian. God’s plan
of salvation is a plan that was initiated by the Father, accomplished by the
Son, and is applied by the Holy Spirit. The gospel can therefore not be
divorced from the Triune nature of God. Secondly, various pseudochristian sects
(e.g. Biblical unitarians, Jehovah’s witnesses, etc), as well as Muslims and orthodox
Jews, deny the Trinity and we need to know how to defend this doctrine against
attacks – including against the allegation that the Trinity is inconsistent
with the Old Testament.
A further reason to consider this subject is that the
study reveals what I call “intricate harmonies” in the Bible, which provide
evidence for the divine inspiration of Scripture. What are intricate harmonies?
When different parts of Scripture (which are often scattered across different
authors, genres, and centuries) interlock with one another to be subtly
consistent on a matter that is highly surprising, this provides evidence for
the divine inspiration of Scripture. Indeed, the very concept of there being
multiple divine persons in one divine being seems very unlike the sort of thing
that humans would invent – let alone its subtle consistency across different
authors, genres and centuries. However, we need to make sure that, at the end,
nothing is being shoehorned or forced. If it even begins to feel that way (to a
thoughtful listener), that will be a big turn-off to this style of argument. As
with many of the categories of evidence for Christianity, this phenomenon is
best explained by giving examples, and so it is to this that I now turn my
attention. I hope that in doing so, over the course of several blog posts, the strength
and power of the cumulative argument from intricate harmonies becomes clear.
Does the Shema
Exclude Divine Plurality?
It is sometimes alleged by Biblical unitarians and
others that the Jewish shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) precludes the idea of divine
plurality, for it clearly states that God is one. Here is the text:
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
The Hebrew word used for one in this text is echad.
Echad can refer to a singular unity, but it can also refer to a compound or
complex unity. For example, in Genesis 2:24, we read that Adam and Eve became one flesh (the word for ‘one’ here is
again ‘echad’). In 2 Chronicles 30:12, we read that God gave the people “one
heart” (lev echad). Various other
examples could be given. If the word used for one in Deuteronomy 6:4 had been yachid, that would have been more of a
problem, since that word does mean an absolute and solitary unity (e.g. Psalm
68:6). But the fact that the author of Deuteronomy 6:4 used echad allows for (but does not require)
a compound or composite unity.
Do the Singular
Pronouns Used of God Exclude Divine Plurality?
Another objection I often encounter to the concept of
divine plurality is the fact that the Bible uses singular pronouns for God
(i.e. “he”, “his”, “him” rather than plural pronouns like “they”, “their”, “them”,
etc). Does this preclude God from being multipersonal? No, not at all. For
example, even the entire nation of Israel is spoken of at various times in
Scripture with a singular masculine pronoun. For one example of many that could
be given, consider Psalm 130:7-8:
7 O Israel, hope in the LORD! For with the LORD there is steadfast love,
and with him is plentiful redemption. 8 And he will redeem Israel from all his iniquities.
This suffices to show that even a corporation
comprising multiple individuals can be spoken of in the Hebrew Bible using
singular pronouns.
Examples of Texts
that Affirm Divine Plurality
One of my favourite examples of texts that affirm divine
plurality in the Hebrew Bible is Zechariah 2:6-12. The context is God promising
deliverance for the Jewish exiles in Babylon, and their return to their own
land. Here is the text. Pay careful attention to the three sentences that I
have highlighted:
6 Up! Up! Flee from the land of the north, declares the LORD. For I have
spread you abroad as the four winds of the heavens, declares the LORD. 7 Up!
Escape to Zion, you who dwell with the daughter of Babylon. 8 For thus said the
LORD of hosts, after his glory sent
me to the nations who plundered you, for he who touches you touches the
apple of his eye: 9 “Behold, I will shake my hand over them, and they shall
become plunder for those who served them. Then
you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me. 10 Sing and rejoice,
O daughter of Zion, for behold, I come and I will dwell in your midst, declares
the LORD. 11 And many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day,
and shall be my people. And I will
dwell in your midst, and you shall know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to
you. 12 And the LORD will inherit Judah as his portion in the holy
land, and will again choose Jerusalem.”
No fewer than three times in this text, Yahweh (the LORD
God) states that he has been sent by Yahweh. Now hang on a minute – Yahweh has
sent Yahweh? That’s right – that is exactly what the text says. Here, there are
two persons identified by the title of Yahweh. There is simply no way of reading
this except through the lens of divine plurality. In light of the New
Testament, we can conclude that here the Son speaks of Himself being sent by
the Father to dwell in the midst of God’s people.
Is this an isolated case? Absolutely not. To take
another instance, consider Isaiah 48:11-16. Let’s look firstly at verses 11-16a:
11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be
profaned? My glory I will not give to another. 12 “Listen to me, O Jacob, and
Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last. 13 My hand
laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens;
when I call to them, they stand forth together. 14 Assemble, all of you, and
listen! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD loves him; he shall
perform his purpose on Babylon, and his arm shall be against the Chaldeans. 15
I, even I, have spoken and called him; I have brought him, and he will prosper
in his way. 16 Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken
in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there.
I think all readers will agree that this whole section
records the words of Yahweh. But in verse 16b, this is followed by something
very odd:
And now the LORD
God has sent me, and his Spirit.
Again, we see that Yahweh has been sent by Yahweh,
along with the Spirit of Yahweh.
My interpretation here is by no means new. Consider the
wisdom of several early Christian theologians who saw this text as an allusion
to God’s Triune nature, including Origen of Alexandria, Augustine of Hippo, and
Jerome.
In reading commentaries of this text, however, I have encountered
three alternative interpretations. One is that it is Cyrus of Persia
interjecting. However, this seems to be a stretch. Not only would that break up
the flow of the text (and verse 17 returns to Yahweh speaking), but such an interpretation
seems to stand refuted upon a read of Isaiah 45:1-6 in which Yahweh addresses
Cyrus. Pay careful attention once again to the highlighted text:
Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have
grasped, to subdue nations before him and to loose the belts of kings, to open
doors before him that gates may not be closed: 2 “I will go before you and
level the exalted places, I will break in pieces the doors of bronze and cut
through the bars of iron, 3 I will give you the treasures of darkness and the
hoards in secret places, that you may know that it is I, the LORD, the God of
Israel, who call you by your name. 4 For the sake of my servant Jacob, and
Israel my chosen, I call you by your
name, I name you, though you do not know me. 5 I am the LORD, and there
is no other, besides me there is no God; I
equip you, though you do not know me, 6 that people may know, from the
rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD,
and there is no other.
Thus, Isaiah says, Cyrus of Persia, a pagan king, has
been annointed and equipped by God to do God’s bidding, even though Cyrus does
not know the LORD God. It thus seems unlikely that just a few chapters later
Cyrus would announce “And now the LORD God has sent me, and His Spirit.”
The second alternative interpretation that I have
encountered of Isaiah 48:16 is that it is the righteous servant that
interjects. The very next chapter, after all, Isaiah 49, presents the righteous
servant speaking in the first person. As I will show in a future article in
this series, however, the righteous servant is Himself a divine person who
shares in the very essence of Yahweh Himself. Thus, even if that interpretation
is correct, I do not believe it would undercut the thrust of the argument that
the text communicates divine plurality.
The third alternative interpretation that I have
encountered is that it is Isaiah interjecting. This interpretation is possible
(although I still think it unnecessarily breaks up the flow of the text, since
what comes before and after is clearly Yahweh speaking). It is the only viable
interpretation which would seem successful in undermining the case for God’s
triunity. However, even in this case, one could still make a case for at least
binitarianism, since there is still an allusion to the distinctive personality
of the Holy Spirit, who either is sent along with the other individual or
cooperates with God in sending him (the text in that respect is rather ambiguous).
Isaiah 48 is by no means the only text in Isaiah that
communicates divine plurality. Another instance is in Isaiah 63:7-10:
7 I will recount the steadfast love of the LORD, the praises of the LORD,
according to all that the LORD has granted us, and the great goodness to the
house of Israel that he has granted them according to his compassion, according
to the abundance of his steadfast love. 8 For he said, “Surely they are my
people, children who will not deal falsely.” And he became their Savior. 9 In all their affliction he was
afflicted, and the angel of his
presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he
lifted them up and carried them all the days of old. 10 But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit; therefore he
turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them.
God is described as Father in verse 8, since the
Hebrews are said to be his children. Verse 10 also describes the Holy Spirit,
who was grieved by the rebellion of God’s people in the wilderness. This
indicates the personal identity of the Holy Spirit (you cannot grieve an
impersonal active force). Curiously, this text also dovetails with Psalm 78:40,
in which we read,
How often they rebelled against him [i.e. the LORD God] in the wilderness
and grieved him in the desert!
The very same language is therefore applied in the
Psalms to Yahweh, the God of Israel, suggesting that the Holy Spirit is Himself
Yahweh.
Isaiah 63:9 also refers to the “angel of His presence”.
I shall have more to say about this individual in a future article in this series.
For now, please note that the Hebrew word malak
(translated here “angel” in our English Bibles) does not necessarily refer to
angelic creatures, and can refer to human messengers as well. Indeed, the name
Malachi means “my messenger”. The term could also therefore be translated “messenger”
rather than “angel”.
The text alludes back to Exodus 23:20, in which we
read,
20 Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring
you to the place that I have prepared. 21 Pay careful attention to him and obey
his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression,
for my name is in him.
I will show in a lot more detail in a future article
that this messenger/angel is in fact Himself a divine person, and identified by
Scripture as none other than the preincarnate Messiah Himself. But, for now,
notice that in verse 21 He is said to have authority to forgive and withhold
forgiveness of sins (an exclusively divine prerogative). God also states that He
bears the very name of God Himself. As I’ll show in a future article, for God’s
name to be in this messenger is a Hebrew idiom for His nature to be dwelling
within this Messenger.
There are many other reasons besides these
considerations to understand this figure as a divine figure – but that is a
topic for another day. For the time-being, notice that in Isaiah 63 there are three
distinct divine persons spoken of. Some commentators on Isaiah 63 understand
the messenger of His presence and the Holy Spirit to be one and the same.
However, this seems to be refuted by Zechariah 6:8 in which the angel of the LORD
appears to distinguish His Spirit from Himself.
For yet another text that expresses divine plurality,
consider Hosea 1:7:
But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and I will save them by the LORD their God. I will not save
them by bow or by sword or by war or by horses or by horsemen.
Here, we read that Yahweh intends to save the house of
Judah by Yahweh their God. This text
sounds rather awkward, unless read through the lens of divine plurality.
I will consider one further example of a text that expresses
divine plurality. Consider Proverbs 30:1-4:
The sayings of Agur son of Jakeh—an inspired utterance. This man’s
utterance to Ithiel: “I am weary, God, but I can prevail. 2 Surely I am only a
brute, not a man; I do not have human understanding. 3 I have not learned
wisdom, nor have I attained to the knowledge of the Holy One. 4 Who has gone up
to heaven and come down? Whose hands have gathered up the wind? Who has wrapped
up the waters in a cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is the name
of his son? Surely you know!
Here, in verse 4, we read of the son of God. The concept
of a son of God is not foreign to the Hebrew Bible. It is a title used of
Israel (Hosea 11:1), Solomon (2 Samuel 7:14: 1 Chronicles 17:13), and of Adam
in the New Testament (Luke 3:38). The question, then, is what does the title
son of God refer to here? The context can give us some clues. The first clue is that the phrase translated "Holy One" in verse 3 is in fact, in the original Hebrew, in the plural (qadoshim) -- literally, it is Holy Ones.
Secondly, Agur is contemplating the incomprehensibility of God.
He says in verse 3, “I have not learned wisdom, nor have I attained to the
knowledge of the Holy One.” In other words, God is unfathomable. He then asks a
series of rhetorical questions: “Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Whose
hands have gathered up the wind? Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak? Who
has established all the ends of the earth?” The answer to each of those
rhetorical questions is obviously God. He then concludes with a final rhetorical
question: “What is his name, and what is the name of his Son? Surely you know!”
To know someone’s name is a Jewish idiom for to understand their nature. Thus,
the answer to the rhetorical question, based on the context, is “No, we don’t
know the name because God’s nature is incomprehensible.” Thus, the nature of
the Son is incomprehensible in just the same sense that the nature of God is
incomprehensible. This suggests strongly that the Son being spoken of here is
not a Davidic heir or the nation of Israel or Adam, but is in fact a divine
person who is co-equal with God Himself.
Summary
I have only scratched the very pinnacle of the proverbial
ice berg. There are many, many more texts in the Hebrew Bible that communicate
the concept of divine plurality. In future blog posts, we will consider some further
examples and explore how the Old Testament expression of God’s personal
plurality relate to the Biblical portrait of Israel’s Messiah. As we do so, we
will see with increasing clarity how intricate harmonies point to the divine
inspiration of the Scriptures.
5 comments:
Pleas listen to the blessed Rabbi Singer to see the light. This is the only way for your salvation. Do not deceive yourself, or be deceived by charlatans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpxRbT98e54
Why no apparent mention of ELOHIM (a plural word) and used in Gen.1:1 (& elsewhere many times) when in the singular --- a UNI-PLURAL person?
Are you searching for the most reliable Already Written Essays? All the Custom Dissertation Writing should be original based on in-depth research and include appropriate citations based on current references on the Pre Written Essays.
Thanks for sharing this nice blog. And thanks for the information.
Comprare Patente di Guida
FÜHRERSCHEIN ONLINE KAUFEN
Thanks for sharing
Comprare Patente di Guida
Post a Comment