Particulars
of Christianity:
302
The Trinity
The Trinity:
Ancient Jewish
Recognition of Trinitarian Facts
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
Up
to this point we have focused on the Old Testament demonstrating
the facts of scripture, which assert the defining components
of the Trinity in numerous passages, including accounts that
are very early and prominent in Jewish theology. But perhaps
the question still lingers as to whether or not this is just
Christian revisionism superimposed onto the Old Testament.
However, these facts are not merely illusions created by Christian
fantasizing. Ancient non-Christian Jews recognized these facts
in the Old Testament scriptures as well. We have already seen
this partially during our discussion of Old Testament distinction
between the figures known as the angel of YHWH and the Spirit
of YHWH. But now we will discuss the Jewish recognition of
these Trinitarian facts in more detail. Moreover, the Jews
not only recognized the raw facts, but they also recognized
the issues these facts raised concerning the nature of the
Godhead in the Old Testament. And they wrestled with these
facts in the effort to reconcile their implications with Jewish
monotheism. After we discuss the Jewish recognition of these
scriptural facts and their implications for the Godhead, we
will conclude this very important section by showing that
the doctrine of the Trinity is superior to the alternative
Jewish explanations of these Old Testament facts. Not only
is the Trinity superior in terms of its simplicity but also
in terms of preserving the integrity of Jewish monotheism.
We
begin with a summary reference concerning Judaism as stated
in Microsoft Encarta’s article on God.
“God,
I INTRODUCTION, II CONCEPTIONS OF GOD, III JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY,
AND ISLAM, A The Jewish Idea of God – To say the world
is created means that it is not independent of God or an emanation
of God, but external to him, a product of his will, so that
he is Lord of all the earth. This explains the Jewish concern
over idolatry – no creature can represent the Creator,
so it is forbidden to make any material image of him….The
Hebrew God was unique, and his command was, "You shall
have no other gods beside me!" (although in some biblical
passages the Spirit of the Lord and the angel of the Lord
and, in later Jewish speculation, the divine wisdom appear
to be almost secondary divine beings).” – "God,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Notice
that the quote recognizes a dynamic between two components
of Old Testament Judaism. First, that “no creature can represent
the Creator” resulting in the prohibition, “You shall have
no other gods besides me.” And second, that not only in “later
Jewish speculation” but also in “some biblical passages” themselves
“the Spirit of the Lord and the angel of the Lord” would “appear
to be almost secondary divine beings.” Here Encarta is recognizing
the Old Testament scriptural facts that we’ve outlined up
to this point as well as affirming the Jewish recognition
of these facts and the alternative attempts to explain them.
Consequently, these assertions are known historical facts
concerning Judaism, not just wishful thinking on the part
of Christians.
And
concerning the specific facts identified by Encarta, the simplest
way to reconcile these competing facts is the Trinitarian
model. Since regarding any creature as a representation of
the Creator is idolatry, the simplest explanation for why
the angel of YHWH and the Spirit of YHWH were regarded as
and worshipped as the Creator is that, although distinct figures,
they were indeed YHWH.
But
perhaps more importantly, we don’t have to rely on mere summaries
from reference sources. Encarta describes a general
trend in which some ancient Jewish sources attempted to reconcile
certain Old Testament facts by regarding the angel of YHWH
as at least some sort of secondary divine being. However,
on this topic we can get more specific.
We
have claimed that the Old Testament upheld the defining five
components of the Trinity. First, a figure, known as the angel
of YHWH, was no ordinary angel but was instead himself identified
at times as being YHWH God. Second, we have asserted that
although he is himself identified as YHWH, the angel of YHWH
is at other times regarded as distinct from another figure
known as YHWH. Third, we asserted that to see the angel of
YHWH was considered seeing YHWH God. Fourth, we have asserted
that the figure known as the Spirit of YHWH is also regarded
as being a distinct yet equal figure within the Godhead of
YHWH in similar fashion to the angel of YHWH. And fifth, we
have asserted that each of these figures of YHWH is described
in the primary ways that establish God’s uncreated, eternal
status. How many of these assertions does ancient Judaism
also recognize as true in the same terms?
First,
ancient Judaism recognizes that the figure known as the angel
of YHWH was no ordinary angel but was instead himself identified
at times as being YHWH. This can be seen prominently in the
ancient Jewish concept of the Metatron. Britannica Encyclopedia
explains.
“Metatron
– greatest of angels in Jewish myths and legends, variously
identified as the Prince (or Angel) of the Presence, as Michael
the archangel, or as Enoch after his ascent into heaven. He
is likewise described as a celestial scribe recording the
sins and merits of men, as a guardian of heavenly secrets,
as God's mediator with men, as the “lesser Yahweh,” as
the archetype of man, and as one “whose name is like that
of his master.” The latter appellation is based on Hebrew
numerology; i.e., when the consonants that comprise the names
Metatron and Shaddai (Almighty) are analyzed according to
preassigned numerical values, each name totals 314.” –
Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
As
we can see from Britannica, due to the Old Testament facts
that we’ve been examining, ancient non-Christian Jews derived
the idea that there was a being (called “the Metatron”) who
shared the name “YHWH,” could be described as the “lesser
YHWH,” and who was the greatest of the angels. As the “archetype
of man,” it was this “less YHWH” who was the “God” in whose
image man was created.
In
volume 2 of his book, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Dr. Michael L. Brown documents the rabbinical Jewish understanding
of this figure identified as the Metatron. Once again, we
note that Dr. Brown is not referencing Christian Jewish understanding
but non-Christian, rabbinical Jewish understanding.
“According
to a story in the Talmud (b. Sanhedrin 38b), a man
identified as a schismatic – here a clear reference to a Jewish
follower of Jesus – was talking to a rabbi about Exodus
24:1, the beginning of the passage we are looking at,
in which God said to Moses, “come up to the LORD [Hebrew,
YHWH].” …The Jewish believer was trying to argue that it seemed
odd that God said to Moses, “Come up to YHWH,” rather than,
“come up to me.” Didn’t this seem to indicate more than one
divine Person? …Now, the rabbi could have simply replied,
“Such usage is not that unusual in the Hebrew Bible.” Instead,
because he too sensed that there were some theological issues
to be addressed, the rabbi answered that God was not speaking
here of himself but rather of Metatron, the most powerful
angel in Rabbinic literature, “whose name is as his Master.”
In other words, when God said, “Come upon to YHWH,” he
did not mean, “Come up to me” but “come up to Metatron whose
name is YHWH.” So according to this Talmudic interpretation,
Metatron was called YHWH!” – Brown, Answering Jewish
Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections,
p. 26
In
this quote, Dr. Brown cites specific ancient Jewish sources,
particularly the Talmud, which assert the concept of the Metatron
and that the Metatron shares the name YHWH in the Old Testament.
Consequently, both Britannica and the Talmud confirm our claim
that even non-Christian Jews affirmed that title “YHWH” was
applied in scripture to the figure alternately known as “the
angel of YHWH,” and that non-Christian Jews likewise understood
that this figure was no ordinary angel.
Second,
modern Jewish scholars also confirm that while the angel of
YHWH is identified as YHWH on some occasions, on other occasions
he is distinguished from YHWH. On this point, Dr. Brown quotes
Jewish biblical scholar Nahum Sarna.
“According
to the Jewish biblical scholar Nahum Sarna, ‘From several
texts it is clear that the demarcation between God and his
angel is often blurred [citing examples from Gen. 16:7-9,
11; 22:11-12, 15-18; Exod. 3:2, 4; Judg. 6:11-23]. At the
Exodus from Egypt it is now God (Exod. 13:21), now his angel
(14:9) who goes ahead of the Israelite camp.’ 45” – Brown,
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological
Objections, p. 27 [Footnote 45: Nahum Sarna, Genesis,
The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 1989), 383 (Excursus 10, Angelology).]
As
we can see, Sarna cites examples of occasions when the text
identifies the angel of YHWH as YHWH and then identifies him
as distinct from YHWH. As Sarna writes with regard to Exodus
“it is now God, now his angel who goes ahead of the Israelite
camp.” Here Sarna is referring Exodus 13:21 and 14:9, which
were two of the very passages that we looked at earlier to
establish the Trinity in the Old Testament. And what is Sarna’s
conclusion from these passages? His conclusion is that “the
demarcation between God and his angel” is blurred. Consequently,
this demonstrates that non-Christian Jews recognize the fact
that the Old Testament describes the angel of YHWH as YHWH
and also as distinct from YHWH, which is an essential fact
that most logically and naturally leads to the doctrine of
the Trinity.
Third,
ancient Judaism recognized that on some occasions, Old Testament
persons understood seeing the angel of YHWH as seeing YHWH
God. This is yet another fact, which confirms that non-Christian
Jews, particularly those who wrote the Old Testament, understood
that the angel of YHWH was YHWH God, not an angel. In his
book, Dr. Brown explains that ancient Jewish sources recognize
the problem that arises if people were to have actually seen
YHWH God, particularly how this conflicts with the understanding
that no man could see God and live. But Dr. Brown also goes
on to explain the insufficiency of the attempts made to avoid
or solve the dilemma.
(NOTE:
As noted in an earlier section, the term “Targum,” mentioned
in the quote below, is a reference to “the translations, and
paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures that were read in the
synagogues before, during, and after the time of Jesus.” See,
Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume
2, Theological Objections, p. 19.)
“What
were some of the Rabbinic answers to the question of how a
human being could see the Lord and live? According to
Exodus 33:20, God said to Moses, ‘You cannot see my face,
for no one may see me and live.’ Yet in Exodus 24:9-11, less
than ten chapters earlier, we read, ‘Moses and Aaron, Nadab
and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up [Mount
Sinai] and saw the God of Israel…But God did not raise his
hand against these leaders of the Israrelites…How can this
be explained? Abraham Ibn Ezra interpreted the text to
mean that they saw God in a prophetic vision. Then why did
God tell them in 24:1 to actually go up the mountain to
the Lord, remaining at a distance from him while Moses
alone drew near? And why does the text point out that God
did not life his hand against them, as would have been expected?
Obviously, this was more than a prophetic vision….The Targum
also had a problem with these verses and could not translate
them directly, rendering instead, ‘They saw the glory of the
God of Israel…they saw the glory of the Lord.’ 42 Yet the
text says, ‘They saw the God of Israel…they saw God.’”
– Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume
2, Theological Objections, p. 28-29
As
Dr. Brown explains, in order to avoid the conflict created
by scripture’s declaration that certain figures actually saw
YHWH, some ancient Jewish sources simply denied and then altered
the plain meaning of the texts. This demonstrates that these
ancient sources recognized that the standard reading of the
text did indeed describe individuals seeing God. After all,
if they didn’t perceive that the text taught that men had
seen God, they would not have seen the need to alter the texts
to avoid that very prospect.
Commenting
specifically on Exodus 3 as another example in which Moses
is recorded as seeing God, Dr. Brown goes on to say the following.
“‘Well,’
you might say, ‘what about Exodus 3. Doesn’t that chapter
equate seeing the angel of the Lord with seeing God?’
You’re getting very close!…How does the Targum Onkelos
translated the end of verse 6? Moses ‘was afraid to look beside
the glory of the LORD.’ Once again, the Targum found it impossible
to say what the Scripture said. It was too direct, too clear.
Another Targum, called Pseudo-Jonathan, took this even further,
translating that Moses was afraid to look at ‘the glory of
the Shekhina of the LORD.’” – Brown, Answering Jewish
Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections,
p. 30
From
the quote above, we can once again clearly see that the ancient
Jewish Targums recognized that for men to see YHWH God and
live was problematic. But rather than coming to the conclusion
that Moses’ reached when he faced this same problem, the Targums
came up with alternate explanations. As we saw earlier in
Exodus 33-34, Moses reconciled the fact that men saw God with
the axiom that seeing God would bring death by concluding
that men were seeing God in a humbler form, not his fully
glorified form, which would be lethal to them. But what do
the Targums conclude instead?
The
Targum Onkelos apparently altered the meaning of the text
to suggest that Moses merely looked “beside” the glory of
God rather than looking directly. The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
adopted its own explanation, asserting instead that Moses
didn’t look at YHWH God himself but at a being, emissary,
or aspect of God designated by the title “the Shekhina.” However,
it is worth noting that in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan the
term “Shekhina” is simply being used as an interchangeably
title for the figure known as “the angel of YHWH.” But by
identifying the figure that Moses saw as “the Shekhina,” this
solution actually acknowledges that the text is identifying
“the angel of YHWH” or “the Shekhina” by the name “YHWH God.”
Rather than avoiding or providing an alternative to the Trinitarian
conclusion, this solution ends up affirming it.
And
ultimately, as we can see, the ancient Jews recognized the
fact that according to the Old Testament, to see the angel
of YHWH is to see YHWH God. Ancient Jewish sources recognized
the issues raised by these facts. But their attempts to explain
it either alter the text, don’t differentiate significantly
in form from the Trinity, or raise the specter of sub-deities
as the God of the Exodus.
Commenting
still further, Dr. Brown cites additional examples and summarizes
both the predicament and the attempted solution, which was
simply to alter the wording.
“According
to Exodus 33:20, no one can see God or his face and live.
Yet the Hebrew Bible preserves numerous instances of people
‘seeing God.’…Exodus 24:9-11 states that Moses and a select
group of Israelites saw God, who did not strike them down.
The Targum says that they saw the glory of God…Jacob,
who wrestled with the angel of the LORD, said that he had
seen God face to face (Gen. 32:30). The Targum changed this
to, “I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face.”
The exact same change is made in Judges 13:22. In Exodus
3:1-6, the angel of the Lord, equated with the Lord himself
in the text, appeared to Moses in flaming fire in a bush,
and Moses looked away because he was afraid to look at God.
The Targum says that he was afraid to look near the glory
of the LORD.” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 29-30
Fourth,
ancient Judaism recognizes that the figure known as the Spirit
of YHWH is also regarded as being a distinct yet equal figure
within the Godhead of YHWH in similar fashion to the angel
of YHWH. This can be seen in the following two quotes. The
first quote, which we have seen earlier, comes from Microsoft
Encarta and in it Encarta describes how the Word and the Spirit
of God were regarded as “secondary divine beings.” Specifically,
Britannica uses the plural “beings,” indicating that the Word
and the Spirit were regarded as distinct rather than being
regarded as different titles for the same being or figure.
“God,
I INTRODUCTION, II CONCEPTIONS OF GOD, III JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY,
AND ISLAM, A The Jewish Idea of God – The Hebrew God
was unique, and his command was, "You shall have no other
gods beside me!" (although in some biblical passages
the Spirit of the Lord and the angel of the Lord and, in later
Jewish speculation, the divine wisdom appear to be almost
secondary divine beings).” – "God," Microsoft®
Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
The
second quote also demonstrates that the ancient Jews regarded
the figure known as the Spirit of YHWH is also regarded as
being a distinct yet equal figure within the Godhead of YHWH
in similar fashion to the angel of YHWH. This is indicated
by the fact that ancient Jews recognized passages in which
the Spirit of YHWH speaks with another figure known also as
YHWH, as explained in the following quote.
“Lamentations
Rabbah 3:60, 9 relates that after the Roman emperor Hadrian
indiscriminately executed two Jews, the Holy Spirit kept
crying out, “You have seen, O LORD, the wrong done to me.
Uphold my cause! You have seen the depth of their vengeance,
all their plots against me” (Lam. 3:59-60) This provides
and example of the Spirit making intercession. 80
According to Leviticus Rabbah 6:1, the Holy Spirit is a defense
counsel who speaks to Israel on behalf of the Lord and then
speaks to the Lord on behalf of Israel. To Israel the Spirit
says, “Do not testify against your neighbor without cause”
(Prov. 24:28), and to the Lord the Spirit, “Do not say, ‘I’ll
do to him as he has done to me’” (Prov. 24:29). 81 In all
these citations, which can be easily multiplied (see, e.g.,
Genesis Rabbah 84:11; Song of Songs Rabbah 8:16; Lamentations
Rabbah 1:48), there can be no question that we are dealing
with a “who” and not just with a “what,” with a personal
dimension of God and not just with an impersonal power, with
God himself and yet with a “separate” entity who can mediate
between God and man. 82 And these citations closely parallel
some of the New Testament descriptions of the Holy Spirit,
although virtually all the Rabbinic texts cited were written
many years later. 83” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 55-56
The
quotes above from Rabbinical sources establish that the ancient
Jews recognized these specific four Trinitarian facts as present
in the Old Testament. But it is also important to emphasize
the extent to which ancient Judaism recognized these facts.
Specifically, the ancient Jews very much understood the Word
of YHWH to be both distinct from YHWH in some sense and also
as the very YHWH who appeared to Abraham and Moses, etc. As
Dr. Brown comments below, the ancient rabbis had already established
the understanding that it was a figure known as the Word of
YHWH that was at work in Genesis and Exodus. The Aramaic term
for “the Word of YHWH” was “the Memra.”
“The
rabbis took this one step further. Since God was often perceived
as somehow “untouchable,” it was necessary to provide some
kind of link between the Lord and his earthly creation. One
of the important links in Rabbinic thought was “the Word,”
called memra’ in Aramaic (from the Hebrew and Aramaic root,
“to say” [‘mr], the root used throughout the creation
account in Genesis 1, when God said and the material
world came into existence). We find this memra’ concept hundreds
of times in the Aramaic Targums, the translations, and
paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures that were read in the
synagogues before, during, and after the time of Jesus. These
Targums arose because, in some locations, many of the Jewish
people no longer understood Hebrew. Instead, they grew up
speaking and reading Aramaic, so they could follow the public
reading of the Scriptures only with Aramaic translation. –
Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume
2, Theological Objections, p. 19
To
demonstrate the pervasiveness of the Targum’s references to
the Word of YHWH, Dr. Brown provides the following chart.
Memra
Chart (from Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 19-20.)
Genesis
1:27
|
God
created man.
|
The
Word of the Lord created man. (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan)
|
Genesis
6:6-7
|
And
it repented the Lord that he made man on the earth.
|
And
it repented the Lord through his Word that he made man
on the earth.
|
Genesis
9:12
|
And
God said, “This is the sign that I set for the covenant
between me and you.”
|
And
the Lord said, “This is the sign that I set for the
covenant between my Word and you.”
|
Genesis
15:6
|
And
Abraham believed in the Lord.
|
And
Abraham believed in the Word of the Lord.
|
Genesis
20:3
|
And
God came to Abimelech.
|
And
the Word from before the Lord came to Abimelech.
|
Genesis
31:49
|
May
the Lord keep watch between you and me.
|
May
the Word of the Lord keep watch between you and me.
|
Exodus
14:31
|
And
they believed in the Lord.
|
And
they believed in the Word of the Lord.
|
Exodux
20:1
|
And
the Lord spoke all these words.
|
And
the Word of the Lord spoke all these words.
|
Exodux
25:22
|
And
I will meet with you there.
|
And
I will appoint my Word for you there. 31
|
Leviticus
26:9
|
And
I will turn to you.
|
And
I will turn through my Word to do good to you.
|
Numbers
10:35
|
Rise
up, O Lord!
|
Rise
up, O Word of the Lord!
|
Numbers
10:36
|
Return,
O Lord!
|
Return,
O Word of the Lord!
|
Numbers
11:23
|
Is
the hand of the Lord shortened?
|
Is
the Word of the Lord detained?
|
Numbers
14:35
|
I
the Lord have spoken.
|
I
the Lord decreed through my Word.
|
Deuteronomy
1:30
|
The
Lord your God who goes before you, he himself will fight
for you.
|
The
Lord your God who leads before you, his Word will fight
for you.
|
Deuteronomy
18:19
|
I
myself will require it of him.
|
My
Word will require it of him.
|
Deuteronomy
31:3
|
The
Lord your God will pass before you.
|
The
Lord your God, his Word will pass before you.
|
Joshua
1:5
|
As
I was with Moses I will be with you.
|
As
my Word was in support of Moses, so my Word will be
in your support.
|
Judges
11:10
|
The
Lord will be witness between us.
|
The
Word of the Lord will be witness between us.
|
Isaiah
45:17
|
Israel
will be saved by the Lord.
|
Israel
will be saved by the Word of the Lord.
|
Commenting
on this chart, Dr. Brown emphasizes the significance of the
fact that the Targum so readily recognized the Word of YHWH
as a distinct figure.
“Now,
I want you to look carefully at the following verses. The
translation of the Hebrew text is followed immediately by
the translation of the Aramaic Targum. Keepin in mind when
reading that these Targums were the official translations
used in the synagogues. Therefore, the Targums took
on great significance in the religious life of the people,
just as English versions of the Bible take on great significance
for English speakers today. Here are several examples:…”
– Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume
2, Theological Objections, p. 19-20
Furthermore,
Dr. Brown follows this chart with another prominent example
in which the Jewish Targum identified the figure known as
the Word of YHWH interchangeably with YHWH God.
“As
if these examples aren’t enough (and there are many more),
just consider Genesis 28:20-21, Jacob’s vow. In Hebrew,
it reads, ‘If God will be with me and will watch over
me on this journey I am taking and will give me food to eat
and clothes to wear so that I return safely to my father’s
house, then the Lord will be my God.’ The
Targum says, ‘If the Word of the Lord will be with
me…then the Word of the Lord will be my God.’ The Word
of the Lord will be Jacob’s God! And this was read in the
synagogues for decades, if not centuries. Week in and week
out, the people heard about this walking, talking, creating,
saving, delivering Word, this Word who was Jacob’s God.”
– Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume
2, Theological Objections, p. 21
Consequently,
it is very clear that the identification of a figure known
as the Word of God, who is both distinct from and yet himself
YHWH God, is not a unique or new idea of the New Testament
or Christianity. This defining component of Trinitarianism
is present within the Old Testament and ancient Judaism.
Adding
a footnote to this chart, Dr. Brown explains that the ancient
Jews understood the figure known as the Memra or Word of YHWH
in terms of the concept that YHWH God was operating in a more
personal or personified and interactive form.
“Footnote
31: CF. Yeyn HaTob, 1:351, which simply notes
here (as it does elsewhere in similar contexts), “to remove
personification [hagshamah],” i.e., of the Deity;
cf. the discussion of Ezra Zion Melammed, Bible Commentators
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978), cited below, n. 42.” – Brown,
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological
Objections, p. 269
Given
that Trinitarianism recognizes all three Persons of the Godhead
as personal, this Jewish explanation is not identical to Trinitarianism.
However, it comes very close. So close, in fact, that there
remains little basis for rejecting the Trinitarian explanation.
And more importantly, it acknowledges the basic fact of our
assertion that the angel of YHWH was YHWH God in a humbler,
visiting form. As we have said, the purpose of this humbler
guise of an angel or man was because in this form YHWH could
better interact with men, particularly since no man could
see his fully glorified from and live.
As
a result of these Jewish reflections, it is clear that ancient
and modern non-Christian Jews recognize the that Old Testament
identifies the angel of YHWH (or “the Word of YHWH”) not as
an angel but as YHWH and at the same time as distinct from
a simultaneously existing figure also known as YHWH. Consequently,
these doctrines cannot be regarded as a New Testament or Christian
invention. Neither is recognizing the figure known as the
Spirit of YHWH as a similar, simultaneously existing figure
of YHWH a Christian invention. The Old Testament and rabbinical
Jews recognized these facts also.
In
fact, there is only one of the five defining Trinitarian components
that we have not seen affirmed in the Old Testament from non-Christian
Jewish sources. Specifically, we have not seen affirmation
for the claim that the angel (or Word) of YHWH and the Spirit
of YHWH are uncreated. Consequently, this fifth point is clearly
seen to be the critical issue, which determines who whether
the Trinitarian model or some alternate model is correct.
However, we have already demonstrated in detail earlier that
all of the proofs for God’s eternal, uncreated status are
applied to the angel (or Word) of YHWH and to the Spirit as
well. Those proofs are sufficient and we will not be repeating
them here. But we can address this critical difference from
another important angle.
Typically,
alternatives to the Trinity are preferred because the Trinity
is seen as polytheistic rather than monotheistic. The Trinity
is perceived as affirming the existence of three different
Gods rather than just one God. Consequently, one way to settle
the debate is to determine whether or not the Trinity is actually
polytheistic. And more specifically, are the suggested alternatives
any less polytheistic? Or, do the alternatives themselves
violate their own definition of polytheism as they apply it
to the Trinity? And, as indicate earlier, the alternative
Jewish attempts to explain these recognized Old Testament
facts with Jewish monotheism are problematic.
Essentially,
they fall into one of two categories, which might be generally
called Modalism and Henotheism or Arianism. It is important
to recognize that Modalism and Arianism are names that arise
in the first few centuries AD. In other words, these terms
and post-dates the Jewish understandings we’ve outlined above.
Consequently, such categories as Modalism and Arianism are
traditionally understood to refer to Christian heresies and
are not applied Judaism. In part, however, the failure to
at least broadly apply such categories to the Old Testament
results from the common misperception that Old Testament Judaism
is devoid of any hints of Trinitarian issues. But, as we have
seen, both ancient and modern Jewish scholars have recognized
the defining components of the Trinity as part of the Old
Testament. And they have struggled to resolve those facts.
Since Modalism and Arianism are really just alternate (and
ultimately less successful) attempts to explain the same set
of scriptural facts concerning differing figures associated
with YHWH God, in that sense these terms can also be applied
to Jewish explanations of these same facts.
Modalism,
as defined earlier, refers to the idea that there aren’t really
three eternally distinct consciousnesses within the Godhead
but instead, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are simple different
forms or modes that the single Person of YHWH switches between.
“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
Some
Jewish rabbinical explanations of Old Testament Trinitarian
facts can be considered forms of proto-Modalism since they
view figures such as the Word and the Spirit as temporary
extensions of the Supreme God that can be retracted at some
point when the original singular form of God returns. And
the quote below reflects this perception that the Word and
the Spirit were temporary extensions of a single divine Person
and, as such, that one day they might even be reabsorbed into
the singularity of God.
“The
rabbis spoke much about the Shekhina, the Divine Presence,
corresponding also the feminine, motherly aspects of God.
24 They taught that the Shekhina went into exile with the
Jewish people…According to this concept, God cannot be “whole”
again until his people return…The rabbis based this idea
on verses that spoke of God being with his people (corporately
or individually) in their trouble, distress, and exile (see
Mekhilta deRabbi Yishmael, Massekhta dePishha, 14). In
fact, Rabbi Akiva went as far as saying that, according to
the Scriptures, when God redeemed his people, he had, as it
were, redeemed himself (ibid.). Some Hasidic Jews, joining
the concept of the Shekhina with the mystical concept of the
Sefirot, took this one step further. They believed and still
believe that ‘the purpose of the performance of the mitzvot
[commandments] is to help the Shekhinah to unite with the
Teferet [the Sefira of glory or beauty], the male principle.
The sins of Israel hinder this union and prevent the
“reunification of worlds” …The hasidim, in accordance with
this belief, adopted the formula (much deplored by their opponents),
“For the sake of the unification of the Holy One, blessed
be he, and his Shekhinah.”’” – Brown, Answering Jewish
Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections,
p. 12
So,
as we can see, both ancient and modern rabbis have conceived
of the figures of YHWH in terms of temporary extensions of
a higher, singular Person, extensions that might one day cease
to exist as they retract back into that single Person in a
return to an absolute kind of “oneness.”
As
a consequence of such Modalism or perhaps proto-Modalism,
the three figures known as the Father, the Word, and the Spirit
are temporary. In other words, since God is by nature
only one, these three distinct figures were not always present
within the Godhead and may eventually cease, returning to
a state in which God manifests only as his original, singular
form. Within this general scheme, the Father may even be regarded
as the original, singular eternal Person and the Word and
the Spirit regarded as mere modes that he has taken on throughout
time. Overall, this explanation emphasizes the illusionary
nature of the figures of YHWH. Ultimately, any “additional”
figures besides the original Person do not really exist as
entities any more than different disguises or costumes that
someone might put on.
An
alternative explanation is Henotheism or more specifically
Arianism, both of which are defined below. Notice specifically
that Britannica’s definition of “henotheism” is inclusive
of certain forms of ancient Jewish views of YHWH.
“Polytheism,
The nature of polytheism – The term henotheism
is also used to cover this case, or more generally to mean
belief in the supremacy of a single god without denying others.
This seems to have been the situation for a period in ancient
Israel in regard to the cult of Yahweh.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica
“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
mentioned briefly above, Arianism was asserted by Arius, a
fourth-century figure who post-dates Jewish understandings
we’ve outlined above. However, Jewish explanations of Old
Testament Trinitarian facts can be considered proto-Arianism
in the simple sense that they viewed the Word and the Spirit
as sub-deities created by the Supreme YHWH. This is reflected
in the quote below.
“God,
I INTRODUCTION, II CONCEPTIONS OF GOD, III JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY,
AND ISLAM, A The Jewish Idea of God – To say the world
is created means that it is not independent of God or an emanation
of God, but external to him, a product of his will, so that
he is Lord of all the earth. This explains the Jewish concern
over idolatry – no creature can represent the Creator,
so it is forbidden to make any material image of him….The
Hebrew God was unique, and his command was, "You shall
have no other gods beside me!" (although in some biblical
passages the Spirit of the Lord and the angel of the Lord
and, in later Jewish speculation, the divine wisdom appear
to be almost secondary divine beings).” – "God,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Such
proto-Arian concepts are also expressed in the writings of
the ancient Jewish philosopher Philo. This is reflected in
the two quotes below.
“Philo
calls the Logos “the second god” (ton deuteron theon)
and states that the “God” in whose image Adam was created
in Gen 1:27 is actually the Logos, which the rational part
of the soul resembles. It is impossible (according to Philo)
to think of anything earthly being a direct image of God himself…[and]
Philo also calls the Logos “mediator” (mesites).
34” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 22
“Philo
also refers to the logos as “firstborn” (protogonon),
“archangel,” “Name of God,” and “governor and administrator
of all things,” stating that the “divine Word” (theios
logos) is the “chief” of God’s powers. 35” – Brown,
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological
Objections, p. 22
In
contrast to Modalism, this Arian or proto-Arian view recognizes
the additional figures of YHWH as real and permanent entities,
not just illusions or disguises dawned by a single Person
of God. However, this view regards the angel (or Word) of
YHWH and the Spirit of YHWH as creations (although among all
creations, they are the first created, the highest-ranking,
and the most similar in ability or quality to the Creator).
Effectively, the Word and the Spirit become sub-deities directly
below the Supreme God and his aids in creating, guiding, and
relating to the rest of the universe.
As
we stated early on, although offered by some ancient Jewish
sources, these types of explanations are problematic for Jewish
monotheism. This becomes clear in light of the definitions
of polytheism.
“Polytheism
– Sometimes above the many gods a polytheistic religion will
have a supreme creator and focus of devotion, as in certain
phases of Hinduism (there is also the tendency to identify
the many gods as so many aspects of the Supreme Being)…”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica
“Polytheism
– There are three main gods in Hinduism and traditionally
33 million other deities as well. But most Hindus accept the
idea that behind them all lies a single spiritual entity,
often called Brahman.” – World Book, Contributor: Mark
Juergensmeyer, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology and Religious
Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara.
“Polytheism
– The assumption of human forms and characteristics
by divine beings (anthropomorphism), as in the emphatically
human passions and behavior of the Greek and Roman gods, is
virtually a universal feature of polytheism.” – "Polytheism,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
The
above definitions of polytheism are very relevant to any Jewish
form of proto-Modalism. Specifically, polytheistic religions
such as Hinduism have the tendency to view all their gods
as “aspects” of a single Supreme Being (such as Hindu’s Brahman)
and the idea of divine beings assuming human or otherwise
anthropomorphic forms is “virtually a universal feature of
polytheism.” Consequently, Modalism’s assertion of the angel
of YHWH and the Spirit of YHWH as more anthropomorphized manifestations
of a single Divine Personage is really no different than polytheism’s
view that its many gods are more anthropomorphized manifestations
of a single Divine Personage.
For
comparison, in the quote below, Encyclopedia Britannica defines
Modalism in terms of the doctrine that the Supreme God is
the single Personage known as the Father and that the Son
is merely the title for when the Father became human. This
is virtually synonymous with the universal polytheistic feature
in which divine beings assumed human form and the human form
was merely a mode of that divine person.
“Monarchianism
– Modalistic Monarchianism took exception to the “subordinationism”
of some of the Church Fathers and maintained that the names
Father and Son were only different designations of the same
subject, the one God, who ‘with reference to the relations
in which He had previously stood to the world is called the
Father, but in reference to Hisappearance in humanity is called
the Son.’” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
The
only difference between polytheism and Modalism becomes the
quantity of such manifestations. Jewish Modalism would limit
the number of anthropomorphized manifestations to perhaps
2 or 3 while other forms of polytheism would perhaps have
no limits on the number of such manifestations. But, is this
the kind of distinction that is required from polytheism?
Is it a mere matter of numbers? Is having only 2 manifestations
of the Divine Personage sufficiently monotheistic while 4
or more becomes polytheistic? If so, then Trinitarianism would
also escape the criticism of polytheism. After all, even if
Trinitarianism’s three divine persons were deemed three gods,
then Trinitarianism would fall under the same limits as proto-Modalism
and would escape polytheism just as much as proto-Modalism
does. In short, under such criteria, Modalism’s view of the
Word and the Spirit as more anthropomorphized modes of a single
Supreme Personage becomes just as much of a limited
form of polytheism as Modalists would claim about Trinitarianism.
And
we will see the same problem is true for proto-Arianism as
well. For reference, here again is the definition of Arianism.
“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
And
for comparison to Arianism, here again is one of the definitions
of polytheism.
“Polytheism
– Sometimes above the many gods a polytheistic religion
will have a supreme creator and focus of devotion, as
in certain phases of Hinduism (there is also the tendency
to identify the many gods as so many aspects of the Supreme
Being)…” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
From
the very first line of the definition of polytheism, we notice
that polytheistic religions often have a single Divine Being
that they label as supreme and creator even over other divine
beings. Consequently, Arianism’s assertion that the angel
of YHWH and the Spirit of YHWH are created, inferior divine
beings is really no different than polytheism’s view that
its many gods are really inferior created sub-deities under
a single, supreme Creator. Several questions illuminate the
problems that arise on this point.
First,
since the ancient Jews recognized that the name “YHWH” was
applied to the figure known as the angel of YHWH, what proof
is there that the God of the Old Testament isn’t merely this
allegedly created sub-deity who calls himself “YHWH”? And
additionally, what proof would there be that this supposed
secondary divine being represents the true Supreme being at
all rather than perhaps just his own finite purposes? (This
is certainly how some of the Gnostic cults of the late post-New
Testament era erroneously viewed the God of the Old Testament.)
In effect, this explanation removes any links that necessarily
connect the being who spoke to Abraham and Moses to the Supreme
God. And subsequently, Jewish monotheism literally melts away.
Monotheism might be maintained on as a mere matter of preference,
but once the angel of YHWH is regarded as a created sub-deity,
the scriptural evidence for Jewish monotheism no longer exists.
Once
again, the only difference between the two views becomes a
matter of mere numbers. Proto-Arianism would limit the number
of created sub-deities to two, while polytheism would place
no limitation on the number of sub-deities. And again we must
ask if this is the kind of distinction that monotheism requires
a mere matter of limited numbers? After all, even if Trinitarianism’s
three divine persons were deemed three gods, then Trinitarianism
would fall under the same limits as proto-Arianism and would
escape polytheism just as much as proto-Arianism does. In
short, under such criteria, Arianism’s view of the Word and
the Spirit as created sub-deities becomes just as much of
a limited form of polytheism as Arians would claim about Trinitarianism.
Lastly,
the problems for both Jewish proto-Modalist and Jewish proto-Arian
interpretations can be seen in light of the Shema. On this
note, we return to a topic that we discussed very early in
this study. As we stated, the Shema is the common name for
Deuteronomy 6:4.
“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
Deuteronomy
6:4 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
can be seen in the quotes above, in Deuteronomy 6:4, YHWH
God declares to his people, “Hear, O Israel: The YHWH our
God is one YHWH.” It is this passage and this statement which
form the basis of modern Jewish criticism that Trinitarianism
is polytheistic. According to the basic argument, to assert
that YHWH God is three persons and yet one YHWH, violates
the meaning of the Shema’s essential statement “YHWH is one
YHWH.” But how can Jewish proto-Modalist or Jewish proto-Arianism
excape the same criticism?
The
Modalists have YHWH taking multiple forms and even more than
one form at the same time. How is a YHWH with multiple forms
and even multiple forms simultaneously still “one” in the
way that this interpretation of the Shema demands? It would
have to be argued that the Shema doesn’t speak to YHWH’s ability
to take different forms or YHWH’s ability to be different
figures simultaneously. But once such a delineation is suggested,
how can anyone object to Trinitarianism’s delineation that
the Shema doesn’t speak to YHWH’s existence as three Persons
simultaneously for all time or to his internal nature in any
fashion, only to his uniqueness outwardly in contrast to so-called
other gods or idols?
Or,
consider the proto-Arianist interpretation. The proto-Arianist
view would identify the angel of YHWH and the Spirit of YHWH
as sub-deities? How does having sub-deities not a violation
of the Shema’s instruction of One YHWH? This problem becomes
especially clear in light of the fact that even Jewish theologians
have recognized that the angel of YHWH is at times called
by the name YHWH. If there are two figures named YHWH, one
that is the Supreme God and another that is merely a created
sub-deity, how is the Shema’s “One YHWH” still true?
Effectively,
the fact that proponents of non-Trinitarian views (whether
Rabbinic Jews or Christian heretics) violate their own interpretation
of the Shema demonstrates that their interpretation of the
Shema is incorrect, just as we outlined in detail at the start
of this study. The Shema simply does not comment on issues
internal to the Godhead, such as how many forms YHWH can take
or whether there are multiple consciousnesses within YHWH.
The Shema simply declares that YHWH, whatever his internal
nature, is unique among all those whom are called gods by
men. It is a reiteration of the first commandment to have
no other gods because YHWH is one in the sense of his uniqueness,
not in the sense of his internal composition. So, as we can
see, Trinitarianism is no more a violation of the Shema then
the alternative interpretations, which non-Trinitarians Jews
are forced to adopt.
Our
point in this section is not to whittle away any distinction
between monotheism and polytheism so that no distinction remains
between the two views. The two views are indeed definably
distinct. But, our point here is to demonstrate that the definition
of polytheism that Modalism and Arianism impose against Trinitarianism
is not definably distinct enough from Modalism and Arianism’s
own view of God. In other words, if you loosen the definition
of polytheism to include Trinitarianism then your loosened
definition also ends up including proto-Modalism and proto-Arianism
as well.
So,
what is the proper line of distinction that makes a religion
polytheistic or monotheistic? It is the profession that there
is only one, uncreated Divine Being and that a great gulf
exists between that uncreated Divine Being and all of his
creations. No matter how powerful they might be, as in the
case of angels, creations are not gods. And on this note,
it must be admitted that Trinitarians do profess and believe
that the three Persons of YHWH are a single being, not three
separate beings. They have never described Trinitarianism
as worship of three Gods, but have always uniformly described
the three divine Persons as a single Being. This is indicated
by the quote immediately below. Consequently, at least in
terms of belief and profession, Trinitarianism is not polytheistic.
“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
Consequently,
Trinitarianism maintains that there is only one uncreated
Being, not many, and it permanently divides all other beings
into the category of “non-god” except for this single Being.
This stands in direct contrast to polytheism, which asserts
that there many gods, that even created beings are gods (e.g.
Greek, Roman, Norse), and that the multiple gods are anthropomorphic
manifestations of the supreme being (Hinduism). All such defining
components of polytheism things are utterly rejected by Trinitarianism.
Likewise,
Modalism also affirms that there is only one Divine Being,
as reflected in the quote below.
“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
Consequently
on these grounds, Trinitarians and Modalists would both escape
the criticism of polytheism, because both affirm that there
is only one Divine Being. Arianism, however, would be disqualified
because of its suggestion that the Word and the Spirit are
secondary, divine beings. But, with both Trinitarianism and
Modalism qualifying as monotheism, the question would remain
as to which model was correct in light of the facts of the
Old Testament (and ultimately the New Testament as well).
This
is where the proofs for uncreated, eternal past existence
become most significant. Earlier we listed this as the fifth
claim that we made concerning the Old Testament facts about
the Trinity. Since the Old Testament applies the same factors
that prove God’s uncreated status to the figures known as
the angel or Word of YHWH and the Spirit of YHWH, it is impossible
to conclude that either of these figures was a mere recent
creation or manifestation. Instead, they must be regarded
as having always existed. Several important consequences result
from these facts.
First,
neither proto-Modalism nor proto-Arianism can be true. The
uncreated, eternal existence of the Word and the Spirit proves
that they are not mere temporary guises or modes of a single
Person that might be retracted at some point in the future.
(This is also proven by their expression of conscious distinction
from one another in the Old and New Testaments, which we have
seen in detail earlier). And likewise, the uncreated, eternal
existence of the Word and the Spirit proves that they are
not mere created sub-deities.
Second,
the full Trinitarian doctrine emerges in tact from the Old
Testament, only to be carried over and reaffirmed in greater
detail in the New Testament.
Third,
concerning our present focus, because the only existing proofs
in scripture for YHWH’s uncreated, eternal status are applied
to the Word and the Spirit as well, by denying scriptures’
declarations for the uncreated, eternal status of the Word
and the Spirit, Modalism inherently undermines any scriptural
evidence that any aspect of YHWH is uncreated and eternal.
After all, what other proofs for YHWH’s eternal status remain,
which are not applied to the Word and the Spirit? And if the
scriptural proofs for YHWH’s uncreated status are removed,
then YHWH’s uniqueness as the First Cause and the Supreme
Being necessarily also disappears. Consequently, although
Modalism is inherently monotheistic in concept, it necessarily
undermines the very basis of monotheism, namely YHWH’s unique
status as the sole uncreated Being.
So,
as we can see, Trinitarianism is no more polytheistic than
Modalism or Arianism. When proper interpretations of the Shema
are applied and proper definitions of polytheism are applied,
Trinitarianism is inherently monotheistic. It asserts only
one uncreated Divine Being, recognizes only that Divine being
as worthy of worship, and recognizes no sub-deities. In fact,
Trinitarianism is revealed to be the superior model of monotheism
in light of the universally recognized scriptural facts about
the Godhead. Arianism’s recognition of created sub-deities,
who are co-creators and co-gods over the universe is clearly
polytheistic, not monotheistic. Modalism is inferior because,
in having to deny the eternal existence of the Word and the
Spirit, it has to disable all proofs for God’s eternal, uncreated
status, which is the very basis of monotheism in the first
place. And both Modalism and Arianism have to deny or deprive
of meaning the many other scriptural facts about the Godhead
presented in scripture’s statements concerning the angel (or
Word) of YHWH and the Spirit of YHWH. For all these reasons,
Trinitarianism alone emerges as the uniquely superior model
of monotheism of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Trinitarianism
alone faithfully maintains both the concept and the evidence
for monotheism.
However,
having established the superiority of Trinitarianism, there
is still one last criticism of Trinitarianism that needs to
be addressed. While Trinitarianism may be the best reconciliation
of all the Old Testament (and New Testament) facts concerning
the Godhead, does Trinitarianism actually make any sense?
Does it make sense to assert that there are three eternally
distinct consciousnesses or persons within one Being? Or,
is that simply an unfair and untenable solution to issues
raised by the scripture?
On
this point, we would like to offer some comments that should
shed light on the fact that Trinitarianism does indeed makes
sense.
First,
the question of whether or not there could be multiple, distinct
consciousnesses in a single being can be addressed through
the following real-world example. In real life, there is this
phenomenon known as “conjoined twins” (a phenomenon formerly
known by the title “Siamese twins”).
“Conjoined
twin – formerly called Siamese twin, one of a pair
of twins who are physically joined and often share some organs.
Fusion is typically along the trunk of the body or at
the front, side, or back of the head.”
This
analogy might invoke some unfortunate impressions, but nevertheless,
it will offer insight into this issue. As we can see from
the definition, conjoined twins are physically joined and
“often share some organs.” It is not hard to imaging that
the sharing of the organs would be so vital that effectively
the twins share one and the same functioning body. Yet they
have two distinct consciousnesses? Are they one being because
they are inseparable, even functionally and physically inseparable,
from one another? Or are they two beings because they have
two distinct consciousnesses?
Now,
concerning this analogy, some might offer the rebuttal that
these twins are really two separate beings because although
they are physically inseparable, they are not inseparable
in terms of their spirits. The basis of this counterargument
is that it is the spirit that defines one’s being, not physical
conjoining. However, this objection really helps the Trinitarian
position rather than hurting it. After all, in the Trinitarian
view the three, eternally distinct Consciousnesses (Persons)
of God are viewed as one Being precisely because they are
one in spirit; they are all eternally comprised of the same,
indivisible substance called spirit. The earliest Christians
simply quoted scriptural facts that demonstrated the defining
components of what later acquired the title “the Trinity.”
But later on, when heretical arguments finally forced Christians
to articulate the Trinitarian formula in technical terms,
the Council of Nicea specifically used the definition “of
the same substance” to define the oneness of the Divine Persons.
“Trinity
– The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula
for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is ‘of the
same substance [homoousios] as the Father,’ even
though it said very little about the Holy Spirit.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Thus,
in the Trinitarian view, the oneness of being is due to an
inseparable spiritual unity, not just an inseparable physical
unity as in the case of conjoined twins. However, the case
of the conjoined twins still demonstrates that the concept
of multiple consciousnesses inseparably joined in substance
as one Being is neither nonsensical nor even foreign to human
experience.
Second,
we must ask the question whether or not being eternally comprised
of the same, individual substance is sufficient grounds for
deeming these three as one Being rather than three beings.
On this point, consider the following. Imagine just for a
moment that before creation, before anything else existed,
there were three distinct consciousnesses. Imagine they share
all the same abilities and all the same intentions and judgments.
They are aware of their own distinction from the others, but
they are also fully aware of everything about the others,
including each others thoughts. And they have all three always
existed. There was no time that one was alone or existed without
the other two. And they are also all composed of the same,
indivisible substance (called “spirit”). Consequently, they
know they’ve always existed. They know the others have always
existed with them. They know they’ve all always been indivisibly
joined in substance and in existence as well as in abilities
and intentions.
Having
always existed in such a state and having never known a time
when they were divided, is it inaccurate for them to think
of themselves as one Being? Would it be inaccurate for them
to describe themselves to us as one Being? Would it be inaccurate
for us to consider them one Being? Is it really more accurate
to consider these three consciousnesses who are so indivisibly
joined in substance and existence to be three separate Beings?
Our
point here is not to suggest that someone should accept the
Trinity simply because we can conceptualize it in this fashion.
Instead, the point of this conceptualizing is to demonstrate
that it is entirely reasonable to consider these three consciousnesses
as One Being. The premises that explain why the three
are considered one are presented in the description of
how the three are one. They are one in substance and existence.
It is not simply a baseless, nonsensical fantasy. The assertion
of their oneness of Being is a justifiable and logical one.
Consequently, Trinitarianism cannot be rejected on the grounds
that it doesn’t make sense. It does make sense and it is the
superior model of monotheism based upon the universally recognized
scriptural facts about the Godhead.
And
so in conclusion, the Jewish rabbis recognized not only the
scriptural facts concerning the angel of YHWH but they also
recognized their implications. Moreover, the solutions they
suggested to these come remarkably close to Trinitarianism.
And more importantly, their conclusions are so close to Trinitarianism
that it becomes impossible for them to object to Trinitarianism.
In short, the very objections they offer to Trinitarianism
contradict their own conclusions as well. Additionally, as
we have seen their conclusions are not equal to Trinitarianism.
Instead, their conclusions actually make less sense, are more
convoluted, and raise more problems for monotheism than Trinitarianism.
Thus, Trinitarianism becomes the most straightforward, sensible,
and faithfully monotheism available for the Old Testament,
recognizing and reconciling all the facts while maintaining
the integrity of monotheism.
(For
even more documentation and evidence concerning ancient Judaism’s
recognition of defining Trinitarian facts in the Old Testament,
please see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus by Dr. Michael
L. Brown, Baker Books, copyright 2003.)
Old
Testament Trinity Conclusions
As
we have examined the Old Testament, we have covered passages
that were both early including at many accounts from Genesis,
Exodus, and Numbers as well as prominent involving patriarchal
figures such as Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. And we followed
those threads into even the later books of the Old Testament,
including Isaiah and Zechariah. And from those passages, we
saw all the components that define the doctrine of the Trinity
and refute non-Trinitarian views, such as Modalism.
We
saw from Genesis 16, Genesis 22, Exodus 3, Exodus 14, Numbers
22, Judges 6, Judges 13, Zechariah 3, and Zechariah 12 that
the figure known as the angel of YHWH is identified as YHWH.
We also saw how seeing the angel of YHWH was regarded as seeing
YHWH. And in Exodus 33-34, we saw how Moses had come to realize
that the angel of YHWH, who’d been speaking with him from
the time of the initial encounter of the burning bush, had
a more glorious form, the face of which no man could see and
live. Similarly, in Genesis 32, Jacob wrestled with a figure
who he regarded as God, yet who the text describes as looking
like a “man.” And Jacob overcame this figure as they wrestled,
showing that despite being God, Jacob’s visitor was not operating
in his full omnipotence. These early, prominent passages would
have left their mark on the faithful Israelites of the Old
Testament and their understanding of the Godhead. Clearly,
the angel of YHWH was understood to be YHWH, visiting in a
humbler form rather than his fully glorified form.
In
addition, from Genesis 21, Genesis 22, Numbers 22, Judges
5, Judges 6, Judges 13, 2 Samuel 24/1 Chronicles 21, 2 Kings
19/2 Chronicles 32/Isaiah 37, Zechariah 1, and Zechariah 3
we saw a distinction made between a figure known as YHWH and
the figure known as the angel of YHWH. In some of those passages,
YHWH and the angel of YHWH are depicted simultaneously, indicating
that God does not simply switch back and forth between different
forms. In other passages, YHWH and the angel of YHWH are seen
interacting and speaking to and about one another. They express
their own conscious distinction from one another. Furthermore,
as we saw, all the statements pointing to God’s uncreated,
eternal existence are applied to the figure known as the angel
of YHWH, the one who led the Israelites out of Egypt and into
the Promised Land. The angel of YHWH is “the I AM,” “the existing
one,” “the first and the last,” the one who swears by his
own existence, the Almighty or All-Powerful, the Creator rather
than a creation, who exists before “the day” and is already
present at the very threshold of “the beginning” and is not
awaiting being created. These passages, too, would have left
their mark upon the faithful Israelites of the Old Testament
and their understanding of the Godhead. Clearly, the angel
of YHWH was not some created, finite, recent extension of
God’s being with only a limited history. Clearly, the angel
of YHWH was understood to be one of multiple, distinct, simultaneously
existing consciousnesses within YHWH, to be eternal, uncreated,
and unlimited in power, to be the Creator not a creation.
And
as we have seen, the Jewish rabbis recognized not only the
scriptural facts concerning the angel of YHWH but they also
recognized their implications. So, these are not just New
Testament or Christian concepts or revisionist superimpositions.
Moreover, we have also seen that their interpretations of
these facts come remarkably close to Trinitarianism, so close
in fact that it becomes impossible for them to object to Trinitarianism.
In short, the very objections they offer to Trinitarianism
contradict their own conclusions as well. Additionally, as
we have seen their conclusions are not equal to Trinitarianism.
Instead, their conclusions actually make less sense, are more
convoluted, and raise more problems for monotheism than Trinitarianism.
Thus, Trinitarianism becomes the most straightforward, sensible,
and faithfully monotheism available for the Old Testament,
recognizing and reconciling all the facts while maintaining
the integrity of monotheism.
Consequently,
the Trinitarian formula is not only clearly present but also
clearly prominent in the Old Testament for any Israelite of
that age who contemplated these accounts. There were multiple
distinctly conscious persons in YHWH. All these persons were
eternal and uncreated rather than recent extensions or creations.
And at least one such person was the one who came down to
men, disguising his fully glorious divine form, exchanged
it for the convenient appearance of a man or fiery angel,
speaking with men, and making God’s ways known to them. For
this interactive role, he was designated as the angel or messenger
of YHWH or the related title, “Word of YHWH,” which likewise
denotes his operation as the one who spoke to men. And in
this Old Testament theme, the New Testament incarnation of
the Word into actual human form (a full human nature) is a
natural and anticipated course of action based upon the course
of his Old Testament actions and history. In the Old Testament,
he interacted with Abraham and Isaac, appearing to them as
a man and inaugurating a covenant. And he interacted with
Moses while hiding his glory as God and also inaugurating
a covenant. Likewise, in the New Testament, this very same
figure of YHWH actually becomes a man, is described as coming
without glory, and inaugurates the New Covenant, which he
himself had promised in the writings of Moses and the Prophets.
Here
again we would take note of certain prominent Old Testament
passages, such as the visitation to Abraham, to Jacob, and
to Moses in which through coyness, God is clearly trying to
prompt these patriarchs to contemplate and conclude a very
peculiar set of facts, which these righteous, believing men
do indeed conclude. First, that there would be resurrection
of the dead in order to inherit the land forever as God had
promised. (This is seen in the testing of Abraham to sacrifice
Isaac – Hebrews 11:19.) Second, that God came disguised as
a man as he did to Abraham and Jacob. Third, that God came
as a fiery angel as he did throughout the Exodus. Yet this
was still not God in his fully glorious form. And fourth,
that ultimately God had a fully glorious form, which he would
reveal to righteous men, such as Moses, but that seeing the
face of this form would kill them in their mortal state. Every
component of these facts, which God prompted the great patriarchs
to contemplate and conclude, are the key components revealed
in the New Testament. This includes the concepts that result
from combining these facts, such as the hint that men would
one day be able to see God’s glorious face after the resurrection
to immortality and the hint that God would come first as a
man, then with fire as an immortal angel and then ultimately
in his fully glorious form.
(In
Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25, Luke 20:36, Jesus declares that
resurrected men are equal to immortal angels. Philippians
3:20-21 and 1 John 3:1-3 declare that when the saints are
resurrected their bodies will be like the resurrected body
of Jesus Christ, thereby equating Jesus Christ’s resurrected
body to that of an immortal angel. 1 Corinthians 15:12-22
and 42-54 also confirm that the resurrected body of saints
is patterned after the resurrected body of Jesus Christ and
that resurrected body is immortal. 2 Peter 3:4-12 describes
that when Jesus Christ returns – with his humanity now resurrected
equal to an angel – it will be with great fire. And Revelation
20:11-12, Revelation 21:1-3, 22-23, and Revelation 22:1-5
all describe that God the Father ultimately comes to earth
in his fully glorified form to live with men – now made capable
of dwelling with God because they are immortal as angels and
will not die upon seeing his glorious face.)
This
is no strange coincidence that these central New Testament
concepts are the ones that God incites the patriarchs to consider
and conclude. It is part of God’s progressive revelation,
gradually preparing men to understand his plan and to receive
him as he is.
And
while the Old Testament quantitatively may have fewer definitive
passages about the person known as the Spirit of YHWH, ultimately
the Old Testament is clear that the Spirit of YHWH is distinct
from the angel of YHWH. And many of the descriptions that
convey the uncreated status of the angel of YHWH are also
applied to the Spirit of YHWH as well. This includes a similarly
patterned title incorporating the name “YHWH” and his existence
at the very threshold of the beginning where he is depicted
as the already-present Creator rather than as a creation.
Although less numerous and perhaps less detailed than the
passages concerning the angel of YHWH, these basic facts establish
the defining Trinitarian views of the Spirit of God, while
leaving open room for additional clarifying details to be
revealed in the New Testament, as the angel of YHWH arrives
in incarnate form with God’s ultimate revelation to men.
In
the end, nothing is lacking concerning the Trinitarian doctrine
in the Old Testament. The Old Testament demands this doctrine,
allows no room for competing doctrines, and refutes any possibility
of Modalism or Arianism. And while we have only briefly touched
on how the titles (“the Word of YHWH,” “the angel of YHWH,”
and “the Spirit of YHWH”) compare and relate to one another,
we will return and discuss the reasons behind these Old Testament
titles in more detail later on after our focus on the New
Testament proofs for the Trinitarian view of YHWH.