Christ Says, I Am Coming Like A Thief: In Other Words, Like A Criminal

Christ Says, “I Am Coming like a Thief”: In Other Words, like a Criminal

By Author Eli Kittim

The first point I’d like to make is that “there is no one who understands” Scripture (Rom. 3:11). Deuteronomy 21 declares that “someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole” (v. 22), and further states that “anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse” (v. 23). And yet, Galatians 3:13 maintains that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.’” Moreover, Christ explicitly identifies himself with the snake mentioned in the Book of Numbers when he says, “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up” (Jn. 3:14). Remember that the snake gave life, but only to those who beheld it: “So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived” (Num. 21:9). In other words, Christ is portrayed as a criminal (i.e., a snake, which represents a sinner) who is under God’s curse.

In his commentary on the Letter to the Galatians, Martin Luther wrote:

“All the prophets of old said that Christ should be the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, blasphemer that ever was or ever could be on earth. When he took the sins of the whole world upon himself, Christ was no longer an innocent person. . . . In short, Christ was charged with the sins of all men, that he should pay for them with his own blood. The curse struck him. The Law found him among sinners. He was not only in the company of sinners. He had gone so far as to invest himself with the flesh and blood of sinners. So the Law judged and hanged him for a sinner.”

This means that all the sins that have ever been committed throughout human history are put on the back of Jesus. Pastor Matt Richard writes,

“And then to top it off God judged Jesus to be GUILTY for the whole package. . . . The weight of that, the horror, the dread and the enormity of it all is incomprehensible. It caused Jesus to cry out to his Father, ‘My God.... Why have you forsaken me?’ . . . . As repulsive as it may sound to us, only in this truth—that Jesus became SIN—is our hope and our salvation found.”

Second Corinthians 5:21 provides the basis for this interpretation. It reads, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us.” However, when we look at the Greek text (Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed.), it reads: τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν (2 Cor. 5:21). The word ἐποίησεν is based on the verb ποιέω (poieó), which means to “make,” to “produce” (G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, p. 1107) or to “do.” It does not mean “to be,” as in the alternative translation: “God made him . . . to be sin for us” (cf. Jn 4:46 where ἐποίησεν means “made” water into wine). Thus, the correct reading of 2 Cor. 5:21 is as follows: “in our behalf He did make sin” (Young's Literal Translation). The Good News Translation—which reads, “God made him share our sin”—is far closer to the YLT and the original Greek text than the NIV, NASB or the KJV. Nevertheless, even the mainstream rendering of ἐποίησεν (i.e., “to be sin”) implies that Christ became “sin,” so to speak, by taking upon him our fallen, sinful nature: “He became like a human being and appeared in human likeness” (Phil. 2:7). How else could he be “fully human in every way” (Heb. 2:17), share our humanity (Heb. 2:14) and be tempted if he doesn’t have a sin nature? (cf. the Infancy Gospel of Thomas). You cannot tempt someone who, by definition, is incapable of being tempted: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are” (Heb. 4:15). In this regard, 2 Peter 3:15—16 poignantly notes that “Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures.”

Sin is evil. If Christ became sin, or made sin, then Christ became evil in some sense via the incarnation because he took on our nature and became a sinner. Kenneth Copeland rightly asks: “Why did Moses raise a serpent instead of a lamb?” John Chrysostom, an important Early Church Father, writes: “God allowed His Son to suffer as if a condemned sinner . . .” (Homily on 1 Cor. 11:5). That is why Christ is punished; because “the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6). And, according to the gospel narratives, Jesus is arrested, tried, condemned to death, and later executed as a criminal (i.e. an enemy of the state)!

But the real question is, did this happen in Antiquity or is God “declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done”? (Isa. 46:10). Revelation 12:5 suggests that Christ’s incarnation is a future event that takes place in the end-times. First Peter 1:20 similarly says, “God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but he has now revealed him to you in these last days” (cf. Heb. 1:1—2). What’s more, Hebrews 9:26 explicitly states: “Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” The NIV says that his death takes place “at the culmination of the ages,” while the NASB puts it, “at the consummation of the ages.” The NRSV associates Christ’s sacrifice with the end-times by rendering it “at the end of the age.” The Greek text is as follows: ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς ἀθέτησιν [τῆς] ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται. Lampe defines the word συντελείᾳ as ‘consummation’ (i.e. the ultimate end), particularly in reference to Heb. 9:26 συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων and Mt.13:39 συντελείᾳ τοῦ αἰῶνος. Appropriately, the NJB equates Christ’s initial appearance on earth with the last days. It reads: “He was marked out before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time” (1 Pet. 1:20).

Let us now try to understand the meaning of the phrase, “I am coming like a thief!” (Rev. 16:15). In Matthew 24:43, a thief is depicted as one who breaks into a house to steal another person's property. He is commonly known as a burglar and is considered to be a criminal. Here is “Martin Luther’s Commentary on Galatians 3:13: Christ, The Greatest Of Sinners?”

(Galatians 3:13. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written: Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree)

“It was appropriate for Him to become a thief and, as Isaiah says (53:12), to be 'numbered among the thieves.'" Similarly, C. H. Spurgeon’s sermon, “Christ Made Sin”—which was on 2 Corinthians 5:21: “For He has made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us”—echoes the words of Martin Luther. He exclaims:

“He bound His only begotten Son to the pillar and scourged and bruised Him! Sooner than sin should go unpunished, He put that sin upon Christ and punished Him—oh, how tremendously and with what terrific strokes! . . . And upon His Son He laid a tremendous, incomprehensible weight, till the griefs of the dying Redeemer utterly surpassed all our imagination or comprehension!”

In summary, Christ is “numbered among the thieves” (Isa. 53.12) and has “become a curse for us—for it is written: Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree” (Gal. 3:13). He becomes the snake of Num. 21:9 (cf. Jn. 3:14), signifying a criminal (i.e., a sinner) who is under God’s curse. And according to the gospel narratives, he is in fact convicted of a crime: he’s arrested, tried, and condemned to death. If this story is played out in the end-times (cf. Heb. 9:26; 1 Pet. 1:20; Rev. 12:5), and if the word ἐποίησεν (2 Cor. 5:21) means that Christ "did make sin" rather than "be sin," then the exegesis of Rev. 16:15—“I come like a thief”—suggests a literal interpretation, namely, that we should expect Christ to come like a criminal; that is to say, like a thief!

The Trinity in the Hebrew Bible

By Author Eli Kittim

Despite the misleading objections of Judaism and Islam to the Christian concept of the Trinity, there is compelling evidence that a multiplicity of divine persons exists in the Hebrew Bible, as we find in Prov. 30.3-4, Gen. 35.1-7, as well as in Gen. 31.10-13, in which the Angel of the Lord is identified as God, no less! Note also the multi-personal God in Eccles. 12:1 (YLT):

“Remember also thy Creators in days of thy youth.”

Similarly, there are 2 YHWHs in Genesis 19.24 in the Hebrew text:

“Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.”

There are actually 2 persons called YHWH in the above verse. One YHWH is on the earth, standing nearby Sodom and Gomorrah. The other YHWH is in the heavens. It is reminiscent of the two Lords in Psalm 110.1:

“The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.' “

In another mysterious passage, the creator of heaven and earth is speaking and surprisingly ends his speech by saying, “the Lord God has sent me." Isaiah 48.12--16 reads:

“Listen to me, O Jacob,  and Israel, whom I called: I am He; I am the first,  and I am the last. My hand laid the foundation of the earth,  and my right hand spread out the heavens;

when I summon them,  they stand at attention.

Assemble, all of you, and hear!  Who among them has declared these things?

The Lord loves him;  he shall perform his purpose on Babylon,  and his arm shall be against the Chaldeans.

I, even I, have spoken and called him,  I have brought him, and he will prosper in his way.

Draw near to me, hear this!  From the beginning I have not spoken in secret,  from the time it came to be I have been there.

And now the Lord God has sent me and his spirit.”

——-

While critics of the Triune God use Deut. 6:4 (The Shema) as a declaration of monotheism, this verse may also refer to a plurality of divine persons within the singular Godhead. The verse essentially reads:

Hear Israel, Yahweh Elohenu Yahweh is one.

It Mentions God 3 times and then declares that he [is] one (echad). Besides mentioning God 3 times, the verse also uses the plural form ĕ·lō·hê·nū to suggest numerically more than one person. It’s tantamount to saying, Israel, pay attention to my declaration about our God: one plus one plus one equals one (or 3 in 1)! Or, Yahweh, Elohenu, Yahweh = One (monotheism)! Elohenu is a noun - masculine plural construct - first person common plural.

Moreover, notice that Yahweh is not called qadosh (singular for ‘holy’) but qə·ḏō·šîm (plural) in Joshua 24.19 as well as in Prov. 9.10:

“The commencement of wisdom is the fear of Jehovah, And a knowledge of the Holy Ones is understanding.”

Hence the plurality in the meaning of the Hebrew term for God, which is “Elohim" (Gen. 1.1), not to mention the multiplicity of divine persons in Gen. 1.26, "Let US make man in OUR image" (emphasis added).

——-

As for the distinction of the third person of the Trinity, namely, the Holy Spirit, besides 2 Sam. 23.2-3, read Isaiah 63.10-11:

“But they rebelled and grieved his holy spirit; therefore he became their enemy; he himself fought against them. Then they remembered the days of old, of Moses his servant. Where is the one who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock? Where is the one who put within them his Holy Spirit . . . ?”

——-

Conclusion

Thus, the above-mentioned verses in the Hebrew Scriptures clearly support the theological concept of a multi-personal God——that is to say, a plurality of persons within the singular Godhead, otherwise known as the Trinity, which comprises three persons but one being: One God, yet three coeternal, consubstantial persons (hypostases). These three persons are said to be distinct, yet are nevertheless one "substance, essence or nature" (homoousios).

In other words, the Hebrew Scriptures further substantiate the theological notion of the triune God.

First Peter 1.10-11 Suggests An Eschatological Soteriology

By Author Eli Kittim

"Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow" (1 Peter 1.10-11 NIV).

BIBLE EXEGESIS

First, notice that the prophets (Gk. προφῆται) in the aforementioned passage are said to have the Spirit of Christ (Gk. Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ) within them, thereby making it abundantly clear that they are prophets of the New Testament (NT), since there's no reference to the Spirit of Christ in the Old Testament (OT). That they were NT prophets is subsequently attested by verse 12 with its reference to the gospel:

"It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven."

Second, the notion that 1 Peter 1.10-11 is referring to NT as opposed to OT prophets is further established by way of the doctrine of salvation (Gk. σωτηρίας), which is said to come through the means of grace! This explicit type of Soteriology (namely, through grace; Gk. χάριτος) cannot be found anywhere in the OT.

Third, and most importantly, observe that "the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow" were actually "PREDICTED" (Gk. προμαρτυρόμενον; i.e., testified beforehand) by "the Spirit of Christ" (Gk. Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ; presumably a reference to the Holy Spirit) and communicated to the NT prophets so that they might record them for posterity's sake (cf. v. 12). Therefore, the passion of Christ was seemingly written in advance——or prophesied, if you will——according to this NT passage!

Here's Further Evidence that the Gospel of Christ is Promised Beforehand in the New Testament

In the undermentioned passage, notice that it was "the gospel concerning his Son" "which he [God] promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures." This passage further demonstrates that these are NT prophets, since there's no reference to "the gospel (Gk. εὐαγγέλιον) of God . . . concerning his Son" in the OT:

"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son" (Romans 1.1-3 NRSV).

Also, Paul’s letters are referred to as “Scripture” in 2 Pet. 3.16, while Luke’s gospel is referred to as “Scripture” in 1 Tim. 5.18!

Was James the Brother of Jesus?

Eli Kittim (Author)

——-

Given that Josephus didn’t believe in Jesus, he wouldn’t have written “the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ.” So, it’s very likely that the James passage in book 20 of Antiquities is, at the very least, a partial interpolation.

This phraseology smacks of redaction as Josephus supposedly uses NT messianic terminology to refer to Jesus as the Christ! The purpose of the interpolation is seemingly to establish James both as a historical figure and as “the brother of Jesus.”

In fact, scholars such as Tessa Rajak and G. A. Wells, among others, have argued against the authenticity of the James passage for various reasons. Not to mention that there are conflicting reports between Josephus and other early Christian writers regarding both James’ type of death and time of death, which leaves a lot of room for conjecture and speculation.

——-

The scholarly preoccupation with James is so complicated and confusing that it has taken on a life of its own. Personally, I think it’s a circular argument. It probably started out as a simple acknowledgement on the part of Josephus of the NT writings and ended up as an elaborate conspiracy theory that fueled much scholarly debate. There are quite a few people called “James” in the Scriptural record, and many early interpretations give rise to wild speculations and cases of mistaken identity. For ex, James, son of Alphaeus is said to have been stoned to death. The similarity of his purported martyrdom to that of James the Just, has led some scholars, notably James Tabor and Robert Eisenman, to assume that these “two Jameses” were one and the same. This specific identification of James, son of Alphaeus with James the Just, as well as James the Less, has been asserted since medieval times. Obviously, these presuppositions lead to divergent interpretations. There is also much scholarly disagreement about James’ exact relationship to Jesus.

——-

Archaeological findings do not support a historical James either. We know, for example, that the James Ossuary is a forgery.

——-

Surprisingly, however, there is wide attestation to James from Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius of Salamis, Jerome, the apocryphal works of the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of Thomas, and so on. But we need to put these findings in perspective. Many of these writers come from centuries later, and they’re doing Midrash (interpretation), irrespective of whether the James story is historical or not, much like men of letters who have expounded on works of Shakespeare throughout the centuries. So, the wide attestation to Hamlet, for example, doesn’t mean that he’s a real, factual, historical person. Thus, despite its wide attestation, the story of Hamlet is still a legend.

——-

According to the gospel narratives themselves, there is strong evidence that James was NOT the brother of Jesus, so that no matter what Josephus wrote, it was wrong. Even if the James passage in Book 20 turns out to be authentic, which I seriously doubt, it would still be false contextually and linguistically because Josephus suggests a biological blood-relationship between James and Jesus, which is unwarranted according to the sitz im leben of the gospels.

Both the Church Fathers and the Gospels reveal who the so-called “brothers” of Jesus are

Here are the proofs:

Mt. 13.53-57 names the so-called “brothers” of Jesus: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.

There are scholarly debates about the precise relationship of these men to Jesus that goes back to the Patristic Fathers.

We also know that the term “brother” can be employed to convey the meaning of “cousin” or “ nephew (see Gen. 13 & 14).

In Jn. 19, just before his death, when Jesus entrusts the safekeeping of Mary to John, it seems highly unlikely that Jesus would’ve done this if he was survived by his brothers, such as James. It would’ve been their obligation to take care of their mother.

Mt. 27.55-56 references Mary, the mother of James and Joseph (who were mentioned back in Mt. 13.55 as the so-called “brothers” of Jesus).

Mt. 27.59-61 depicts the so-called other Mary (mother of James & Joseph), who is obviously not Mary, the mother of Jesus. This implies that James and Joseph cannot possibly be the sons of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

In other words, even from the point of view of the allegorical narratives, James and Joseph cannot be portrayed as the brothers of Jesus.

In Jn. 19.25 Mary, the mother of Jesus is clearly distinguished from her “sister” Mary, the wife of Clopas. It demonstrates that the terms “brother” or “sister” don’t necessarily mean a blood-brother or blood-sister but rather a relative of some kind——perhaps even a brother in the faith.

——-

External Evidence

Eusebius, Church History, 4.22.4: Simon, who was earlier mentioned as the “brother” of Jesus, turns out to be a cousin.

Eusebius, Church History, 3.11-12: Here we have, once again, a reference to cousins.

Eusebius, Church History, 3.32.1-6: Judas, the so-called “brother” of Jesus also turns out to be a cousin.

——-

Summary

Therefore, both the internal and external evidence demonstrate that James could not have been the biological brother of Jesus in any sense, whether literal or historical.

——-

Historical Jesus Vs Eschatological Jesus: On the Question of the Historicity of Jesus

The Two Powers of the Godhead Were Part of Judaism During the Time of Jesus

Eli Kittim (Goodreads Author)

——-

Metatron and Jesus

The early Jewish concept of “Metatron”——(He who is said to be above the angels, either consubstantial with the Ancient of days or perhaps a manifestation of his very being) as referenced by Medieval Rabbinic scholars and also found in the Babylonian Talmud and 3 Enoch——is very similar to the messianic figure of Jesus Christ in the New Testament (NT) and is suggestive of two powers in the Godhead, an idea also attested by Philo of Alexandria (see “Confusion of Tongues" pp. 62-63 and pp. 146-47; “On Dreams" 1.215). The notion of the two powers in Heaven in early Jewish thinking has recently attracted the attention of both Christian and Jewish scholarship. Peter Schafer, the noted religious studies scholar, has written extensively on this subject emphasizing that, according to Jewish writings, Metatron was seen as a lesser yhwh and was prevalent in Jewish thought in the first century, and thus helped Christianity to chalk up that designation to Jesus.

——-

The Two Powers in Heaven in the Hebrew Bible

The two powers of the Godhead or the plurality in the Godhead is certainly suggested in Hebrew scripture where there seem to be two Yahwehs, one visible, the other invisible, and they often participate in the same scenes together. In fact, according to Alan F. Segal’s book “Two powers in Heaven,” “the idea of the 2nd power was not considered heretical until the 2nd century CE.” Alan Segal was a Jewish man and professor of Jewish and Talmudic literature. So, the concept of the two powers of the Godhead was part of Judaism at the time of Jesus and only became a heresy sometime around 100 CE. Scholars suggest it was probably due to an attempt on the part of Judaism to oppose Christianity that they suddenly decided to consider it heretical. Naturally, this second YHWH was seen as Jesus by the NT authors.

——-

There are 2 YHWHs in the Old Testament (OT)

The divine plurality was not a huge problem at that time because there was already a belief in two powers in Jewish thought. There are, for example, two Yhwhs in Gen. 19.24. You can also see this idea in Gen. 22.11-12; Exod. 3.2, 4; 23.20-21; Deut. 12.5, 11. In Amos 4.11, God speaks in the first person and then curiously refers to God in the 3d person. In Judg. 2.1-4, the angel of YHWH is using first person language and speaks as if he’s God who has made a covenant with Israel. Astoundingly, in Gen. 31.10-13, the angel of God reveals himself as the God of Bethel. How could he be both the angel of God and God himself at one and the same time unless we’re talking about two different persons? Similarly, in Judg. 6.11-16, the passage begins with the angel of YHWH who said x y and z but ends with YHWH who said x y and z. In other words, as the angel of YHWH begins to speak he is then identified with YHWH himself speaking in the first person.

——-

YHWH revealed as the Word of the Lord

Further examples are found in 1 Samuel 3.1, 7-8, 10, 19-21. In 1 Samuel 3.21, for instance, we are told that the LORD (YHWH) revealed himself by/as the word of the Lord. This has profound theological implications. It clearly suggests that the Logos in Jn 1.1 (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”) is neither a new idea nor a Christian invention but rather a conceptual derivation from Jewish theology that is contained within the OT itself. Similarly, in Jeremiah 1.4-7, Jeremiah says that “the word of the Lord came to me saying,” such and such, and then he refers to him as YHWH, but in v. 9 “the word of the Lord” that had come to him appears to be embodied because an actual hand reaches out and touches Jeremiah’s mouth, suggestive of the embodied word of God.

——-

The OT YHWH embodied in human form

In Daniel 7.13 “a human being coming with the clouds of heaven” is mentioned even though traditionally it is said to be God who rides the clouds (cf. Deut. 33.26; Ps. 68.32-33; 104.1-3; Isa. 19.1). Thus, we have a visible, embodied, incarnate God as well as an invisible God at one and the same time! We all thought that the cloud-rider was Yahweh. That’s correct. But now we find another person, a human being who takes on the qualities and attributes of Yahweh. In fact, the Matthean Jesus quotes this very passage during his purported trial (26.63-65) when Caiphas inquires to know who he really is. According to Alan Segal’s book, Daniel 7 is describing “a heavenly enthronement scene involving two divine manifestations, ‘the son of man’ and then Ancient of Days’ . . . it may easily be describing two separate, divine figures.”

——-

Jesus is unique amongst the heavenly host

While it is true that the Tanach presents other so-called “sons of God” who are not human (e.g. Job 1-2; Ps. 82.1, 6), Jesus is distinguished from them in that he is clearly identified with Yahweh per se. The NT itself makes this point in various ways. One way that the NT distinguishes Jesus from the other sons of God, which the Septuagint often translates as angels (Deut. 32.8 LXX), is through the Greek term monogenēs, a term that is translated in English as “Only Begotten.” Etymologically, this term is a combination of monos (“only”) and gene (“type” or “kind”). In other words, one of a kind. There are none like him. It means he’s “unique.” It does not have anything to do with the concepts of “begetting” or “beginning.” Hebrews 11.17 is the proof-text which clarifies this point because Isaac is also referenced there as the monogenes of Abraham. But we know that Isaac was not the only begotten son of Abraham. Ergo, it means that Isaac is unique.

——-

Summary:

Thus the “Only begotten” language refers to uniqueness, not to a “point of origin” or to a beginning. Given that Yahweh is unique and that Jesus is identified with him, this term stresses an intimate relationship between the two. The NT affirms a divine plurality and specifically Christ’s ontological link with Yahweh. In fact, Jude 1.5 suggests that it was Jesus himself who led the people out of Egypt!

——-

What about the Spirit and the Trinity?

The Holy Spirit becomes distinct as a separate entity already in the OT, as when it is said that the people rebelled not against the angel of the Lord but against “his Holy Spirit.” It’s noteworthy that later the text alludes to God “who brought them out of the sea” and “put in the midst of them his Holy Spirit” (Isaiah 63.10, 11). But wasn’t the angel of the Lord put in the midst of them, according to other passages? Well, yes. But there’s more to the story. Psalm 78.40-41 is a parallel passage. The words “rebelled” and “grieved” in Ps 78 are the same Hebrew words used in the Isaian passage. The Isaian passage says that the people rebelled and grieved “his Holy Spirit” whereas Ps 78 says that “they rebelled against him [God] and grieved him in the desert.” Verse 41 goes on to say that “They tested God again and again and provoked the Holy One of Israel.” The comparison of the two passages aligns or conflates the Holy Spirit with God and yet shows a distinction between them. In fact, Ps. 78.41 says that they tempted God and the Holy One of Israel. This is a case where two divine powers are mentioned in the same scene while one figure that we’re familiar with is clearly absent, to wit, the angel of the Lord. A third element is thus added to the two-power structure of the Godhead, namely, the Holy Spirit or the Holy One of Israel, according to the parallel passage. That’s “three-thinking” language. Accordingly, the NT authors knew their Hebrew Scriptures extraordinarily well. They were very familiar with its thematic material. So, they’re not inventing new concepts. They’re actually borrowing their ideas from the OT.

——-

A Trinitarian narrative in OT theology

By way of illustration, Ezek. 8 introduces “a form that had the appearance of a man” (v. 1), and then goes on to describe this figure in v. 2, which is suggestive of God sitting on his throne in Ezek. ch. 1. But here God appears in human form. Ezekiel says that “He put out the form of a hand” by which he grabbed his hair (v. 3). But who actually lifted him up? Ezekiel says, “and the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven (v. 3). The text then reverts to speaking about God in the 3rd person (v. 5) and also in the first person in verse 6.

So, in this passage we have God himself speaking, but we also have an embodied God in human form (akin to the figure in Ezek. ch. 1) as well as the “Spirit” acting as an independent agent and yet as part of the Godhead. This must have been extremely confusing to the early rabbinical scholars who probably couldn't make heads or tails of these passages. To the NT authors, who were also guided by divine revelations, these passages were obviously trinitarian in nature. Thus, there appears to be a theological correspondance between the *OT-God* (comprising the two YHWHs and the Spirit) and the *NT-God* (consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). These divine modes were certainly prevalent in OT theology concerning the Two (and possibly Three) Powers in the Godhead.

——-

Conclusion

The Jewish Bible clearly suggests a plurality in the Godhead (i.e. Yahweh as two figures).

The so-called “Name” of God is yet another reference to Yahweh and this “Name” is said to be in the Angel of Yahweh as well. Ergo, we cannot escape the semantic trajectory of OT theology, namely, the running narrative that the Angel is YHWH in human form, or the visible manifestation of Yahweh. What is more, the so-called “Word of the Lord” appears to be an embodiment of YHWH. In fact, the theology of the Jewish Bible depicts the second Yahweh figure as physically embodied in human form. And, as already mentioned, the theology of first-century Judaism already contained the notion that Yahweh is present in two persons, often in the same scene.