Particulars
of Christianity:
302
The Trinity
The Trinity:
Introductions
Introductions
The
Angel of YHWH as YHWH God
The
Angel of YHWH as Distinct from YHWH God
Immediate
Interactive Dialogue
A
Consistent Expectation about Seeing God's Face
Survey
Examining Eternal Past Existence
Establishing
Eternal Past Existence
Distinction
of the Spirit of YHWH
Ancient
Jewish Recognition of Trinitarian Facts
The
Trinity in the New Testament
Addendum
1 & 2
Addendum
3
Introduction
to the Issues
To
avoid confusion, at the start of this article we would like
to state that we are wholly Trinitarian in our doctrine. This
is stated under Point No. 1 of our “Just So You Know” page,
which declares our views on foundational Christian doctrines.
And to avoid any equivocation, when we say that we affirm
the orthodox definition of the Trinity, we mean that we affirm
that the Father, the Word (Son), and the Holy Spirit are three
eternally distinct and co-equal persons, yet one God – Jehovah
(or YHWH). As will be discussed throughout this article, we
believe that the concept of the Trinity is monotheistic, not
polytheistic, and specifically that it is the monotheism articulated
by the Old Testament (and then continued in the New Testament).
Furthermore, we believe that the evidence in the Old Testament
(as well as the New Testament) rules out any form of Modalism
or Arianism.
Modalism
essentially teaches that there is only one person within the
Godhead although he interacts with men in different modes,
forms, or roles.
“Trinity
– An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the
one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself…came
to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness
as “persons” (modalism).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
And
Arianism teaches that the Word and the Spirit were created,
sub-deities who worked in concert with the Supreme Being.
“Semi-Arianism
– Arius held that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three
separate essences (ousiai) or substances (hypostaseis) and
that the Son and Spirit derived their divinity from the
Father, were created in time, and were inferior to the Godhead.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica
As
we approach the nature of the Godhead, it is important to
first understand why any questions come up at all regarding
the number of persons within the Godhead and what the nature
of those persons might be. For example, are the different
persons really one person acting in different roles or forms?
Or, are some of the different persons actually created sub-deities?
And what evidence is it that raises such questions in the
first place? These are the questions that this study will
address. And we begin with a question of terminology.
Introduction
to the Terms
When
it comes to terminology, perhaps the place to start is the
name of God itself. Throughout this study we will be using
the four-letter designation “YHWH” for “Yahweh” or “Jehovah,”
the proper name of God, revealed and used throughout the Old
Testament. (Yahweh and Jehovah are simply two alternate pronunciations
of the same name.)
“YHWH
– yahweh — compare tetragrammaton.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary
“Tetragrammaton
– the four Hebrew letters usually transliterated YHWH or JHVH
that form a biblical proper name of God — compare yahweh.”
– Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
Typically,
English translations of the Bible use the all capitalized
word “LORD” in place of YHWH or JHVH. While completely acceptable
for normal usage, the use of a common term such as “Lord”
in place of “YHWH” tends to down play the fact that this Hebrew
word is the proper name for God. As such, the four letter
designation YHWH has identity value. For example, in English,
there are many individuals that might be deemed lords. So,
if a text were to refer to the angel of God simply as “the
LORD,” it would not carry the same connotation as reading
the same sentence referring to the angel of God by the actual
proper name Yahweh or Jehovah. The use of the proper name
conveys a specific identity where as the English term “lord,”
even if capitalized, loses the attachment to a specific identity,
namely in this case the identity of God.
In
addition, we should also make note that discussions of the
Godhead often use terms like “Trinity” and phrases like “plurality
of persons” and assume a sort of familiar or colloquial understanding
of such concepts. However, common perception is often filled
with misconception, vagueness and ambiguity, or simply a general
lack of thoughtful consideration. So, as we press further
into this study, it is important to be more specific about
such central terms and concepts.
First,
it is important to state the widely acknowledged fact that
the term “Trinity” does not appear anywhere in either the
Old or the New Testament. This is indicated in the quote below
from Britannica Encyclopedia. But this is not and never has
been the issue. Trinitarians have never claimed that this
term is found in scripture. Instead, the term “Trinity” is
simply a term that has been coined to collectively refer to
facts that are presented in the Old and New Testament scripture
about God. And from New Testament to the earliest Christian
writings outside the New Testament, Christian authors have
always stubbornly asserted the same group of Old Testament
(and New Testament) facts, which by modern times have come
to be collectively summed up in the term “Trinity.” Consequently,
any critical analysis of the Trinitarian model will necessarily
require investigating, validating, or invalidating those facts,
which come together to comprise the model known summarily
as “the Trinity.”
“Trinity
– Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears
in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend
to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O
Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy
6:4).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
As
indicated in the second half of the quote above, the followers
of Jesus have always considered themselves monotheists, adhering
to the Old Testament teaching that there is only one God,
not many Gods, and not even just three Gods. Nevertheless,
Trinitarian Christians simultaneously assert that while there
is only one God, within that single Being there are three
eternally distinct persons.
Admittedly,
however, this side by side usage of terms like “one being”
and “three persons” does little to clarify the issue or the
Trinitarian position. After all, “person” and “being” are
most commonly considered to be synonyms for one another. Yet,
the Trinitarian seems to use “being” and “person” as though
we all automatically distinguish clearly between those two
terms. Consequently, to the average ear, the phrase “three
persons in one being” makes about as much sense as saying,
“three beings in one being” or “three persons in one person.”
Needless to say, there is further need to define exactly what
is meant by such critical terms, particularly the term “person”
as it is used by Trinitarians. And, more specifically, it
is important to define the term “person” in terms of the Old
Testament (and New Testament) facts that the term is intended
to reflect.
Perhaps
the most comprehendible definition of a “person” is a “consciousness,”
a “center of consciousness,” or a “self-consciousness.” Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary defines “self-consciousness” as follows.
“Self-conscious
– 1a: conscious of one's own acts or states as belonging
to or originating in oneself: aware of oneself as an individual.
– self-consciousness, noun.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary
The
Trinitarian model is a recognition of the following facts
about God presented in both the Old Testament and New
Testament. First, throughout the Old Testament God identifies
himself by different terms or identities, such as YHWH/the
LORD, the Word of YHWH, the Spirit of YHWH, or even the angel
of YHWH. In the New Testament, these identities and terms
are respectively identified with additional terms such as
the Son and the Holy Spirit. The actions of God under these
respective titles fall into definable categories or trends,
indicating that these titles signify roles or identities of
God, not merely different, superficial names or nicknames.
And, as indicated earlier, if this first fact was all that
there was, then some form of Modalism might suffice as the
conclusion.
Second,
there are instances that are both prominent and very early
in the Old Testament where there is communication between
two of those identities of God. We find this trend continued
in the New Testament as well. The trend itself demonstrates
to key facts. First, it demonstrates that the two identities
exist simultaneously rather than transitioning from one another
at different times. And second, it also demonstrates that
each identity is aware of himself and the other identities
as distinct from one another. For example, YHWH may talk to
the angel of YHWH, or the Father may speak to the Word, or
the Word may talk about asking the Father to send the Holy
Spirit after the Word himself returns to the Father. And these
are just a few examples.
Fundamentally,
it is the intercommunicating nature of these multiple identities
for God and the distinction from one another inherent in their
communication that defines the concept of multiple consciousnesses
within the Godhead (three to be exact, when all the analysis
is complete.) And, in order to disprove the Trinitarian model,
at least one of two main components has to be disproved. Either
it would have to be disproved that there are multiple identities
for God in the Old and New Testaments or it would have to
be disproved that those multiple identities intercommunicate
with one another. In the first case, if there aren’t multiple
figures identified as God, but the suggested additional figures
are shown to be created beings, then the additional consciousnesses
(beyond one) are shown to be outside the Godhead. (In this
case, at least a basic Arian view would be correct.) In the
second case, if there is no actual intercommunication between
the various identities of God, then there is no basis for
suggesting anything more than one consciousness for the Godhead
that interacts with man in different forms, different identities,
different roles at different times. (In this case, at least
a basic Modalist view would be correct).
The
concept that multiple figures are identified as God is generally
critiqued on two grounds.
First,
it is argued that particular figures are not really the Supreme
God, but instead are created beings, albeit possibly the first-created,
highest-ranking, or closest-replica of God among all creation.
In other words, the eternality or uncreated status of a particular
identity is questioned.
Second,
it is argued that particular figures are not really the Supreme
God because they lack the defining attributes of God, most
often omniscience or omnipotence for example. If the facts
of scripture indeed present some of the identities as lacking
in one trait or another, the Trinitarian model will have to
be able to point to some scriptural facts explaining how or
why this can be the case if those identities are truly God.
Otherwise, the Trinitarian model will be shown to incomplete
at best or incomprehensible and in error at worst. Since it
is largely a topic for another study, we will briefly describe
the Trinitarian answer to this second criticism now. In short,
certain passages in the Old and New Testaments (such as Philippians
2:5-11 and Exodus 33-34, which will be discussed in detail
later on) explicitly describe a voluntary diminishing of access
or utilization of divine attributes on the part of some of
the Persons of the Godhead. This voluntary diminishing is
described in such passages as a necessary facilitator for
certain kinds of interaction, mediation, and even redemption.
Consequently, in light of such explicit explanations within
the text of scripture itself, particular instances in which
a particular figure of YHWH exhibits less than total omnipotence
or omniscience, for example, do not constitute evidence that
the figure is not God since the lacking attribute is not the
result of any inherent natural deficiency but of voluntary
restraint. In this way, Trinitarianism survives this second
criticism.
Conversely,
we can also understand this topic in terms of what is required
to disprove the alternative views. Arianism in generic form
simply denies that there the “multiple” figures are within
the Godhead, instead relegating these additional figures to
status of created beings. Consequently, Arianism requires
the denial of any instances in which the additional figures
are identified directly as YHWH God. But, as we will see,
the statements themselves are so explicit that Arianism’s
only resort is to categorize them as “figures of speech.”
This is a purely convenient claim. Its departure from the
normal, plain meaning cannot be substantiated. It cannot explain
why otherwise seemingly normal, plain statements should be
converted to loose, inaccurate statements. The hope is that
by mere suggestion we will simply discard the plain and undeniable
implications of God’s own words about himself as strange,
nonsensical artifacts of an ancient language.
However,
when the concept of multiple identities of God is accepted
but the idea of multiple consciousness is denied, the result
is Modalism, which as indicated earlier, teaches that there
is one consciousness to God although he interacts with man
in different modes or roles. Because intercommunication involves
the simultaneous existence of the identities and their self-awareness
of distinction from one another as indicated by their statements,
Modalism requires the denial of any actual intercommunication
between the identities of God. And again, as we will see,
the statements themselves are so explicit that Modalism’s
only resort is to categorize them as illusionary in the hopes
that we will simply discard the plain and undeniable implications
of God’s own words about himself.
In
addition, the Trinitarian concept is also criticized on the
grounds that it is logically absurd or impossible. Specifically,
how can there be three distinct consciousnesses in a single
being? Or, in other words, if there were in fact three distinct
consciousnesses, what basis would we have for regarding them
as one being rather than three beings? Thus, this criticism
takes focus on what possible unity or oneness there might
be between multiple consciousnesses. And, on this point as
well, Trinitarians must point to scriptural facts, not abstract
or vague appeals, in order to satisfactorily describe how
these three consciousnesses are united as one being.
Ultimately,
these issues come down to what defines the Supreme Being and
distinguishes him from all other beings. Those defining traits
for the Godhead are as follows. First, having never been created
but always having existed from eternity past. And second,
the possession of such traits as omniscience and omnipotence.
Summarily, the Trinitarian concept requires that scripture
presents the eternal (uncreated) existence of multiple, intercommunicating
identities of God and an explanation for any potential differentiation
in abilities, such as omniscience or omnipotence, among those
identities. (And we have already indicated above the explanation
Trinitarianism provides for any lacking abilities among divine
Persons in particular passages.)
But,
before we move ahead, there is one other definitional point
concerning “consciousness” that can be covered now. One peripheral
critique that arises with regard to the Trinitarian assertion
of multiple consciousnesses within the Godhead is whether
or not, in order to divide one consciousness from the next,
such consciousnesses would have to be limited in their knowledge
of one another? In other words, if one consciousness is completely
aware of another, shouldn’t they really be considered the
same consciousness?
In
a word, the answer is no. Awareness of another consciousness
does not have to be limited or incomplete in order to be a
separate consciousness. This is most plainly seen in God’s
knowledge of us as human beings. God has complete, intimate
knowledge of all our thoughts, feelings, memories, etc. –
of everything about us – and yet despite the total awareness
that God’s consciousness has of our consciousnesses, his consciousness
is not one with our own. While pantheistic or other mystical
worldviews may hold to such a doctrine of a universal consciousness
which we are all a part of, neither ancient Judaism, nor rabbinical
Judaism, nor Trinitarian Christianity or non-Trinitarian Christianity
holds to such an idea. Regardless of whether or not they accept
or reject the concept of the Trinity, Jews and professed-Christians
of all sects reject the idea that our consciousnesses are
one with God’s consciousness. And consequently, the fact that
God’s complete conscious awareness of everything about us
does not mean we are one consciousness with God. Similarly,
if God has multiple consciousnesses, their total awareness
of one another would not necessitate that they are ultimately
one consciousness.
Introduction
to the Approach
Over
the course of this study, we will be emphasizing the presence
of Trinitarian facts in the Old Testament, often adding the
New Testament afterward in parenthesis. This is intentional.
The reason for this practice stems from the fact that the
Trinitarian concept is often perceived as being a unique and
new doctrine initiated by the New Testament when, in reality,
the facts of the Old Testament very clearly present the opposite
conclusion. Our intention has been to emphasize the facts
of the Trinity as an Old Testament phenomenon that the New
Testament merely continues with a natural increase in detail
but not with a jolting and drastic new direction. This we
will demonstrate in the sections ahead as we analyze scriptures’
facts about God, starting with the Old Testament and ultimately
continuing to track those facts into the New Testament as
well.
Nevertheless,
since the critical question of the Trinity seems to be whether
or not it is a unique and new teaching of the New Testament,
and therefore whether it is a Mosaic Jewish concept or a Gentile
pagan concept, we will start by analyzing the Trinity solely
as an issue of Old Testament Judaism. Only afterward will
we address the Trinity in terms of arguments and views that
arise among Christians examining New Testament issues.
However,
as a lead-in to our Old Testament examination, we might at
least offer the following thought-provoking question. If the
Trinitarian concept is unique and novel to the New Testament
and is not presented or raised at all in the Old Testament,
then why are the “members” of the Trinity identified with
terms used frequently throughout the Old Testament? The terms
Father, Word of God, or Spirit of God serve as the more prominent
examples. And we don’t want the thrust of this question to
be missed. Our point is why such terms are even present in
the Old Testament in the first place and available for the
New Testament to make use of if the New Testament view is
so unique and new. What are such terms doing in the Old Testament?
Does the Old Testament provide a clear explanation for these
terms that is entirely different from the New Testament’s
explanation of them? Does the Old Testament give some explicit
facts but without fully defining or explaining them, perhaps
leaving open the need for further explanation? Or, are the
Old Testament facts about God themselves rather clear, even
though an outright, explicit dissertation explaining the meaning
of those facts might be missing? In other words, is the Old
Testament simply less explicit (providing no outright explanations)
while the shear facts it presents about these titles for God
are themselves identical to the Trinitarian model? (Is this
true at least concerning the Father and the Word of YHWH,
even if perhaps less complete concerning the third identity,
the Spirit of YHWH?) For now, we offer this strictly as food
for thought as we move forward to analyze the facts about
God as he is presented throughout the Old Testament.
The
most significant thing to keep in mind as we begin to review
Old Testament statements about God is how early and how prominent
some of these passages are. The most controversial and critical
statements come at very early, defining points in the history
of God’s revelation of himself to the Jewish people, including
in the life of the patriarchs, such as Abraham, Jacob, and
Moses. This is extremely significant for three related reasons.
First,
the concepts found in these passages cannot be regarded as
divergent concepts of later developments within Judaism but
must be regarded as foundational and original Judaism.
Second,
the concepts found in these passages cannot be regarded as
resulting from pagan influence, since these patriarchs and
the events involved are regarded by the Jewish people as the
very foundations that define Judaism in distinction from other
religions and philosophies.
And
third, the concepts found in these earlier and prominent passages
must be regarded as providing defining precedent that informs
all later passages, which describe similar or related events.
In other words, it should be assumed that the authors of later
Jewish scriptures were familiar with and faithful followers
of earlier Jewish instruction and history. Consequently, they
not only understood their own experiences in relation to that
earlier history but when they wrote their accounts, they intended
their words to be understood in terms of continuity with those
earlier Jewish records. As a result, later passages of Jewish
scripture will build on previous scripture and will assume
their audiences will let the details of earlier and prominent
passages inform their interpretation of later records. In
light of this, we too will build our understanding of the
Godhead assuming that similar or related events, which occur
later, should be interpreted in terms of events recorded earlier,
rather than in a vacuum from them.
Introduction
to Primary Objections
The
first Old Testament issue concerning a plurality of consciousnesses
within the Godhead concerns Deuteronomy 6:4, a very prominent
Old Testament passage that is commonly known to the Jews as
the Shema.
“Trinity
– Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears
in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend
to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O
Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4).”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica
Modern
Judaism, which is admittedly the product of rabbinical teaching
down through the centuries, interprets this verse as though
it were a statement about the nature of the Godhead itself
and, therefore, a prohibition against any suggestion of a
plurality of consciousness within the Godhead. And while modern
rabbinical Judaism is quite clear about its interpretation
of Deuteronomy 6:4, two questions remain. First, is modern
Judaism’s insistence that Deuteronomy 6:4 is about the nature
of the Godhead itself (the number of persons within the Godhead)
actually a relatively recent development in Jewish theology
that has arisen as a reaction against and an attempt to repudiate
Christianity as a sect of Judaism? And second, did ancient
Jews likewise interpret Deuteronomy 6:4 as a declaration that
YHWH must be understood as a being comprised of solely one
person, identity, or consciousness?
These
are important questions. And answering this second question
will actually answer the first question as well. For if ancient
Jews interpreted Deuteronomy in such a way that allowed them
to consider multiple persons within the Godhead of YHWH, then
rabbinical Judaism’s interpretation of Deuteronomy 6:4 is
shown to be an overreaching reaction against Christianity
that deviates from its own theological roots. So, fundamentally
we need to understand how Jews who predate modern rabbinical
Judaism interpreted Deuteronomy 6:4. We can make this determination
by looking at two sources of ancient Jewish teaching: first,
the Old Testament writing itself and second, rabbinical writing
from the first few centuries before and after Jesus Christ,
which predates modern Judaism. Since our focus is currently
on establishing the Jewish understanding from the earliest
sources, namely the Old Testament, we will set aside the examinations
of the earlier rabbinical writings until a later part of the
study. For now, we will continue by examining the meaning
of Deuteronomy 6:4 strictly in terms of the Old Testament.
There
are three issues demonstrating that Deuteronomy 6:4 cannot
properly be interpreted as a statement about the nature of
the Godhead itself.
First,
Deuteronomy 6:4 is a very short statement. It does not include
any longer explanation, neither in the surrounding context
or the preceding chapters. To demonstrate this fact, the extended
context is provided below.
Deuteronomy
6:1 Now these are the commandments, the statutes,
and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach
you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go
to possess it: 2 That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God,
to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command
thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son’s son, all the days of
thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged. 3 Hear therefore,
O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well
with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the LORD
God of thy fathers hath promised thee, in the land that floweth
with milk and honey. 4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God
is one LORD: 5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy
God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with
all thy might.
As
we look at the surrounding verses in Deuteronomy 6, we see
that there is no commentary regarding the possibility of multiple
persons within the Godhead. And we will see this point proven
more extensively as we examine even more of the surrounding
context of Deuteronomy 6 ahead. But, the point here is this.
Since the surrounding context of Deuteronomy 6 makes absolutely
no comments about the plurality of persons within the Godhead
and does not set up verse 4 as a statement about that issue,
we are left in the following situation. Effectively, to admit
that Deuteronomy is meant to address (and deny) the possibility
of a plurality within the Godhead is to admit that the possibility
of a plurality within the Godhead of YHWH was already under
consideration in the minds of the Jewish people. In fact,
not only would this indicate that the possibility of plurality
was a conclusion the Jews were toying with but it was one
so familiar to them that it did not need introduction or an
explanation in the surrounding commentary. But, if the Jewish
people were already considering the potential of a plurality
of persons within the God YHWH, we have to ask where they
got such an idea. This quandary, in and of itself, would imply
that there are elements suggesting multiple Persons in the
Jewish scriptures that come before the Shema.
It
might be convenient to point to instances of pagan groupings
of gods, in which three individual gods are in closely related
association with one another. However, we’d have to consider
whether or not the pagan views themselves were perversions
borrowed from the Jewish Old Testament. In other words, it
is historically possible that the Trinity originates in Old
Testament Judaism and is borrowed and twisted by the pagans
rather than the other way around, in which the Trinity begins
among the pagans and is borrowed by the Christians. Consequently,
in order to resolve these possibilities, we would need to
consider if the Jewish people might have the idea of a plurality
within YHWH in their minds already as a result of their own
experiences and the experiences from their ancestors prior
to this passage in Deuteronomy. After all, Deuteronomy is
the fifth and last of the books of Moses. This means that
all of the interactions between Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
all of Moses’ interactions, and all of their own interactions
with God during the Exodus would very directly influence their
perceptions of the nature of YHWH. This will become important
in a short while when we consider the explicit statements
about the relationship between YHWH and the angel of YHWH
as described from Genesis through Exodus and Numbers. All
of those incidents precede Deuteronomy and would have informed
the Israelites’ understanding of the nature of YHWH by the
time of Deuteronomy 6.
Nevertheless,
the first point here is simple. Since Deuteronomy 6:4 is itself
very short and concise and is accompanied by no extended explanatory
commentary, to assert that Deuteronomy 6:4 was intended to
address the possibility of a plurality within the Godhead
of YHWH is to admit that the Jews of that day had reason to
think there might have been such a plurality of persons in
the being known as YHWH. And that admission itself opens up
the possibility that earlier interactions and revelations
by YHWH previously recorded for the Jews before Deuteronomy
raised the potential for multiple persons to exist within
the Godhead of YHWH.
Second,
while the context surrounding Deuteronomy 6:4 is entirely
absent of any discussion regarding the nature of the Godhead
or the issue of a plurality of persons within the Godhead,
what we do find in the surrounding context points to an altogether
different interpretation of Deuteronomy 6:4, one that has
nothing to do with the nature of the Godhead or the plurality
of consciousnesses within YHWH whatsoever. Instead of being
a statement about internal issues within the Godhead, within
the nature of YHWH himself, Deuteronomy 6:4 was intended to
be a statement to the Jews about external issues. Instead
of commenting on the number of consciousnesses within YHWH,
Deuteronomy 6:4 was clearly intended to contrast YHWH to the
possibility of other gods outside of YHWH. In short, this
verse is about YHWH versus other competing deities. It is
not about YHWH’s own nature or issues within YHWH himself.
And this is very clear from the surrounding context. If we
look again at Deuteronomy 6:4, we find the following.
Deuteronomy
6:1 Now these are the commandments, the statutes,
and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach
you, that ye might do them in the land whither
ye go to possess it: 2 That thou mightest fear the LORD thy
God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which
I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son’s son, all
the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged.
3 Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that
it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily,
as the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee, in the
land that floweth with milk and honey. 4 Hear, O Israel:
The LORD our God is one LORD: 5 And thou shalt
love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy might.
Verse
1 of Deuteronomy 6 is a reference back to God’s earlier revelation
of his commandments. Verse 5, the verse that immediately follows
the Shema in verse 4, is about loving YHWH with all of one’s
heart, soul, and strength. Both of these nearby comments bring
up a similarity between the Shema and the Ten Commandments,
which were originally given in Exodus 20:1-17 and which prohibit
worship other gods apart from YHWH. In fact, all of Deuteronomy
5, the preceding chapter and surrounding context for the Shema
in chapter 6:4 is a restating of the Ten Commandments.
Deuteronomy
5:1 And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them,
Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in
your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and
do them. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us
in Horeb. 3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers,
but with us, even us, who are all of us here
alive this day. 4 The LORD talked with you face to face in
the mount out of the midst of the fire, 5 (I stood between
the LORD and you at that time, to shew you the word of the
LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not
up into the mount;) saying, 6 I am the LORD thy
God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from
the house of bondage. 7 Thou shalt have none other gods
before me. 8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven
image, or any likeness of any thing that is
in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
that is in the waters beneath the earth: 9
Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them:
for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting
the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third
and fourth generation of them that hate me, 10 And
shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep
my commandments. 11 Thou shalt not take the name of the
LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him
guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 12 Keep the sabbath
day to sanctify it, as the LORD thy God hath commanded
thee. 13 Six days thou shalt labour, and do all thy work:
14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy
God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy
son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant,
nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy
stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant
and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. 15 And remember
that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that
the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty
hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God
commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. 16 Honour thy
father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded
thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well
with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
17 Thou shalt not kill. 18 Neither shalt thou commit
adultery. 19 Neither shalt thou steal. 20 Neither
shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour. 21
Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither
shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his
manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any
thing that is thy neighbour’s. 22 These
words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount
out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick
darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he
wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto
me.
As
we can see, the preceding chapter before the Shema is all
about YHWH versus other gods. Verses 6-9 are explicit in this
regard. Moreover, after the Shema, Deuteronomy 6 goes on to
reiterate this issue of serving YHWH rather than other gods
apart from YHWH.
Deuteronomy
6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day,
shall be in thine heart: 7 And thou shalt teach them diligently
unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest
in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when
thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 8 And thou shalt
bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as
frontlets between thine eyes. 9 And thou shalt write them
upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates. 10 And it shall
be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the
land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac,
and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which
thou buildedst not, 11 And houses full of all good things,
which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst
not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not;
when thou shalt have eaten and be full; 12 Then
beware lest thou forget the LORD, which brought thee forth
out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 13 Thou
shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear
by his name. 14 Ye shall not go after other gods, of
the gods of the people which are round about you;
15 (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you)
lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee,
and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.
Verses
12-14 are again very explicit. The focus of both chapter 5
and chapter 6 is worshipping YHWH versus worshipping other
gods apart from YHWH. The context reveals that the Shema (“Hear,
O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD”) has to do
with Israel worshipping YHWH only. Deuteronomy 6:4 is about
the Israelites having no other gods beside YHWH, apart from
YHWH. It is identical in meaning to Exodus 20, Deuteronomy
32, Isaiah 44, and Isaiah 45, all of which are about other
gods “besides” YHWH, not about the number or consciousnesses
within YHWH himself.
Exodus
20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought
thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Deuteronomy
32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock, even our
enemies themselves being judges…36 For the LORD shall
judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when
he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut
up, or left. 37 And he shall say, Where are their gods,
their rock in whom they trusted, 38 Which did eat the
fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink
offerings? let them rise up and help you, and be your protection.
39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with
me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither
is there any that can deliver out of my hand. 40 For I lift
up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.
Isaiah
44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee
from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses.
Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know
not any.
Isaiah
45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is
no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not
known me: 6 That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the
LORD, and there is none else.
Isaiah
45:16 They shall be ashamed, and also confounded, all
of them: they shall go to confusion together that are makers
of idols. 17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with
an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded
world without end. 18 For thus saith the LORD that created
the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it;
he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed
it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth:
I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the
LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.
20 Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that
are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that
set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god
that cannot save. 21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea,
let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from
ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I
the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just
God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. 22 Look
unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for
I am God, and there is none else.
The
meaning of Deuteronomy 6:4 is clear. It is a statement about
issues external to the Godhead, a contrast between YHWH and
other so-called gods. It is about YHWH being superior and
unique among all the other beings that are called gods. It
is an external contrast between YHWH and his “competitors”
and Israel owing allegiance to him alone rather than to his
“competitors.” It is not a statement about issues internal
to the Godhead, what the nature of YHWH himself is or the
number of persons within the Godhead of YHWH. There could
be ten or one hundred different consciousnesses within the
being of YHWH and Deuteronomy 6:4 would still only be about
worshipping YHWH (with all his multiple consciousnesses) rather
than other beings that have been falsely deemed “gods” by
men. In other words, the concept of the Trinity raises a distinctly
different issue from the issue commented upon in the Shema
of Deuteronomy 6:4. Deuteronomy 6 addresses whether or not
there is more than one god, whether or not there are other
gods in addition to YHWH. The Trinity, however, discusses
a different issue: how many consciousnesses there are within
YHWH, the one and only God. As we have seen and will continue
to demonstrate, Deuteronomy 6 makes no claims concerning this
second issue, only the first.
Effectively,
in interpreting Deuteronomy 6:4 as a statement about the nature
of the Godhead itself, as a statement about the plurality
of persons within the Godhead rather than as a statement comparing
YHWH externally to the possibility of other deities apart
from him, modern rabbinical Judaism is guilty of revisionism.
They are rewriting history merely as a reaction to repudiate
Christianity.
Third,
not only does the context of the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4
reveal that it is not a statement about the nature of the
Godhead but about issues external to the Godhead, but the
wording of the Shema itself doesn’t in any way prohibit the
idea of multiple persons within the Godhead of YHWH. Often
the perception is that the word “one” in the phrase “Hear,
O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” is intended to mean
that God is entirely singular in nature rather than having
distinguishable “parts” or “aspects” such as a plurality of
persons or consciousnesses. However, the occurrence of the
Hebrew word for “one” in Deuteronomy 6:4 makes no such claims
whatsoever. There are two reasons for this.
First,
as we have already seen, the clear intent of the passage is
revealed in the surrounding context. The declaration to Israel
that YHWH is “one” is meant to mean that YHWH is unique among
all the so-called gods of men. He is alone and none of the
other gods are like him. And, as such, the Israelites owe
their allegiance to him alone. That is the meaning of “one”
as revealed by its surrounding context. It means “only” in
the sense of being “unique.” And, in point of fact, the Hebrew
word here for “one” here is “echad” (Strong’s No. 0259) and
it does include the connotation of “only” in the sense of
“unique.” For example, in the Song of Solomon “echad” is used
to describe the beloved woman as the only daughter of her
mother. She was unique in this regard.
Song
of Solomon 6:9 My dove, my undefiled is but one;
she is the only one 0259 of her mother,
she is the choice one of her that bare her.
The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens
and the concubines, and they praised her.
“Echad”
is also used with this meaning in Ezekiel 7, where it refers
to “an only evil.” It should be noted that the Hebrew
word for “evil” can also mean “calamity.” Consequently, the
text is clearly not declaring that this is the only evil or
calamity, but merely that it is a unique and even paramount
calamity.
Ezekiel
7:5 Thus saith the Lord GOD; An evil, an only 0259
evil, behold, is come. 6 An end is come, the end is come:
it watcheth for thee; behold, it is come.
Likewise,
when speaking of a most unusual day, which will neither be
clearly light nor clearly dark, having neither day nor night
time. After all, when God created the days in Genesis 1, he
established that each would follow the pattern of darkness
and then light (Genesis 1:5). The dark is called evening (Strong’s
No. 06153) and the light is called day. But on this day, it
will be light at evening (Strong’s No. 06153). Among all the
days since the beginning of time, this day is one of a kind.
And on this basis, this day is described as “echad,” meaning
“unique” among all days.
Zechariah
14:6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that
the light shall not be clear, nor dark: 7 But it
shall be one 0259 day which shall be known to the LORD,
not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that
at evening time it shall be light.
Consequently,
the context of Deuteronomy 6 implies “echad” is being used
to indicate “one” in the sense of “only” or “uniqueness” among
all that are called gods. YHWH God is unique. He is the only
God, even though others are falsely called by that term. And
since the context implies “unique” among potential
competitors, it is not accurate to demand that “echad” refers
to “one” consciousness within YHWH’s own being.
And
this is understanding that “echad” in Deuteronomy 6:4 is intended
to mean “unique” is not a merely Christian concept. Jewish
Christian Dr. Michael L. Brown explains this fact in volume
2 of this work Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus.
“For
this reason, the NJPSV [New Jewish Publication Society
Version] translates Deuteronomy 6:4 as, ‘Hear, O Israel! The
LORD is our God, the LORD alone.’ In fact, the footnote
in the NJPSV reminds us that this is also the understanding
of the revered, medieval commentators Abraham Ibn Ezra and
Rashbam (Rabbi Shmuel Ben Meir). Therefore, it is not just
a ‘later Christian’ argument that Deuteronomy 6:4 does not
specifically teach that God is an absolute unity.” – Brown,
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological
Objections, p. 6
Christians
and prominent orthodox Jews are agreed that Deuteronomy 6:4
is about YHWH alone being the God of Israel, not other deities
apart from him. It is not a statement addressing the internal
nature of number of consciousness or persons within YHWH himself.
Second,
the Hebrew “echad” simply does not in any way rule out the
possibility of multiple “parts” or “aspects” within a single
overarching whole. The idea of a larger whole that has multiple
“parts” or “aspects” is often referred to as a “compound unity.”
“Echad” does not exclude “compound unity.” Rather, many times
that “echad” is used it refers specifically to a concept or
item that has compound unity. A simple word study of the usage
of “echad” in the Old Testament reveals this obvious fact.
For example, Genesis 2:24 states that a married man and woman
become “one flesh” using the word “echad” for “one” in that
statement.
Genesis
2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and
flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she
was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his
father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and
they shall be one (0259) flesh.
Genesis
1:5 likewise refers to the day and the night as together comprising
“one/echad” day.
Genesis
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness
he called Night. And the evening and the morning were
the first (0259) day.
Genesis
11:6 refers to the multitude of people at the tower of Babel
as “one/echad” people.
Genesis
11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one (0259),
and they have all one (0259) language; and this they begin
to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which
they have imagined to do.
And
when the sanctuary of the tabernacle was built by Moses in
the wilderness, it has many parts but Moses is told to put
all those parts together so that it will be “one/echad” or
“united” tabernacle.
Exodus
25:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak
unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering:
of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall
take my offering…8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that
I may dwell among them. 9 According to all that I shew
thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern
of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it…26:6
And thou shalt make fifty taches of gold, and couple the curtains
together with the taches: and it shall be one (0259) tabernacle…11
And thou shalt make fifty taches of brass, and put the
taches into the loops, and couple the tent together, that
it may be one (0259).
Exodus
36:13 And he made fifty taches of gold, and coupled
the curtains one unto another with the taches: so it became
one (0259) tabernacle…18 And he made fifty taches of
brass to couple the tent together, that it might be one (0259).
If
Adam and Eve (and all married men and women) can be called
“echad” flesh even though they are clearly distinguishable
in body and as persons, then why does the statement that YHWH
is echad YHWH in Deuteronomy 6:4 rule out that YHWH has multiple
and distinguishable “parts,” such as consciousnesses or persons?
If all the great many people at the tower of Babel can be
described as “echad,” then why couldn’t multiple consciousnesses
with YHWH be considered “echad”? If things as distinct as
the light of day and the dark of night can be considered “echad,”
then why does the use of “echad” in Deuteronomy 6:4 rule out
all distinctions of any kind within the Godhead of YHWH? If
the holy tabernacle with all its multitude of parts can be
joined together by mere human means so that it can be considered
“echad” or “united,” then why couldn’t multiple consciousnesses
within the Godhead be joined as “echad” and perfectly “united
as one” by some spiritual means? (The spiritual means of unity
is not left vague or undefined. Instead, Trinitarian doctrine
holds that the three consciousnesses of God are one being
because they are all eternally united due to the fact that
they are all composed from the same indivisible, eternal substance,
known as “spirit.” We will discuss this in more detail later
on in our study.)
Clearly
nothing about either the context or the vocabulary of Deuteronomy
6:4 is contrary to the Trinitarian conclusion that within
the Godhead of YHWH there is a plurality of distinct consciousnesses.
And with the alleged prohibitions of a plurality within the
Godhead dispelled, we can now move on to consider the Old
Testament texts that raise the issue of plurality.
Introduction
to the Evidence
Perhaps
one of the most prominent contributing factors responsible
for raising questions about the nature and number of persons
in the Godhead is the figure known in the Old Testament as
the angel of YHWH. And this is where our examination of the
evidence begins.
There
are 63 verses in the Old Testament where the words “YHWH”
(Strong’s No. 03068) and “angel” occur together. These 63
verses occur in 24 passages. Of those 24 passages, 4 passages
do not couple those words together in the phrase “angel of
YHWH” and, consequently, it is not clear whether or not the
passage is specifically referring to “the angel of YHWH” (Genesis
24, Numbers 20, 2 Samuel 14, and 1 Kings 13). Another 2 of
the 24 passages (Psalms 34 and 35) appear to be a hypothetical
or a prayer involving the angel of YHWH but not an event that
actually occurred with that figure. In addition, the content
of these passages brings nothing new to the issues under examination,
nothing that is not already present explicitly in the other
passages. This removes 6 passages from the list of 24, resulting
in only 18 passages that actually describe events involving
the angel of YHWH.
Furthermore,
1 of the 24 passages (Zechariah 12) is likewise not a description
of actual events or interactions with the angel of YHWH but
a comparison involving the angel of YHWH. However, the text
of the comparison is significant and so it will be included
in the examination. This leaves only 17 passages where actual
events involving the angel of YHWH are recorded.
Within
these remaining 17 passages, there are 2 sets of parallel
accounts found in different books including 5 total passages.
Set 1 includes 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 and Set 2 includes
1 Kings 19, 2 Chronicles 32, and Isaiah 37. Since those 5
passages really only record 2 events with the angel of YHWH
rather than 5, there are really only 14 separate events involving
the angel of YHWH in the Old Testament (Genesis 16, Genesis
22, Exodus 3, Numbers 22, Judges 2, Judges 5, Judges 6, Judges
13, 2 Samuel 24/1 Chronicles 21, 1 Kings 19, 2 Kings 1, 2
Kings 19/2 Chronicles 32/Isaiah 37, Zechariah 1, and Zechariah
3).
Of
these 14 actual events involving the angel of YHWH, 3 of these
passages do not contain any explicit statements that are relevant
to the issues under examination. Judges 2 would seem to be
the angel of YHWH speaking to the people of Israel similar
to during the days of Moses, but the text does not present
any new or relevant data to the issues under examination.
1 Kings 19 and 2 Kings 1 record 2 separate interactions between
Elijah and the angel of YHWH. In 1 Kings 19:7-15 there is
the possible interchangeable usage of “angel of YHWH” and
“Word of YHWH” (similar to Zechariah 1, which is explicit).
And in 1 Kings 19 there is also the potential that the angel
of YHWH is referred to as YHWH (assuming that it is the angel
of YHWH who passes by Elijah on the mount). 2 Kings 1 simply
records the angel of YHWH speaking a message to Elijah. But,
the text in these passages presents no explicit data that
is relevant to the issues under examination.
This
leaves only 11 events involving the angel of YHWH where the
text of the accounts presents explicit, relevant data that
raises significant issues concerning the nature of the Godhead.
And, as mentioned earlier, Zechariah 12 is also relevant,
providing a twelfth case study, although it does not describe
an event but only a comparison involving the angel of YHWH.
So, in all there are 12 instances that are relevant to this
study and those 12 instances are recorded in 12 primary passages
plus 3 parallel passages.
These
14 instances can be divided into 2 categories reflecting the
significant issues they raise concerning the nature of the
Godhead: A) instances where YHWH God and the angel
of YHWH are distinct from one another and B) instances
where the angel of YHWH is himself explicitly referred to
as YHWH or God.
As
mentioned earlier, this list of 12 instances was comprised
by doing an exhaustive search for the terms “YHWH” and “angel”
in the Old Testament. If we add to this list a second search
for the terms “God” and “angel” in the Old Testament, we find
some 21 verses where the terms “angel” and “God” occur.
Out
of those 21, 4 use the terms “angel” and “God” separately
so that the key phrase “the angel of God” does not occur.
An additional 4 verses are comparisons to the angel of God
and provide no explicit information that pertains to the issue
of multiple persons within the Godhead. Furthermore, 10 of
these verses overlap with the passages already counted in
the previous search for “the angel of YHWH.” Consequently,
there are only a total of 3 new passages involving the “angel
of God,” that are relevant to the issues under investigation
(Genesis 21, Genesis 31, and Exodus 14). This brings us to
a total of 15 instances. However, although the events of Genesis
31 might be categorized in category B (an instance
where the angel of God is identified as God), the text is
not explicit enough on that point. In Genesis 31, the angel
of God visits Jacob in a dream and the angel says, “I am the
God of Bethel.” However, in contrast to the other instances
on this list, this instance in Genesis 31 can simply be interpreted
as the angel speaking on God’s behalf. Consequently, since
it is not explicit enough, it will be left off the list of
instances under study, bringing the total number of instances
under examination to 14.
Since
we are combining two separate surveys involving the phrases
“angel of YHWH” and “angel of God,” the next important step
is to establish that these two phrases are indeed synonyms
for one another as dictated by the Old Testament itself. We
are not simply combining them for convenience or external
reasons. This fact is demonstrated by the interchangeable
usage of these phrases within individual Old Testament passages.
For example, verses 11-12 and 21-22 of Judges 6 use the phrase
“angel of YHWH” while verse 20 refers to the same figure as
“the angel of God.”
Judges
6:11 And there came an angel of the LORD, and sat
under an oak which was in Ophrah, that pertained
unto Joash the Abiezrite: and his son Gideon threshed wheat
by the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites. 12
And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him, and said unto
him, The LORD is with thee, thou mighty man of valour…20
And the angel of God said unto him, Take the flesh
and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock,
and pour out the broth. And he did so. 21 Then the
angel of the LORD put forth the end of the staff that was
in his hand, and touched the flesh and the unleavened cakes;
and there rose up fire out of the rock, and consumed the flesh
and the unleavened cakes. Then the angel of the LORD departed
out of his sight. 22 And when Gideon perceived that
he was an angel of the LORD, Gideon said, Alas,
O Lord GOD! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD
face to face.
Similarly,
verses 3, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 21 of Judges 13 all
use the phrase “the angel of YHWH,” however verse 9 uses the
phrase “the angel of God” in reference to the same figure.
Judges
13:3 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman,
and said unto her, Behold now, thou art barren, and
bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son…9 And
God hearkened to the voice of Manoah; and the angel of
God came again unto the woman as she sat in the field:
but Manoah her husband was not with her. 10 And
the woman made haste, and ran, and shewed her husband,
and said unto him, Behold, the man hath appeared unto me,
that came unto me the other day…13 And the angel
of the LORD said unto Manoah, Of all that I said unto
the woman let her beware. 14 She may not eat of any thing
that cometh of the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong
drink, nor eat any unclean thing: all that I commanded
her let her observe. 15 And Manoah said unto the angel
of the LORD, I pray thee, let us detain thee, until we
shall have made ready a kid for thee. 16 And the angel
of the LORD said unto Manoah, Though thou detain me, I
will not eat of thy bread: and if thou wilt offer a burnt
offering, thou must offer it unto the LORD. For Manoah knew
not that he was an angel of the LORD. 17 And
Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, What is
thy name, that when thy sayings come to pass we may do thee
honour? 18 And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why
askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?
19 So Manoah took a kid with a meat offering, and offered
it upon a rock unto the LORD: and the angel
did wondrously; and Manoah and his wife looked on. 20 For
it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from
off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended
in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife looked
on it, and fell on their faces to the ground. 21 But
the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah
and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an
angel of the LORD.
Consequently,
it is clear from these two passages that the titles “angel
of YHWH” and “angel of God” are synonyms. And this should
come as no surprise since, after all, YHWH is God and the
terms “YHWH” and “God” are very frequently used interchangeably
as well. As stated previously, this leaves us with 14 instances
involving the figure known as “the angel of YHWH” and “the
angel of God” in the Old Testament.
From
this combined survey of 14 instances, we find that there are
5 instances that fall solely into category A: Genesis
21, Judges 5, 2 Samuel 24 (with a parallel in 1 Chronicles
21), 2 Kings 19 (with parallels in 2 Chronicles 32 and Isaiah
37), and Zechariah 1. Likewise, there are 6 instances that
fall solely into category B: Genesis 16, Exodus 3,
Exodus 14, Judges 6, Judges 13, and Zechariah 12. And finally,
there are 3 instances containing statements that fall into
both categories: Genesis 22, Numbers 22, and Zechariah
3.
Obviously,
on its own category A is far from raising questions
of a plurality of persons within the Godhead. If the sum total
of the Old Testament accounts concerning the angel of YHWH
were of category A, we would be left with the simple
conclusion that there is only one “person” within the Godhead
and that a creation of his, known as the angel of YHWH, acts
as his messenger. Consequently, it is of course those instances
that fall into category B, which raise the initial
questions about a plurality of “persons” within the Godhead.
Now,
by way of illustration, it is certainly one thing to think
of a messenger arriving on behalf of a king and, after the
message is read, either the audience or the messenger declares,
“thus saith the king.” There would be nothing in such accounts
that would identify the messenger as the king himself. All
parties would quickly agree that such accounts would merely
reflect that the messenger is speaking for the king while
himself remaining a mere messenger. And, if the sum total
of the Old Testament accounts concerning the angel of YHWH
were of this nature (specifically those of category B),
there would indeed be nothing at all to raise the question
of plurality of “persons” within he Godhead.
But
suppose instead that in this hypothetical kingdom there is
an understanding that anyone who looks upon the face of the
king will die. And suppose that on one occasion, as the messenger
comes to the people, upon seeing the face of the messenger
one person in the crowd cries out, “Woe is me, for now we
have seen the king and must die!” Or, what if that same person
bows down before the messenger and calls the messenger by
the title “king”? In such accounts, we would have only 2 options.
Either this particular member of the crowd is foolish and
in error because he is mistaking the messenger for the king
himself. Or, if this particular member of the crowd were considered
reliable and in a position to know the king, we would have
to conclude that the messenger was the king in disguise and
that the crowd had indeed seen the king. The nature of this
metaphor is limited because it utilizes the human king as
a representation of God and, therefore, implies Modalism,
the view in which one person puts on different disguises or
roles from time to time, sometimes appearing as a messenger
and other times in royal garments of a king. And if the sum
total of the Old Testament accounts concerning the angel of
YHWH were of the category B, then we might indeed be
left to reach some form of Modalism as our conclusion. If
all the accounts concerning the angel of YHWH were of category
B, then we might be left with the conclusion that there is
only one person in the Godhead but he interacts with men in
different forms or roles at different times. This is
where instances of category A themselves become problematic.
Suppose
we take this illustration one step further. Suppose there
are occasions where the messenger is identified as the king
and there are other occasions where the same messenger is
standing in the presence of someone else who is identified
as the king. Or, to make the illustration even more applicable,
not only are they identified as king but both are identified
by the king’s proper name. On these second occasions, we would
actually have two persons that have been identified as the
king. If the accounts ruled out the idea of an “imposter,”
and assuming that the accounts are explicit in their identifications
and that we have not made any mistakes in our interpretation
of the accounts, what would we be left to conclude? Since
both persons stand distinct from one another side by side,
it can no longer simply be the case that the messenger is
the king in disguise, at one time appearing as a messenger
and another time in royal attire as the king. Modalism is
no longer an option. While the illustration is limited because
it uses a human being as a representative substitute, in the
case of God himself, we might conclude that, at least according
to the written accounts, there are at least two persons known
as YHWH God, and not that YHWH God is simply switching from
one form or role to another at different times.
This
illustrates the dilemma created by the presence of instances
of both category A and category B in the Old
Testament. It is the explicit nature of these instances that
raises the unavoidable question of a plurality of “persons”
within the Godhead.
Of
course, as noted earlier, one of the most critical issues
in this study is whether or not all of the figures identified
as YHWH God are actually uncreated and in possession of the
defining attributes of God, such as omniscience and omnipotence.
But, before we address such questions about each of the suggested
identities of God, we first have to establish that there are
in fact multiple, intercommunicating identities of God in
the Old Testament. Only then can we move forward to ask whether
or not all of those identities are uncreated or whether or
not some of those identities lack traits like omniscience
or omnipotence. To demonstrate that the Old Testament does
establish intercommunicating identities for God, we return
to our two categories of passages in the Old Testament concerning
the angel of YHWH or angel of God.