The Bible and the Trinity: The Trinity and the OT.

Great Debates
1

I assume it’s well understood that the Jews who met, and came to believe, that Jesus was the Messiah considered themselves Jews. The subsequent dispute was a growing dispute which ended in his death, and was a dispute within Judaism, and between Jews, as to whether this Jesus fellow was indeed the Messiah.

This was essentially a civil war within Judaism between those Jews who recognized Jesus as the promised Messiah, and those who saw him as illegitimate. It’s for this reason that the God of Jews and Christians alike is often referred to the “Judeo-Christian God.”

But…if Jesus is part of a Triune God, the dispute as to whether Jesus is/was the Messiah is larger than this one issue, because it alters the nature of really who this God they presumably share, is.

So…the question is…were the Jews of the OT-----and specifically the Jews who were contemporaries and followers of Christ----- Trinitarians? (keep in mind NT writings were decades away, and to the extent the Jews had Holy writings they weren’t known as the “OT.”)

So, I offer the following as facts to be refuted:

  1. The OT is silent on the Trinity. In other words, the Trinity is unheard of in the OT.

  2. The Jews identified in the OT were universally not Trinitarians, and none of their writings identify the God they worshiped/ followed as part of a Triune God.

  3. This includes the disciples of Jesus who were Jews, living the life the OT outlined.

  4. Modern day Jews-----for the same reason-----are not Trinitarians; although Christianity can logically be seen as Judaism v2.0. (or, rather, *should be)

  1. In every instance in the OT where God is speaking he identifies himself in the singular.

  2. Nothing in the OT writings that foretold the Messiah identified the coming Messiah to be God, or part of a God-head.

For the purpose of this discussion, I’m willing to accept that the OT Jews were not Trinitarians and that Jesus clarified the true nature of God while here on earth. (and that the later Jewish Christians became Trinitarians as a result of this new awareness.)

So, were the OT Jews Trinitarians? (and if so, why aren’t modern Jews Trintarians?) Can you make a case from the OT?

2

Would you consider that telling, given the (logistically difficult) argument by trinitarians that God is singular? Christians who believe in the trinity still believe themselves to be monotheistic, so a singular God is still a requirement.

3

Yea, I guess. But of course that gets to the dichotomy of the trinity; the heart of the apparent confusion. (explained as a great mystery) (logistically difficult, as you put it)

But then we still don’t have God presenting himself as part of a 3 part God-head, anywhere in the OT.

4

Agreed. I think it’s just the most handwavable example in the OP, since trinitarian Christians would say, “Of course he doesn’t!”

Interesting topic, though!

5

Though, interestingly enough the Holy Spirit is referenced in the OT.

Isaiah 63:10-11 (NIV):

The question becomes what did the OT Jews consider to be this Holy Spirit and is it consistent with how Christians may see it.

6

Bear in mind that the capital letters were added by the translator. In Jewish terms, God’s “holy spirit” is simply a divine quality, like God’s wisdom or God’s might. It’s not a separate entity.

7

Well, there’s Genesis 3:

And Genesis 11:

Interpret those as you will.

8

And Genesis 1:26:

9

Trinitarianism is a Christian concept, not a Jewish one. I don’t think you’ll find anybody who claims that Jews are or ever were trinitarian.

10

In the Hebrew (forget about English translations), God is often referred to in plural in the Old Testament: the word Elohim (usually translated as God) is actually a plural noun, and can be used in reference to (for instance) the “gods of Egypt.” Most Hebrew scholars agree that the use of the plural by a sovereign was pretty common, even back in Old Testament times (think of Queen Victoria using “we” to refer to herself.) However, Christians trying to convert Jews sometimes use the argument that the Hebrew text alludes to the trinity.

raindog, I think your assessment of the early Christians within Judaism is only accurate for the first few decades. Prior to Paul, you are reasonably correct that the argument about whether Jesus was the Messiah was within Judaism. Once Paul came along, Christianity took a very different direction, and the early Christians separated themselves from Judaism. My impression is that the notion of God as three-in-one comes later. The earliest Jews who wanted to accept Jesus did not think of the Messiah as God, but as a human redeemer (part of the debate at that time was that the Messiah was thought to be a military hero who would shake off Roman rule.)

11

I can’t imagine anyone putting forth the notion that any Jews prior to the development of Christianity were Trinitarians. Even early Christian writings, (Paul), start out with no explicitly Trinitarian expressions and only appear to develop a Trinitarian belief in later works.

Any claims that pre-Christian Jews had some sort of Trinitarian belief is most likely an effort by some Christian to project Christian beliefs onto the past. The vast majority of Christians recognize that a belief in the Trinity originated with Christianity.

12

It’s lucky the Christians didn’t end up revering the Father, Son and the Good Haircut.

13

However, we also have a character who shows up from Genesis onward, especially in Torah, but also in Joshua, Zechariah, etc. who is called “the angel of YHWH” and yet also speaks as YHWH, calls himself YHWH, and apparently even accepts worship as YHWH. Jewish explanations for this range from “angels speaking as prophets- humans who YHWH authorized to speak for Himself” to “angels are not individual beings but situational theophanies” to “there exists a special angel- the Metatron aka the lesser YHWH”- Trinitarian Christians often point to this being as The Divine Son.

And then there is also this- Isaiah 59…

15 Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.

16 And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.

17 For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke.

18 According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence.

19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.

20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.

21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

To me, this is a prophecy of the Incarnation- that YHWH God has no reliable human to redeem His people, so He’s putting on the armor & doing it Himself.

Flash forward to Revelation 5…

2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereo

5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

14

I think this is a perfect example of where a belief in the trinity precedes the text, and so the trinity doctrine is imputed into texts that don’t explicitly, or even remotely implicitly, support it.

Do these texts say----explicitly or implicitly without a prior belief in the trinity------say anything more than God was not alone, and had help? Anything?

If you, me and tomndebb were building a deck and I said, “Ok, let’s get to work”, would it be reasonable to assume we were the same person? Of course not.

The bible indicates that the heavens and the creation of angelic creatures preceded the creation of mankind. Now whether God was speaking to angels or a pre-human Jesus in Gen 1 is a different discussion. What is clear is that these texts say nothing except that God was not alone and solicited assistance.

And only a prior belief imputes the trinity onto this text, because the text doesn’t support it explicitly or implicitly.

15

I agree, but it is exceptionally common for Christians to make the implicit argument that the Jews were either trinitarians, or the seeds of trinitarianism is in the OT and perhaps not fully understood by the Jews of the OT.

My consideration of the Trinity (and rejection) has 4 considerations

  1. Did the OT support it?
  2. Did the words of Jesus in the gospels support it?
  3. Did the other writings in the NT support it?
  4. Is there a historical basis to conclude the the origins of Christian trintarianism are outside of Judaism and first century Christianity?

And so while I agree that the Trinity originates with Christianity, so does Christmas, Easter and other doctrines that have no biblical basis.

But, those are different threads.

For now, then, I’m willing to accept that the OT doesn’t support the Trinity until we can consider just what those “later works” were.

16

I agree with you, in part.

But the question of who took the Jews into what would become “Christianity” and just when that happened is outside the scope of this thread.

What is clear—and the part I largely agree with----is that for millennium prior to Jesus’s arrival the Jews were not trinitarians, up to and including Jesus’s immediate contemporaries.

Most importantly, nothing Jesus said or did changed their view. As I said, just when and how the new Christians became trinitarians is outside this discussion. But’s it’s crystal clear to me that Jesus’s disciples and the full OT----including all the writers and characters in it-----do not support the trinity.

17

I am glad Friar Ted is here. I need some sleep and so I’ll consider his response and comment mañana.

18

I know of no Christians who make an implicit argument that Jews were trinitarians. I know a number of Christians who hold that God inspired the authors of the Hebrew Scriptures to describe Him in ways that would later be shown to have predicted the later understanding of a triune God. In other words, in their view God inspired words that would be understood as monotheistic until such time as He later revealed His triune nature.

I doubt that anything that shows up in this thread is going to change that.

19

Raindog:
Came across this thread by accident, and found it interesting that you list several very valid observations about the OT.
Others have responded well regarding the acceptance of the doctrine coming later; I did some research about the ‘when’, ‘why’, and ‘how’ of this, and came across info that explained that after the apostles passed on, cults and differing theologies arose, many “-isms” that finally congealed under emperor Constantine into what is now the ‘trinity’. I also found that at the council of Nicea, where the most famous ‘creed’ originated, the consensus of opinion about this, was the result of a brawl/riot. To the victors went the title of being ‘right’.(!!) Regardless, what man has put forth as a doctrine, is an invention of their imagination. (You can do a search in Scripture to see what the validity of man’s imagination is).
I didn’t see a lot of references to Scriptures in the posts’ replies, except for the obligatory ones that are brought up to try to prove a pre-Christ trinity; but a reading of Isaiah’s middle chapters, (ch 35-45?), show a preponderance of verses that say that YHVH is ‘alone’ as God.
Rather than examine what OT Scriptures say about the anomalies that seemingly contradict the ‘one-ness’ of God, it is easier to imagine that God was using royal-speak; (We/Us = I/Me).
Yes, Elohim is a plural noun, and when used not in reference to YHVH, it is plural, godS. However, when referring to YHVH, it encompasses all the attributes of GOD, that excel beyond what man can comprehend; His Love, His Mercy, His righteousness, His Just-ness, His Omnipotence, and Might, et al. There are so may facets to Him, that the plurality of power and excellence is embodied in Elohim. That is at the heart of the First commandment; ‘make no image…’
I am both surprised and pleased that there are still people who question this doctrine, about God vs Gods. If I sound arrogant, please remember, God has sons; he doesn’t have grandsons. If anyone wants to be a son, they enter into the endeavor mentioned in Gen 1:26, “…Let Us make man…” its a joint venture, you and HIM, to bring you into a position to be His ‘Joint-heir’, with Christ.
Be well, be diligent, be steadfast in Truth.

20

Several people have hinted at the truth, without seeming to fully realize it.

Unlike English, which has only singular and plural, Hebrew has singular, dual, and plural.

As other people have pointed out, “Elohim” is a plural word–which means that it refers to at least three items. And yet, God refers to Himself as singular. One example of this, out of very many, is Micah 6:4–“For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.”

Now I realize that the early Jews probably didn’t realize the significance of this. Many things relating to God were hidden, or partially so, in the Old Testament that became clear in the New Testament. Nevertheless, this is absolute proof of the Trinity. Even if there were no other mention of the Trinity anywhere in the Bible, this one fact alone would constitute unassailable proof. There is no other logical explanation for how a plural word can take a singular pronoun.