Although New Covenant Christians are not classical Trinitarians we are willing to cinsider that the doctrine is a possibility. The following article-cum-debate is the best defence of the Trinitarian position we have come across and is worth studying. Hence its inclusion on this site. For an anti-Trinitarian article, see the provoking essay, Trinitarian Dogma - The Very "MYSTERY BABYLON" of Revelation 17:5! New Covenant Christians are 'Proto-Trinitarians'.

The Athanasian creed gives a summary of the early Church's teaching on the Trinity :

We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost; but the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten; the Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten; the Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

With this statement (and its precursors and subsequent attempts at refinement), the Church attempted to articulate an incredibly complex body of data and concepts into a rule of faith--a conceptual guideline to keep the faithful within the bounds of revealed information about God.

There are many such formulations, with complex terminology and philosophical systems, and ALL of them function as declarations, not explanations.

The data in Scripture is very, very clear: there are three individuals in the Bible who may be called YHWH without error and without blasphemy, who interact with one another and with us. These three individuals affirm, however, that there is only ONE GOD.

As one can imagine from the above, this belief has been a source of MUCH controversy, much discussion, much polemic, much error, much confusion, and many skeptical attacks.

So, let me start with my basic understanding of what the concept of "Trinity" is.

In simplest terms, it is that there are three Persons who can accurately be called 'the One God'. The early church would convene 'thinktanks' (e.g. councils, although some of them were apparently more akin to political circuses!) to come up with better notions, and ended up with "three Persons in one essence", and by this they meant "three Persons in one Being".

"Orthodoxy" maintains this definition. I feel a little uncomfortable with the notions of 'being' and 'essence'--relative to 'person'--so I prefer the notion of 'unit'. So I get "three Persons in one ultimate unit".

A couple of points about this. First, the adjective 'ultimate' is the 'god-word' in this definition. If I had 15,000 persons, each of which was 'ultimate', I would still only have ONE ULTIMATE. (This is the somewhat obtuse philosophical discussion about not being able to have multiple 'ultimates' because then the principle which distinguishes them is MORE ULTIMATE--a nonsensical phrase. For example, this is the objection to ethical dualism--if good and evil are both ultimate, then they are THE SAME--but we KNOW they are NOT and the distinction between them MUST be the 'REAL' ultimate. But I REALLY don't want to get into that now! But I will come back to some of the philosophical/theological issues at the end of these discussions.)

So the notion basically says that ALL the 'things' I find that can appropriately and accurately be called "God" or "Ultimate", are 'one in essence' ALREADY--by DEFINITION of 'ultimacy'.

The second point is this: I am not sure we could ever really understand how the "persons" and the "essence/unit" are related--especially in GOD! We don't understand these things in HUMANS, much less God. But then again, we probably don't have to.

And, to be QUITE FRANK, I would expect a "God" to be a bit more complex than everything He created! I would expect SOME overlap, perhaps, say in the notion of 'personality' but for me to say that God COULD NOT have three interior Persons would be VERY intellectually presumptuous (especially for a mortal creature of only 5'10"!) To say that a God who could speak a universe into existence HAS TO BE no more complex in His nature that humans are would be GROUNDLESS speculation of the most ludicrous sort! I think Feuerbach would call it 'making God in OUR image'!

Interestingly enough, many of the attacks of this understanding are aimed at the philosophical terms used in the early church councils, as they tried to piece together the statements of scripture into a non-contradictory whole. The attacks on the source data (i.e. the scriptural elements from which the doctrine is constructed ) are generally focused on the deity of Jesus Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. And, there is a general attack on the way the Church handled the matter, politically and organizationally, in the first centuries of its existence, as well.

Prolegomena

Although there have been attempts to justify (via natural theology or logic) a three-in-one structure in God, most of these seem a bit specious. Such a bizarre notion of deity (with its attendant possibilities of blasphemy) MUST be a revealed truth and NOT a simple product of human reasoning or logic. [We will obviously NEED reasoning and logic to process the revealed statements, but we will have to use this faculty in a non-normative sense--it CANNOT be allowed to decide what can and cannot be true.]

What this means for our study is that any data for the trinity will need to come from Scripture, and generally accepted readings at that. We may use outside sources (e.g. Rabbinx, Qumran, Jewish pseudoepigrapha) to document how some interpreted those passages, but our honesty and exegetical care must be focused on the Text itself.

There are two specific presuppositional errors which must be avoided as well: religious presuppositions and philosophical presuppositions.

Religious presuppositions may be illustrated from modern non-Christian Jewry and from Islam. Both of these groups ASSUME that a God CANNOT have multiple centers of consciousness in Himself. In other words, God MUST BE LIKE a HUMAN! The seasoned OT reader will notice that this is plain and simple DIRECT VIOLATION of the Decalogue (among other passages):

Deut 5:8-9 (Exodus 20:4): You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God.

What could be plainer than Isaiah 40:18:

To whom, then, will you compare God? What image will you compare him to?

and Isaiah 46.5:

"To whom will you compare me or count me equal? To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?"

To worship a God reduced to the structure of a human person is idolatry--the very thing the Muslim and non-Christian Jew accuses the Judeo-Christian of! Let us not mince words about this. If the OT scriptures confront us with some kind of plural-personality within the name YHWH, and if the Jew/Muslim explains away those scriptures and substitutes "a God made in the image of man" for the REAL God, then idolatry and blasphemy are the only appropriate descriptions for that. It is not faithfulness or covenant loyalty to YHWH to take an arbitrary and unfounded definition of oneness and let that man-made definition be the ultimate authority over Holy Writ! That is not faithfulness--it is presumption.

If it is folly to take a mystery of God and go BEYOND IT (a common Judeo-Christian error in this area), it is an EQUAL folly to take a mystery of God and "cut it down to size" into something understandable on the bed of Procrustes.

I challenge the Muslim and non-Christian Jew to consider this carefully, and to approach these OT passages with an open mind and heart, asking the Eternal One for wisdom and honesty.

The second major presupposition-type that we have to deal with is philosophical. We MUST be careful what metaphysics we bring with us to these texts (and we probably ALL bring some such assumptions with us). Notions of "person", "agent", "attribute", "essence", etc. are notoriously slippery, and can (and has!) smuggled significant philosophical baggage into the discussion.

We might profitably at this point differentiate between a Nicene/Athanasian doctrine of the trinity (involving technical terms like being, hypostasis, essence, etc.) and the 'raw' list of assertions made by scripture teaching SOME KIND of 'trinitarianism'. The Nicene doctrine of the trinity is a theological complex of statements and relationships between those statements, which attempts to do the 'best job of explaining' (1) the 'raw' list of biblical statements; (2) Christian experience, both personal and corporate; and (3) 'how' that situation could obtain.

The 'raw' list of biblical assertions (the fruit of basic exegetical work) would include (we will do considerable drill-down on these during our study):

1. John 1 - "The Word was WITH God and the Word was GOD" - a VERY simple statement of pure-and-simple plurality-in-unity.

2. This Word (i.e. Jesus Christ) prayed to the Father in heaven. (numerous places)

3. This Jesus would send the Holy Spirit from the Father in heaven, after his departure from earth. (John 14-17)

4. This Spirit could be grieved (Ephs 4) and lied to (Acts 5), and made sovereign decisions (I Cor 12:11 etc.)

5. These three are listed co-equally and co-ordinately in the baptismal formula (Matt 28) and the Benediction (2 Cor 13:14).

6. Old Testament passages repeatedly demonstrate that the Angel of YHWH 'was' YHWH and 'was with YHWH'; and that the Spirit of YHWH 'was' YHWH and 'was with YHWH'.

7. Old Testament passages repeatedly describe a messianic figure that is super-human, super-angelic (agreed to even by non-Christian rabbinic writings), and is even called YHWH in a few verses.

At a phenomenological level, all we really need to note is that there are three distinct 'others' that we encounter in the biblical record. These 'others' engage us in 'personal ways'--intellectually, volitionally, emotionally. It is NOT a 'philosophical system' to call these 'others' consciousnesses--for we encounter them, at the level of phenomena, as those "with whom we have to do"--relating and giving ALL APPEARANCES as 'persons'.

Confusion over terms like 'substance' and 'subsistence' cannot be allow to obscure this PLAIN and RAW data of scripture. We may 'throw out' the Trinitarian creedal statements of the Early Church Councils, but we CANNOT dismiss the overwhelming biblical data so easily. We will have to do 'something' with these passages and biblical statements--if we intend to honor the revealing God.

The Issue of Theophany (i.e Manifestation of God)

One of the first (and more difficult) issues that will arise in this study concerns the Theophanies (i.e. manifestations of God in history). When the One God reveals Himself in history as the Angel of YHWH, and as the Spirit of God, why do we believe those are 'different persons' and not just God the Father manifesting Himself AS THOSE ROLES?

The main criterion will be if the passage indicates some type of personal 'interaction' between the manifestation-in-question and the God of Heaven. If, for example, YHWH in heaven speaks to the Angel or speaks to His Spirit, then that constitutes basic support for a 'plural persons' position. [A single-person position would not be able to account for such a statement.]

Additionally, we will look for 'control' passages--texts in which a pure non-personal manifestation occurs, then compare that control to more questionable passages.

The Issue of Progressive Revelation

For some reason, God revealed His truth in history, in progressively more detail and expansiveness over time. There were aspects of His revelation that were NOT available to Abraham that WERE available to Moses. Likewise, there may be truths that were available ONLY to NT writers, and NOT to the OT writers--in keeping with this principle.

In other words, just because it comes to explication in the NT doesn't mean it can be thrown out as being incorrect. Granted, it may not have much persuasive 'power' to those only accepting the OT, but it is certainly not out of line with how God does things.

The reality of progressive revelation is obvious EVEN TO those who only accept the OT. It is highly unlikely that Moses was 'briefed' by God on Malachi's prophecy that YHWH would come to His temple someday(!)...esp. since there was no temple (nor talk of a temple) in Moses time. This prophecy was a LATER revelation of God to Israel. The birthplace of the Messiah in Micah 5.2 was probably not known to Abraham.

This point should be very clear, without multiplying examples. The truth of progressive revelation is obvious EVEN in the OT; so it should not be a priori rejected when it comes to the OT-NT relationship.

The relevance of this principle to our existing study is simple. EVEN IF we could not find 'proof' of the Trinity in the OT, that would IN ITSELF, NOT be a reason to discard it--IF the NT was very, very clear on the issue.

Now, it might be HELPFUL if the OT had 'hints' or 'ambiguities' in it that would ALLOW us to 'suspect' that the Trinity was true, but it would be VERY HELPFUL if the OT was rather explicit about some level of plurality in the One God, which plurality might be made more articulate in the NT under the force of progressive revelation.

The Methodology of the Research/Study

First, we build the 'rival' theories of the Godhead: polytheism, trinitarianism, Unitarianism (including Muslim and non-Christian Jewish belief).

Second, we make 'retro-dictions' from these theories--we make predictions as to what we would Find and Not-Find in Holy Writ IF that particular theory were correct.

Third, we compare scripture to those predictions, noting agreements, disagreements, and the relative strengths of those agreements/disagreements.

Finally, we assess the above for the 'best one', state the summary, and identify any 'unresolved' problems.

The Rival Hypotheses

POLYTHEISM. There are multiple individuals that can appropriately be called 'God' (in the fullest sense of the word), and these individuals have no essential/ontological identity. They may be 'made of the same god-stuff' but they don't share the same 'batch of the stuff'. They are numerically distinct. If one of them 'ceased' to exist, the others' existences would not be automatically 'terminated' as well.

If POLYTHEISM were true, what kinds of statements would we expect in Scripture (assuming that we were supposed to worship all of these Gods as Israel's 'God')?

A1. The individual Gods would be given distinctive names, so we could know which one was doing what.
A2. Each of these names would be called 'God' somewhere, or ascribed the characteristics of deity in a regular fashion.
A3. There would be passages in which we would see the various Gods interact (as identified by their names).
A4. There would be commands to worship ALL of the Gods (perhaps equally).
A5. There would NOT be any EXCLUSIVE claims to deity by any one God.
A6. There would NOT be any statements endorsing (or implying) monotheism.
A7. There would Not be any prohibitions to worship of multiple Gods (but maybe against false gods).
A8. There might be passages in which humans were "corrected" for depending on the 'wrong' God for that specific situation.

If UNITARIANISM were true, what kinds of statements would we expect in Scripture?

B1. There would be frequent, strong, unambiguous statements of EXCLUSIVE deity by the one God.
B2. No other individuals would manifest the same powers, glory, characteristics of the one God (except those that may be sharable by creatures).
B3. No other individuals would be called "God".
B4. Manifestations of God would NOT interact with God (implying distinction within God), but only with the creation.
B5. Any literary devices involving God ("the right arm of the most High") would NOT interact with God (implying distinction within God), but only with the creation.
B6. There would be prohibitions against worship of ANYTHING OTHER THAN the one God, and perhaps rebukes of humans who tried to worship super-human (but not divine) agents.

If TRINITARIANISM were true, what kinds of statements would we expect in Scripture?

C1. There would still be statements of the EXCLUSIVE deity by the one God, but the terminology used would be more ambiguous as to 'number' or even be suggestive of a plurality within the one.
C2. There would be multiple individuals, metaphors, agents that would be called "God".
C3. These Divine agents would interact with other Divine agents in the SAME passage.
C4. These multiple 'agents' would still be contrasted with FALSE gods.
C5. These multiple 'agents' would be related somehow to each other--within the unity.
C6. All of these agents would be accorded worship, prayer, unique attributions of glory.
C7. These agents would all be described in personal terms, to insure they were understood as 'real' and not simply literary devices.
C8. There would be passages in which the various agents might be 'linked' in equal roles or formulae.
C9. There would be passages in which you couldn't tell WHICH of the agents was doing the work (due to the unity).
C10. There might be different passages which attributed the SAME results to DIFFERENT agents.

But it will be the subtle differences that will determine the 'best fit'.

Consider the following implications if Trinitarianism is true:

1. The statements and creedal formulae that there is only ONE God (common to UniTx and TriniTx), will have enough specificity to eliminate false gods, but enough ambiguity to 'allow' for multiple personalities within the ONE God.

2. Statements of manifestations (common to UniTx and TriniTx) of God will include a set of events in which the manifestation of God INTERACTS with God ( in a way suggestive of separate personality) AND a set of events (with perhaps some overlap) in which the manifestation of God is CALLED 'God' (or unambiguously IDENTIFIED as divine and not simply angelic).

3. Attempts on the part of humans to worship/invoke different Divine agents will be allowed (common to PolyTx and TriniTx), AND attempts to worship superhuman/angelic beings will be denounced (common to ThriniTx and UniTx).

We then examine the NT in this same way, noting any additional development of the OT themes it might demonstrate.

Over the past few months, I have gotten several survey forms and letters concerning the Judeo-Christian understanding of the Trinity. Some of these letters were from dear Jewish-Christians SO TROUBLED by the doctrine that they were considering returning to Judaism. Some felt the teaching was simply 'non-sensical'; others were deeply disturbed by the notion of calling the man Jesus by the name "God"--that the messiah was to be human, and NOT divine; still others that it is thinly-disguised polytheisim.

I decided to write this piece in response to these questions and concerns (mainly the latter one), for of ALL the 'strange' teachings of the Judeo-Christian faith, the Trinity ranks WAY UP THERE in 'strangeness' perhaps.

I have thought a reasonable amount about the Trinity over my life, and have re-evaluated its basis any number of times--as honestly as I could at those points in my Christian experience. I still ALWAYS come up with the intellectual conviction that God has multiple, real, independent persons within Him. There are certain 'stubborn' data points that I just cannot EXPLAIN any other way, than by the plurality of persons within a unitary ultimate agent.

What may surprise you is that the OLD TESTAMENT is the source of the STRONGEST evidence for this plurality within God! The New Testament provides clearer data about the persons, perhaps, but the OT has more 'stubborn' passages for our evaluation. If my assessment is correct in this regards, then JUDAISM has the SAME "PROBLEM" that Christianity has, and correspondingly, is NO ESCAPE from that 'problem'!

What I want to lay out here is the way I approach the problem, the data I find--both PRO and CON, why humans might have such a problem with it, some philosophical/theological musings on it, and then an examination of my own day-to-day experience of that plurality-in-unity.

First, let me start with my basic understanding of what the concept of "Trinity" is.

In simplest terms, it is that there are three Persons who can accurately be called 'the One God'. The early church would convene 'thinktanks' (e.g. councils, although some of them were apparently more akin to political circuses!) to come up with better notions, and ended up with "three Persons in one essence", and by this they meant "three Persons in one Being".

"Orthodoxy" maintains this definition. I feel a little uncomfortable with the notions of 'being' and 'essence'--relative to 'person'--so I prefer the notion of 'unit'. So I get "three Persons in one ultimate unit".

A couple of points about this. First, the adjective 'ultimate' is the 'god-word' in this definition. If I had 15,000 persons, each of which was 'ultimate', I would still only have ONE ULTIMATE. (This is the somewhat obtuse philosophical discussion about not being able to have multiple 'ultimates' because then the principle which distinguishes them is MORE ULTIMATE--a nonsensical phrase. For example, this is the objection to ethical dualism--if good and evil are both ultimate, then they are THE SAME--but we KNOW they are NOT and the distinction between them MUST be the 'REAL' ultimate. But I REALLY don't want to get into that tonight! But I will come back to some of the philosophical/theological issues at the end of these discussions.)

So the notion basically says that ALL the 'things' I find that can appropriately and accurately be called "God" or "Ultimate", are 'one in essence' ALREADY--by DEFINITION of 'ultimacy'.

The second point is this: I am not sure we could ever really understand how the "persons" and the "essence/unit" are related--especially in GOD! We don't understand these things in HUMANS, much less God. But then again, we probably don't have to.

And, to be QUITE FRANK, I would expect a "God" to be a bit more complex than everything He created! I would expect SOME overlap, perhaps, say in the notion of 'personality' but for me to say that God COULD NOT have three interior Persons would be VERY intellectually presumptuous (especially for a mortal creature of only 5'10"!) To say that a God who could speak a universe into existence HAS TO BE no more complex in His nature that humans are would be GROUNDLESS speculation of the most ludicrous sort! I think Feuerbach would call it 'making God in OUR image'!

The "net" of this is that:

1.If the data of revelation calls multiple individuals 'God' (and if I cannot come up with alternative explanations of the textual data) then I am 'stuck' with the problem of the plurality-in-God.
2.Whether I can construct a theory of how these individuals 'relate' or not, IS IMMATERIAL to the issue of truth.
3.The lack of appropriate human analogies or models of this plurality-in-unity IS IRRELEVANT to the issue of truth.
4.As long as I can state the teaching at a 'folk' level (as opposed to a 'scientific' level) on the basis of revealed data, then I can be justified in saying I 'understand' this teaching in a meaningful way. (In other words, just because I do not understand all the issues in sub-atomic physics doesn't mean I don't know how to use molecules to get stuff done.)

Now, let's try a little 'thought experiment'.

Let's make some 'test' ASSUMPTIONS for a moment:

1.That the Judeo-Christian notion of God as plurality-in-unity IS TRUE.
2.That all of the 'persons' in the Ultimate are somehow involved in human history
3.That the activities of these Persons are originally directed to primeval humanity
4.That the activities of these Persons are later narrowed in primary focus to the special nation of Israel in OT history
5.And THAT THE RELATIONSHIP between the Persons is NEVER made explicit in the revealed data, perhaps because it is 'beyond' the understanding of humans, or because it is intersubjectively 'understood' by those who experience such a God.

So, IF the plurality-in-unity had been experienced somehow by the originals of the race, and somehow passed down in the literature (as it has been), then polytheism would have been MUCH MORE PROBABLE to occur than monotheism. (Naive polytheism is much more easy to believe that a 'plurality-in-unity' monotheism!)

This is interesting, of course, but the real data will have to come (for the Judeo-Christian) from the recorded words and acts of this God's actions in history--the Bible.

So, if our ASSUMPTIONS were true, what would we expect to find in the Old Testament?

Quite simply, we would expect to find passages:

1.In which different persons were called "God" appropriately and without censure(Type 1)
2.In which these different persons might address ANOTHER of the Persons as "God"(Type 2)
3.In which the two situations above occur without the "god" word, but with the presence of some action and/or attribute that is ONLY ascribed to God.(Type 3)

First, let's consider The Angel of YHWH--The Angel of the Lord.

.Gen 16: >

The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. And he said, "Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?" I'm running away from my mistress Sarai," she answered. Then the angel of the LORD told her, "Go back to your mistress and submit to her." The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count." The angel of the LORD also said to her: You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard of your misery. He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers." She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: "You are the God who sees me," for she said, "I have now seen the One who sees me."

Notice:

• This angel promises to 'increase the descendants'--a promise only GOD makes (Type 3)
  
• This angel is called YHWH by the writer. (Type 1)
  
• This angel is called God by Hagar. (Type 1)
  
• This angel refers to the LORD in the 3rd person (Type 2).

•Gen 21

But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring." Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes. Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away, for she thought, "I cannot watch the boy die." And as she sat there nearby, she began to sob. God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation."

Notice:

• God repeats the promise of This angel in the Gen 16 passage(Type 3)
  
• The Angel repeats the promise of God as HIS OWN promise (Type 3)
  
• This angel refers to God in the 3rd person (Type 2).

But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" Here I am," he replied. "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided." The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."

Notice:

•The Angel says Abraham did not withhold his son from Himself, even though it was God who ordered it (22.2) Type 3)
•This "non-withholding" clause identifies the Angel with the YHWH of the "I swear by myself" passage (Type 1)
•This angel refers to 'God' and 'YHWH' in the 3rd person (Type 2)
•The angel repeats the blessing that had been previously uttered by YHWH and by the Angel (Gen 16, 21) (Type 3).

Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him."

Notice:

• This figure is NOT explicitly called the "Angel", but appears as one of three 'men' (vs. 2)--two of them are later called 'angels' --in all probability it is the Angel of YHWH(19.1)
  
• This figure is called YHWH (Type 1)
  
• This figure refers to 'YHWH' in the 3rd person (Type 2)
  
• This figure has 'chosen' Abraham--election is purely a divine action (Type 3)

The angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob.' I answered, 'Here I am.' And he said, 'Look up and see that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled or spotted, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you. I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to me. Now leave this land at once and go back to your native land.' "

Notice:

• The Angel of God calls HIMSELF the "God of Bethel" (Type 1)
  
• The Angel of God calls himself the recipient of Jacob's vow--which was made to YHWH in Gen 28 (Type 3)

There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange sight --why the bush does not burn up." When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!" And Moses said, "Here I am." "Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.

Notice:

• The Angel of God calls HIMSELF the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (Type 1)
  
• The writer calls the Angel "God" (Type 1)

By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night. Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people.

Then the angel of God, who had been traveling in front of Israel's army, withdrew and went behind them. The pillar of cloud also moved from in front and stood behind them, coming between the armies of Egypt and Israel. Throughout the night the cloud brought darkness to the one side and light to the other side; so neither went near the other all night long.

Notice:

• The same events are ascribed to BOTH YHWH and the Angel of God (Type 1,3)

  •Numbers 22:34-35 with 22:38 and 23:12

  Balaam said to the angel of the LORD, "I have sinned. I did not realize you were standing in the road to oppose me. Now if you are displeased, I will go back." The angel of the LORD said to Balaam, "Go with the men, but speak only what I tell you." So Balaam went with the princes of Balak.

  "Well, I have come to you now," Balaam replied. "But can I say just anything? I must speak only what God puts in my mouth."

  He answered, "Must I not speak what the LORD puts in my mouth?"

  Notice:

  • The Angel is called both God and YHWH (Type 1)

  •Judges 2.1-4

  The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land that I swore to give to your forefathers. I said, 'I will never break my covenant with you, and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars.' Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? Now therefore I tell you that I will not drive them out before you; they will be thorns in your sides and their gods will be a snare to you." When the angel of the LORD had spoken these things to all the Israelites, the people wept aloud, and they called that place Bokim. There they offered sacrifices to the LORD.

  Notice:

  • The Angel claims to be the one who achieved the exodus and the one the Mosaic Covenant was with! (Type 3)

  •I Chron 21

  And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel was doing so, the LORD saw it and was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was destroying the people, "Enough! Withdraw your hand." The angel of the LORD was then standing at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.

  Notice:

  • The Angel was sent by GOD (Type 2)

  Summary: The Angel of the LORD is both God and yet refers to someone else as God. (If we don't believe there are TWO gods, I think we are 'locked into' developing some kind of plurality-within-unity concept.) This figure is beyond the normal angels and indeed is somehow SPECIALLY linked to the 'being' of God--He is called the angel of "His presence" (Is 63.9) and the angel with God's "Name" in Him (Ex 23:20-23).

  NOTICE:These passages ALONE would be enough data to 'force' us to accept the basic concept of multiple agents WITHIN the One God. Once we have broken the conceptual and 'logical' barriers down to plurality-within-unity, the issue THEN would become 'how many persons' in the Godhead? Two, three, ten?

  Next, let's consider the Spirit of God.

  We can take a different approach with the Spirit of God, simply because the linkage between God and His Spirit is already understood. The Spirit of God is 'part of' God already, so we don't need passages that say that the Spirit of God IS God. Instead, we need to look for any passages that seem to argue that

  1.the Spirit of God is a thinking, feeling, choosing Person --as distinct from just an attitude or orientation or principle of animation (i.e. other notions of 'spirit') (Type A)

  2.the Spirit of God is somehow 'distinct' from God (e.g. God 'sending' His Spirit somewhere) (Type B)

  Now, in principle we COULD run across a special problem here, in the areas of figures of speech--especially in those where one part of something can stand for the whole (synecdoche). But in reality, I cannot find a single clear case of this in hundreds of uses of the OT words for spirit! Instead we have a narrow range of uses. Spirit in the OT sometimes meant a 'personality' (e.g. 'spirits'--2 Chrn 18), sometimes meant a 'mood' ("distressed in spirit"--Is 54.6), and sometimes meant a 'vital principle' ("a new spirit in them"--Ez 36.26).

  Let's look at some passages that manifest some sort of 'distinction' between God and His Spirit (e.g. sending, putting, withdrawing, giving)--TYPE B's.

  •Gen 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

  •Num 11:29 But Moses replied, "Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the LORD's people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!"

  •Neh. 9:20 You gave your good Spirit to instruct them. You did not withhold your manna from their mouths, and you gave them water for their thirst.

  •Ps. 51:11 Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me.

  •Ps. 104:30 When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth.

  •Isa. 32:15 till the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the desert becomes a fertile field, and the fertile field seems like a forest.

  •Isa. 42:1 "Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations.

  •Isa. 48:16 "Come near me and listen to this: From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there." And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit.

  •Isa. 63:11 Then his people recalled the days of old, the days of Moses and his people -- where is he who brought them through the sea, with the shepherd of his flock? Where is he who set his Holy Spirit among them,

  •Ezek. 36:27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

  •Hag. 2:5 'This is what I covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt. And my Spirit remains among you. Do not fear.'

  Let's look at some passages that demonstrate the personal characteristics of this 'remote Agent' of God--TYPE A passages.

  •Neh. 9:20 You gave your good Spirit to instruct them. You did not withhold your manna from their mouths, and you gave them water for their thirst.

  •Neh. 9:30 For many years you were patient with them. By your Spirit you admonished them through your prophets. Yet they paid no attention, so you handed them over to the neighboring peoples.

  •Ps. 106:33 for they rebelled against the Spirit of God, and rash words came from Moses' lips.

  •Ps. 143:10 Teach me to do your will, for you are my God; may your good Spirit lead me on level ground.

  •Isa. 34:16 Look in the scroll of the LORD and read: None of these will be missing, not one will lack her mate. For it is his mouth that has given the order, and his Spirit will gather them together.

  •Isa. 63:10 Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit.

  •Isa. 63:14 like cattle that go down to the plain, they were given rest by the Spirit of the LORD. This is how you guided your people to make for yourself a glorious name.

  •Micah 2:7 Should it be said, O house of Jacob: Is the Spirit of the LORD angry? Does he do such things?" "Do not my words do good to him whose ways are upright?

  Summary: The Spirit of God seems to be a 'dispatch-able' Agent, who can grieve, teach, give rest, be angry, be rebelled against, etc. He is at the same time a 'part of' God and 'distinct from' God. Plurality-in-unity.

  There are other similar passages in the OT that speak of some aspect of God in highly individualized, 'dispatched', and/or personalized manner: His "Presence" (e.g. Ex 33; Is 3.8), His "Name" (e.g. Ex 23:21; 2Chrn 6,7), and His "Glory" (e.g. Ex 16, 40; I Kgs 8). These are generally understood (but not unanimously so) to refer to His Spirit as well.

  WHAT IS STRIKING about all this data is that there is NO attempt to 'synthesize' this into a coherent whole--the tension within a strictly monotheistic system is simply NOT addressed. The Israelites don't try to 'wrestle' the concept to the ground, establish a logical schema for it, or even to probe the implications--they simply recognize YHWH in each of those experiences.

  (It is interesting to me that the awe of encountering the Angel of YHWH did NOT stop them from engaging in some reflective work. For example, when Jacob wrestles with the Angel of YHWH in Gen 32, he is amazed that he saw 'God face to face, yet my life was spared'. And in Exodus, Moses is consistently warned that if anyone sees YHWH's face, he will die--yet Moses speaks face-to-face with YHWH frequently (cf 33.20 with 33.11). The Angel of YHWH seems to be the One who is always seen face-to-face in history, whereas YHWH Himself is never seen. A plurality-in-unity understanding makes this a little easier to understand, but their early efforts in this area stayed very pragmatic--they were still alive after confronting God!)

  What emerges from this cursory study of some OT passages is a concept of a plurality of agents, that are very much God, but still somehow separate agents WITHIN God. So the Angel of YHWH seems to be the main 'external interface' with humans and the Spirit of God seems to be the main 'internal interface' with us. In other words, an Israelite would meet God 'face-to-face' in the Angel, but would be confronted with God INSIDE his thoughts by the Spirit of God.

  ---

  Pushback time...

  Over the years I have learned that the best way for me to stay honest with the text is to try to "shoot down" my own arguments. I try to find weak points in my data and usage thereof, and try to make counter-arguments to them. Here are the 'pushbacks' to my above arguments (cast in the voice of an antagonist.)

  Q. "The word for ANGEL is the same word translated 'messenger' elsewhere. So all those passages in which the ANGEL speaks as YHWH (in the 1st person) could simply be short forms of a message from Yhwh, WITHOUT the "thus says the Lord" clause.

  For example, the passage in Gen 22 that you cite has the Angel saying the LONG form:

  The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous..

  Here we have the Angel speaking with an "I swear" but adding quickly "declares the Lord". This would form the general pattern of all the later OT prophets, who consistently spoke as YHWH in the 1st person, but ALWAYS qualified it by "declares the Lord". So why couldn't the Angel's messages be simply shortened forms of prophetic utterances, and so not leading us to believe he was claiming to be/acting like YHWH?"

  A. Good question.

  The angel IS often a messenger, but the main reasons I don't find this objection strong enough to overturn the original arguments:

  1.'Short forms' in the OT are exceptionally rare (Is 11.9?) so why would we believe there was such a thing? The prophets were VERY CAREFUL to make it clear it was the word of THE LORD!
  2.My argument in Gen 22 hinged upon the 'withheld' clause and not from the form of the blessing pronouncement
  3.The passages had OTHER means of identifying the Angel with YHWH than JUST the pronouncements--the response of the humans, the actions of the Angel, more explicit identifications (esp. Ex 3).

  So the objection seems weaker and less substantial than does the original argument.

  "Q. If the data demonstrates this 'tension' between the concept of One God and the evidence of multiple agents being called 'God', then how did Rabbinical Judaism deal with these passages? Surely they had an exegetical understanding of these verses that avoided this conclusion?"

  A. Good question.

  The interesting thing about this is that you CAN find this 'problem' in the Talmudic literature! Whereas most of the above passages are assigned to Gabriel and Michael, there was also a higher angel named Metatron, who was the angel that went before the Israelites in the wilderness (see talmudic discussions at Exodus 23.20). A. Cohen, in Everyman's Talmud (Dutton Books), discusses the 'heretical identification of Metatron with God' in passages such as San 38b and Chag 15a (p. 52-53). These discussions center around the texts we have cited above--the 'problem' IS THERE in Jewish thought and remains unresolved to this day.

  Q."The scriptures say that God 'sent' prophets, and that He 'sent His word' etc.--but neither of these are divine; so why would Him 'sending' the Spirit of the Lord be an argument for the deity of the Holy Spirit?"

  A. Weak question.

  The ''sending" argument was an argument for the DISTINCTION between the "sender and the sendee"--not an argument for the deity of either.

  Q. "Let me ask the same question about the Rabbinic understanding of the Holy Spirit--did they believe it was God? Did they treat it like a separate person in the Godhead?"

  A. Good question.

  The talmudic data discusses the Holy Spirit (their term) as a manifestation of God's presence on earth. As such, it is clearly divine--since it is simply a 'manifestation' of God. However, it is also given personal characteristics/actions (e.g. weeping--Lament R. I.45; being 'driven away' --Gen R. LXV. 4). But again, the implications are not drawn.

  Q. "SURELY you are pressing the data on the Spirit of God a little too far. It seems to be nothing more than a manifestation or theophany of God on earth. How strong do you think your data is to support a SEPARATE PERSON in God?"

  A. The Best Question.

  Now, overall, it seems obvious to me that the arguments about the Holy Spirit are not as 'strong' as those about the Angel of YHWH, simply because the relation of Spirit to individual is somewhat more fuzzy. In other words, if the Holy Spirit is an 'internal part' of God, then we would EXPECT the Spirit to be called YHWH; we would expect God to refer to it by 'my spirit' (just as I will refer to "my heart is heavy''), but we might NOT expect God to refer to it as "THE Spirit"--a seemingly independent title or reference. But this is JUST what we find in a couple of passages (Ex 31.3; 35.31) and this title becomes a standard way of referring to God's Spirit throughout OT history. "The Spirit" can somehow be referred to as 'distinct from' God (within bounds).

  At the same time, I am not sure we eliminate the 'problem' by calling it a 'manifestation'. This particular manifestation has all the attributes of God's presence, as well as personal characteristics. God 'dispatches' this Spirit, just like He 'dispatched' the Angel. As being in God, they both could be called 'manifestations' but they both seem to be 'more'.

  One final observation. IF INDEED God is a plurality-in-unity, then two of the strangest phenomena in the OT become understandable:

  1.The use of the plural noun 'elohim' for God, consistently with A SINGULAR VERB.

  This has been generally explained as a 'plural of majesty' or 'singular of intensity' . But all the related ANE cultures use the singular form "El" without a single case of 'elohim'--there are no ANE parallels to support this usage. If this incipient plurality-in-unity was either an implication of religious experience (e.g. "we experience Him as multiple-agents in One God") or simply a revelation, THEN there would be no better way to 'say it' in the text than elohim(plural)+verb(singular)! (see TWOT, s.v. 'elohim')

  2.The use of the "composite unity" word for 'one' in the Shema of Deut 6.4-5.

  This is the famous Shema: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." There are two words for 'one' in Biblical Hebrew: 'ehad (composite unity--one made up of parts) and yahidh (uniqueness-only one of its kind). This verse is sometimes used by groups within the Jewish tradition to asset the numerical unity of God, over against what they perceive as a 'Christian' notion of plurality-in-unity. (Which I have been arguing for hours and hours is a Jewish issue too!). But this verse actually does the opposite. Instead of using yahidh, which MIGHT be of some support to their position, it uses 'EHAD, which lends itself to the plurality position. Consider just two passages in which EHAD is used:

  •Gen 2.24--the man and his wife will be one (ehad) flesh--clearly a composite unity.

  •Ex 26:6, 11--the fifty gold clasps are used to hold the curtains together so that the tent would be a unit (ehad).

  This composite unity attribution to God would otherwise be just another OT linguistic enigma, but in light of the OT data we have already studied, we can turn it into another OT THEOLOGICAL enigma!--Plurality within Unity!

  ---

  My main point of this section on the OT is this: the issue of 'trinity' or plurality-within-unity is very much an issue in the OT. Traditional Judaism, which would take these passages in a conservative manner, would have the SAME SIZE 'problem' as Christians would, with respect to monotheism.

  [Granted, the NT difficulty of calling a man "God" is a DIFFERENT challenge than calling three 'supernatural' figures (YHWH, Angel of YHWH, Spirit of YHWH) all "God", and THAT issue will be addressed in my analysis of the messianic prophecies. Although strictly speaking, it is just as blasphemous to call an angel 'God' if he is not, as it is to call a man 'God' if he is not. But it is sufficient to the point herein to acknowledge that the TRINITY concept itself is not "escaped" by simply abandoning the Judeo-Christian scriptures in favor of the Judeo- Scriptures only.]

This page was created on 5 February 1999 Last updated on 13 January 2002

Preface Copyright © 1987-2007 NCCG - All Rights Reserved