The Trinity In The Hebrew Bible

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.

#Interview_with_Eli_Kittim #Author_of_The_Little_Book_of_Revelation https://rhondapattonauthor.wordpress.com/2018/07/06/welcome-author-eli-of-kittim/

Did You Know that the Name Yahweh Is Never Once Mentioned in the New Testament?

By Author Eli Kittim

Jesus never once translated the Old Testament (OT) name of God as Yahweh, nor did the rest of the New Testament (NT) writers. They always translated it as "Lord" (Gk. kurios). This has profound theological implications. It means that Jesus is the "LORD" to whom our worship should be exclusively directed! And that represents the essential revelation of the NT, namely, that Jesus Christ is Lord!

Accordingly, those who still claim that God's name is "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" (a Latinization of the Hebrew YHWH) are in error. That's the whole point of the NT, namely, the revelation of God in Jesus Christ! After all, salvation in Christianity is based on invoking the name of Jesus, not Yahweh. In John 14.6, Jesus declares:

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Acts 4.12 says categorically and unequivocally:

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.

We should of course accept the OT as an inspired book, and, yes, Jesus is considered to be Yahweh, the Great I Am of the OT, according to the NT writers. But the NT represents a new revelation about God and his name.

For example, in the NT, Jesus is never called by a Hebrew name, such as yeshua hamashiach. Rather, he is known by his Greek name: Iésous Christos. Keep in mind that the original NT was not written in Hebrew but in Greek!

In contrast to modern preachers----who often use the words Yahweh and Yeshua to refer to God and to Jesus in order to give the NT a Hebrew flavor----the NT writers wrote exclusively in Greek and always referred to God as Lord, and to Jesus as Iésous. These Biblical facts speak volumes about the unique message of the Greek NT and the Greek name of the Lord Jesus! Therefore, we must put a stop to all this nonsense about the Hebraization of Greek names in the NT!

Jesus Never Existed According to Christian Eschatology: He’ll be Revealed in the End-Times

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

Bart Ehrman, who believes in “an authentic nucleus,” argues that we don’t have anything whatsoever (not even a passing reference) by any contemporaneous works that mention Jesus of Nazareth. No such records exist to authenticate his historicity. So, why would anyone assume that he existed? If this assumption is based on the earliest New Testament writings, namely, the epistles, let me remind you that they come decades after the purported events and do not contain the later theology of the gospels: there are no magi, no Star of Bethlehem, no slaughter of the innocents, no flight to Egypt, no virgin birth, no infancy narratives, no genealogies, etc. On the contrary, the Epistle to the Hebrews (ca. CE 63) explicitly states that Christ will appear once and for all (άπαξ) “in the end of the world” (9.26b KJV) to sacrifice himself as an atonement for the sins of the world. First Peter 1.20 similarly demonstrates that this is his first visitation because it says that even though he was foreknown from the foundation of the world, he “was REVEALED at the final point of time” (NJB emphasis added)! I’d like to ask why modern scholarship does not accept this EXPLICIT eschatological chronology (as found in Hebrews 9.26b and 1 Peter 1.20) regarding the initial coming and atonement of Christ?

—————

That’s precisely why Paul says that he’s born “at the wrong time” (1 Cor. 15.8 CSB) or beforehand insofar as the temporal order of the event pertaining to Christ is concerned. That’s odd. If Christ came first, followed by Paul, then we would expect Paul to come after Christ, not before. Yet Paul suggests that he’s born before the time. The word used in the Greek text is εκτρώματι, derived from the noun έκτρωμα, which is defined as an abortion and generally interpreted as an untimely birth. In other words, Paul indicates that his birth is BEFORE the right time, not after——just as an abortion occurs before the time of birth, not after. Yet, according to our historical presuppositions, Paul didn’t come before, but AFTER, Christ. By drawing an analogy between miscarriage and the epoch in which he lived, Paul is trying to impress on us the notion that he is born at the wrong time. This would strongly suggest that Jesus was not a historical figure who preceded Paul.

—————

If we want to further understand the precise temporal and linguistic context indicated by the New Testament text, we have to be extremely careful when interpreting phrases like “Christ died,” which appear to be references to past history. For example, a close reading is definitely required for Rom. 5.6 because the Greek text implies that Christ died at some unspecified time of human history (e.g. in a transhistorical context) by using the phrase κατά καιρόν, which means “at the right time” or at “the proper time,” and does not necessarily warrant a reference to history. It’s like saying that Christ died at some point in human history, without specifying when. In Rom. 5.6, the verb ἀπέθανεν (died) is an aorist indicative active, 3rd person singular. It means “to be dying,” “be about to die,” etc. In koine Greek, the aorist tense portrays the action in summary fashion without reference to the way it actually unfolds in time, and without any specific qualification. That’s why in 1 Tim. 2.6 the author says that the testimony will come in due time or at the proper time (the future is indicated). We often take for granted the phrase “Christ died for our sins.” We suppose that a literal-historical interpretation is appropriate and valid. But is that the correct exegetical approach? For ex, Paul says:

“For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” (1 Cor. 15.3 NRSV).

A close reading of this verse indicates that Paul is not referring to history proper but to written documents (i.e. “Apocalyptic literature”). He claims that he handed on what he himself received, to wit, prophetic writings (γραφάς) about Christ’s death, resurrection, and so on. Therefore, at least in 1 Cor. 15.3, the phrase “Christ died” seems to be in a transhistorical context precisely because Christ’s death was already known in advance and written in the prophetic writings which Paul received, as opposed to the common view that presupposes a literal death occurring in history. The typical objection that it is written in past tense changes absolutely nothing. Isaiah 53 is also written in past tense even though the account is decidedly prophetic! Similarly, Acts 2.23 reads:

“this man, handed over to you according to the definite PLAN and FOREKNOWLEDGE of God, you crucified and killed” (NRSV emphasis added).

Question: how was this man crucified and killed? Answer: “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” In other words, this man was killed not according to history per se but according to the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. A “foreknowledge” is by definition a knowledge of something before it happens or exists. So, if he was killed prior to the actual event itself, he was not killed at all. We have simply confused prophetic literature with history.

—————

Most of the evidence is really against the historicity of Jesus, including that derived from the messianic expectations of the Jews who, according to their scriptures, believe that the Messiah will appear for the first time at the end of the world! So, what’s the main reason scholars believe in an authentic nucleus? Answer: Josephus! Yet we don’t really know what the Testimonium Flavianum would have looked like prior to the interpolations. And there’s another problem regarding intertextuality: namely, literary dependence. The New Testament writings were circulating long before Josephus’ Book (Antiquities of the Jews; ca. CE 94) was published. Josephus would have been presumably familiar with the New Testament texts and might have reiterated some of the material therein. Given that he thought of himself as a historian, he must’ve felt obliged to report these purported events. But that wouldn’t constitute factual history, and the same could be said about his references to Jesus and John the Baptist. Moreover, he was not an eyewitness and his so-called “testimony” is far too removed from the purported events to have any bearing. If we can’t learn much of anything about the so-called historical Jesus through the earlier unknown evangelists who never met him or heard him speak, how could a later writer, from the close of the first century, possibly demonstrate his historicity beyond dispute? He cannot! What is truly strange is that scholars typically reject the historicity of many biblical patriarchs——including Noah, Abraham, and Moses——but surprisingly support Jesus’ historicity probably because a non-historical Christ would put them out of business! It would mean that they have spent their entire lives studying someone who never existed!

—————

Islam’s Denial of Jesus’ Crucifixion 2000y ago might be closer to the truth:

“It Was Made to Appear Like that to Them” (Q4:157).

—————

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.