The OT and the Trinity

[Aaron]

Ok, so the Trinitarian/Unitarian debate (Trinitarian Versus Unitarian Debate at “Parchment and Pen”) has re-kindled my interest in this topic, so I decided to blow the dust off of the little I’d written so far in response to Jason and try to finish what I’d started! While it’s not as thorough as I’d like, I didn’t want to keep this thread in suspended animation for too much longer. So here’s my attempt at a “rebuttal.”

Aaron wrote:
I’m having a difficult time seeing how anything can be both “numerically one” and also “numerically more than one.” If I say, “I have one cluster of grapes,” I don’t mean “numerically more than one cluster of grapes.” “One” still means “numerically one.”

Jason wrote:
Similarly, if we say there is one YHWH of three Persons, we do not mean numerically more than one YHWH of three Persons. One still means numerically one. But the term “one” still ends up also applying to that corporate unity of multiple grapes (or persons).

Except the Shema neither says nor implies that “YHWH is numerically one YHWH of three Persons.” It says “YHWH is one,” period - which I would suggest emphasizes in the strongest language possible the utter oneness of God in every conceivable sense, and, if so, would necessarily exclude any idea of YHWH being numerically more than one (e.g., having numerically more than one will, or more than one center of consciousness).
(As an aside, there are some instances in which AeCHaD may convey the stronger idea of “only one” or “just one” - e.g., Num. 10:4; Deut 17:6; Josh. 17:14; Esth. 4:11; Isa. 51:2. But since this is not necessary to my argument, I simply mention it for your consideration)

Aaron wrote:And I stand by my statement that “while AeCHad can modify both singular and collective nouns, it never means ‘corporate singularity.’”

When a husband and wife become AeCHaD flesh, how is this AeCHaD flesh not a corporate singularity? Is this AeCHaD not corporate? Is this AeCHaD not singular? Which would you deny?

First (and as I’m sure you’d agree), this is figurative language; husband and wife do not literally become “one flesh.” This is a powerful image that speaks of the intimate bond between husband and wife. Second, AeCHaD here still means “numerically one” - not numerically more than one. The “one flesh” that husband and wife become in Gen 2:24 is indeed “one flesh” (not “one fleshes”). AeCHaD still means “numerically one.” But third (and here’s what I really want to stress) the key factor in this and other similar passages is that two or more “parts” are mentioned, such that the reader can immediately discern that there is some kind of “coming together” of the people or things mentioned. AeCHaD, in fact, must maintain its meaning of “numerically one” for these expressions to convey their intended sense. But it is this factor that is conspicuously absent from Deut. 6:4! The Shema does not say, “YHWH our God, though three, is yet one.” There is no hint of anything numerically more than one “coming together” here. No composite “parts” (or persons) that together make “one.” The verse says that YHWH our God is unequivocally “one.”

Moreover (and I may be bringing this up again later), it is a common Hebrew idiom found in the OT (and in the NT) to repeat a word (e.g., a person’s name or title) for emphasis instead of using a pronoun. While the idiom can be used with impersonal things as well (and I’d be glad to provide examples if you want), here are just a few examples where persons are in view: Gen 4:23-24; 16:16; 18:17-19; Ex 34:35; 1 Kings 2:19; 10:13; 12:21; Esther 8:8; Ezekiel 11:24 (I’ve included this verse since you believe the Spirit of God is a divine person ); Dan 3:2-3; 9:17; Ex 16:6-7; 1 Sam 3:21; 12:7; 2 Chron 7:2. Now, it’s evident that Deut. 6:4 is a clear example of this idiomatic way of speaking; the divine name YHWH is repeated for emphasis instead of the use of a pronoun. But consider this: if we were to replace the second use of the name YHWH with an appropriate pronoun, what would we use? Well, based on the kind of pronouns consistently used in reference to YHWH throughout the OT, it’s kind of a no-brainer: we would use the singular personal pronoun “he” (not “they”). So when we replace the second, emphatic use of the divine name with an appropriate pronoun, Deut 6:4 would thus read, “Hear, O Israel: YHWH our God, HE is one.” “He” is the personal pronoun that is implied here.

Thus, I think the ONLY way the Shema could not be the serious blow to trinitarian doctrine that I believe it is, is if the plural pronoun “they” were an appropriate substitute to replace (i.e., implicitly) the second emphatic use of YHWH in Deut 6:4. But it would not at all be appropriate. Throughout the OT, YHWH Elohim is an “I,” a “He,” a “Him” a “Me,” a “Myself,” etc. He is referred to, and refers to himself, as a singular person. Here’s a prime example of YHWH himself speaking (notice all the singular pronouns): “How can I give you up Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I treat you like Admah? How can I make you like Zeboiim? My heart is changed within Me; all My compassion is aroused. I will not carry out My fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. For I am God, and not man (!) – the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath” (Hos. 11:8-9). And here’s an example of people referring to YHWH: “And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces and said, ‘YHWH, He is God; YHWH, He is God’” (1King 18:39). Is there one example in the OT where we are told, “YHWH, they are God”? No, there’s not. And that’s why I think the Shema not only doesn’t support trinitarian doctrine, but stands in opposition to it.

(Interestingly, there are five instances where AeCHaD is used in the plural (AeCHaDiM): Gen. 11:1; 27:44, 29:20; Ezek. 37:17; and Dan. 11:20. AeCHaDiM is usually translated “few,” but “one” may be the best translation in Gen. 11:1 and Ezek. 37:17. In those passages, AeCHaDiM is used with plural nouns, and perhaps here does have the sense of “compound one!”)

When evening and morning are AeCHaD day, how is this AeCHaD day not a corporate singularity? Is the corporateness what you deny–and if so, which are you denying the real existence of, the evening or the morning? Or is the singularity what you deny?–the evening and the morning are multiple days and not a single day?

Again, AeCHaD here still means “numerically one” - not numerically more than one. The evening and morning are dual “components” of numerically one day.

This can be illustrated again by the fact that in many such Biblical examples, the noun being referred to by AeCHaD can be removed, without substantially altering the meaning. A husband and wife become AeCHaD. People (and nations) become AeCHaD in Israel. If somewhere in the OT we read that we are also Abraham’s seed, if we all are AeCHaD in the Angel of the Presence (or should that be if we all are AeCHaD in God?), would that mean we are all singularly-one-and-only-one person in that angel (and/or in God)? A modalist might insist “yes” (though even many modalists would not!)–but it seems to me that the answer is obviously no, we would not be singularly only one person, even though “one” would be used there without modifying a particular noun. (I have reasons for mentioning this example, which will be referenced later.)

It would mean we are all singularly and numerically one in whatever sense is meant - but obviously it would be in a figurative sense. That is, it would mean “one” in the sense of sharing a common emotional or religious bond, sharing a common purpose, or sharing the same character (etc.). To use a NT example, when Jesus says “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), the word “one” literally means “numerically one.” But it’s being used in a figurative sense, and carries the same figurative meaning as in John 17:21-23 when believers are in view (i.e., it is a “oneness” in will and purpose). Another example is when the apostle Paul speaks of he and Apollos as being “one” (1 Corinthians 3:8). That is, it means they share a common purpose. But again, literally it still means “numerically one.” AeCHaD in the OT has a fixed meaning no matter what it refers to, and that meaning is “numerically one.” But I think we’re in fundamental agreement on this; again, the main issue is, “Does the name YHWH denote numerically more than one person?” As it turns out, it doesn’t (at least, if singular personal pronouns mean anything at all). All of the singular personal pronouns used in reference to YHWH compel us to understand the Shema to mean, “YHWH our God, HE is one.” Not “they are one.”

The fact is that if there can be such a thing as a corporate singularity, and if AeCHaD can be properly used to describe such corporate singularities, then AeCHaD can mean ‘corporate singularity’. Just like ‘union’ and ‘united’, although those terms always in English include corporate singularity in their meanings. AeCHaD doesn’t always do that; but it can do that. (Unless you are prepared to deny that basic examples such as above–which could be greatly multiplied in scripture–have anything multiply corporate about them at all.) I could understand your criticism being that I left over an impression that AeCHaD is always supposed to describe compound singularities–even though I typically mention AeCHaD in context of a comparative contrast to YaCHiD. And, by the way, I never said in that draft that AeCHaD “means” or even “can mean” corporate singularity. I don’t recall exactly how we got onto that far more narrow topic–although now that we are here, I think you’re going to have trouble cogently denying that AeCHaD can mean corporate as well as absolute singularity, just like the English word “one” can mean a singular or a corporate singularity without a specific noun being modified by the “one”. (It’s still a singularity either way, it’s still “one”.)

Again, AeCHaD denotes numerical oneness and can never mean (as you said at one point) “numerically more than one.” It is the noun that is modified by AeCHad that carries any meaning of plurality or “corporality.” Any sense of “more than one” or plurality must be derived from the noun that AeCHaD is modifying - the meaning of AeCHaD itself doesn’t change. And in the case where a noun isn’t explicitly mentioned, it is either implied, or “one” is being used figuratively to mean something like “sharing a common purpose.” Either way, the literal meaning of AeCHaD is numerically one.

But so long as you agree that AeCHaD can at least describe a corporate singularity (aka a compound unity), and that AeCHaD is the term used for God’s oneness instead of a term that is never elsewhere used to describe a corporate union, then my purpose for bringing this up has been achieved.

I agree that AeCHaD can modify that which is collective or compound, but in order for it to be understood to be modifying that which is collective or compound, it must first be understood that whatever it’s modifying IS collective or compound. AeCHaD itself tells us nothing about whether or not something is collective or compound; and since all we are told in the Shema is simply that “YHWH our Elohim, YHWH (“he”!) is one” - with nothing further implied - then it seems utterly counter-intuitive (even contrary to what’s being said) to see the declaration as in any way suggesting or implying or “hinting” that YHWH is in any sense numerically more than one.

It’s admittedly a very limited purpose. But then, that’s why the digest isn’t only half a page long.
Aaron wrote:And this is where I think the multitude of singular personal pronouns used by YHWH forcefully tip the scales in favour of Unitarianism.

You mean, this is where you think the multitude of singular personal pronouns used by a not-YHWH entity pretending (with YHWH’s sanction) to be YHWH (or multiple not-YHWH entities pretending so), forcefully tip the scales in favor of Unitarianism.

I realize you added “with YHWH’s sanction” but still, I find the word “pretending” to be rather inappropriate, as it would suggest deceit and/or insincerity. When YHWH invested an angelic being with the authority to act and speak on his behalf (i.e., when YHWH’s “name” was “in him” - Ex 23:20-23) then as long as the angel had that authority, he spoke the very words of YHWH himself. Thus, when a representative agent spoke on behalf of YHWH, it was as if YHWH himself were personally present and speaking. The agent speaking is speaking the very words of YHWH, so however YHWH would speak and refer to himself is how his representative agent would speak. A representative agent functioned as one’s mouthpiece. Again, according to the Jewish understanding of agency, the agent was regarded as the person himself. In The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion under “agent” (Shaliah) we read: “The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, ‘a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself’ (Ned. 72b; Kidd. 41b). Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principal, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent complete absence of liability on the part of the agent.”
I will have more to say in regards to representative agency later, but yes, the multitude of singular personal pronouns used either by YHWH himself OR his authorized representative agents do (I think) forcibly tip the scales in favour of Unitarianism.

IV. Particular Comments About Emphatic Pluralization (or not) in the OT

Aaron wrote:In Hebrew the plural can be used for emphasis, intensity and amplification.

Admittedly so; though how many times is it used for emphasis, intensity and amplification of single personal entities? Pretty rarely, outside of God, isn’t it?

Well seeing as God is mentioned more than any other single personal entity in the Bible, of course it would be “pretty rare!” And regardless of one’s view of how many persons God is, why would we even expect it to be used frequently and as a rule for non-God personal entities? The whole point of the idiom is to intensify and emphasize a word, so of course the Jews would use the idiom when referring to the Creator of the universe as a rule instead of when referring to non-God personal entities. But the fact remains that it is used “outside of God,” and your conceding this is all my argument needs.

Now, the common characteristic of intensive plurals is that they have the plural suffix while denoting singular objects, and as a result they receive singular adjectives and verbs. Now, is this the case that we find with Elohim? Yep, overwhelmingly (and for ADNY too!). The word Elohim appears in its plural form over 2,000 times throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and in virtually every instance it has singular verbs and singular adjectives - which is exactly what we would expect if this were an example of an intensive plural and not a numerical plural. In Hebrew, a numerically plural noun has three characteristics: 1. It receives a plural suffix. 2. It receives a plural verb. 3. It receives a plural adjective. Whenever YHWH Elohim is in view (as opposed to any non-God entities), we have only 1 of these 3 characteristics met, which again is proof-positive that Elohim, as a title for YHWH, is to be understood as an intensive plural and not in any way as a numerical plural.

Considering the case of Joseph: the original non-voweled consonants are ADNY (42:30, 33), which can mean lords (adonai, plural) or lord of me (adonei, singular possessive) or lords of me (plural, also adonai) depending on how the vowels are assigned. In this case the characters (the sons of Jacob) are reporting about “the man ADNY the land”. The final vowel is not pointed like “lord of me” (compare with their address to Joseph earlier in the chapter v. 10), but neither is it exactly pointed like plural Lords (the divine title of God); but that may be setting up the prepositional phrase “of the land”.

I take it this is your way of agreeing that, “Yeah, basically the plural form of ‘lord’ is being used to refer to a human being here.”

Could the characters of the story be comparing Joseph to God Most High by use of the divine plural–and if so, why? Could it possibly be as a way of insulting him to their father? The context does have some connections to that theory. Egyptian rulers are frequently deified–which to a devoutly monotheistic Jew would be considered blasphemous. (Which has to be agreed about, leaving aside whether it would be proper for God to make an exception by assigning faux-deity status to a not-God entity, or some unknown number of such entities, and expect strict monotheists to worship any such entity as if that entity was God Most High.) And this Egyptian ruler with the power of life and death (including but not limited to his control of the grain), treated them harshly for no clear reason. Thus, rendering the gist of it, “This man, who lords over the land as if he is God Almighty, spoke harshly to us and treated us like spies!” After all, they know (correctly as it happens) that Jacob is going to be hugely upset that Simeon has been left behind as a hostage to be swapped next time for Benjamin, and will blame them for it. It would be much in character for them to try to explain to Jacob the wildly egotistical unreasonableness of this foreign potentate as a way of trying to put the blame on that foreign potentate.

It is also possible they are saying that Joseph is their lord (singular) of the land. But considering the story contexts, the other seems more colorfully interesting.

I do think they could have been using the plural intensive title in a flippant and non-respectful way. But even if they were, it is likely they were still referring to Joseph according to the actual status he was previously perceived as holding (i.e., when they were “worshiping” at his feet! - Gen 42:6). So while I have no problem with the idea that Joseph’s brothers were not using the title respectfully, I think it’s extremely unlikely that they were (sarcastically) ascribing “divine status” to him. Even if Joseph’s brothers were speaking of Joseph as the “lord of the land” in a sarcastic and exaggerated way by using the intensive plural, it is by no means the case that, in doing so, they were ascribing a pseudo-divine status to him (instead, it would be more like a person saying to their spouse under their breath, “Whatever you say, your highness…” - not that I’ve ever done that, of course! ). In either case, I see no reason to believe that the title “lord” was being intensified by his brothers because it had anything inherently to do with Deity (much less anything to do with a supposed “plurality of persons” in the God!), but because intensive plurals (when persons are in view) conveyed the idea of reverence and respect (or the opposite, if used disingenuously).

Now, you appear to be using “intensive (or “emphatic”) plural” and “divine plural” interchangeably. But these expressions are not interchangeable; the former is a recognized Hebrew idiom that may be employed with divine titles, human titles or virtually anything. But the latter (what you refer to as the “divine plural”) is not an idiom in itself; rather, it is a particular application of the intensive/emphatic plural idiom. In other words, to intensify a singular word by making it plural is not exclusive to speaking about Deity - it’s simply a way to intensify or emphasize anything, whether it’s a personal title or a non-personal thing or animal; the same idiom is being used in both cases.

To show that human beings could be appropriately referred to with “intensive plural” titles without conveying the idea of divine (or pseudo-divine) status, here are a few more examples of the intensive plural being used for singular non-God entities.

In Isa 19:4, we read, “I will imprison the Egyptians in the hand of a harsh master; and a fierce king shall rule over them.” In this verse the fierce king that will enslave Egypt is described as a “a hard (singular) master (plural).” The plural suffix attached to the word “master” does not make it a numerical plural (“masters”) but instead intensifies the meaning (i.e., “great master”). Because the word “master” is here an intensive plural and not a numerical plural, it receives the singular adjective (“hard”) and not the plural adjective that would be required for a numerical plural.

Similarly, in Exodus 21:28-32 the owner of the “goring ox” is repeatedly referred to with the plural suffix even though the ox is only owned by one person. In this case, the plural suffix intensifies the noun, imbuing it with a connotation of “absolute owner” or “complete master.” Because “owner” is an intensive plural, it gets a singular verb. Thus we read concerning the negligent owner whose ox has killed someone, “the ox shall be stoned and the owner (he) will be put to death” (Ex 21:29). The verb “he will be put to death” is in the singular even though the word for “owner” has the plural suffix.

And in Mal 1:6, God says, “A son honors his father, and a servant his master (“masters”). If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master (“masters” again), where is my fear?” In both cases the word is not a numerical plural, but an intensive plural (i.e., “great master”). What’s interesting is that YHWH is clearly taking human titles that have nothing inherently or necessarily to do with Deity and applying them to himself to make his point (this fact will be important later on when we get to Isaiah 9:6 and 10:21).

In Judges 19:26 we read, “And as morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her master (adoneyah, “lords/masters”) was, till it was light.” Here the concubine’s master is referred to by the intensive plural for “lord.” It is clear from the context (where the referent of the plural noun is a single individual) that the plural emphasizes the Levite’s absolute authority over the woman.

In Gen. 24:9-10 we read, “So the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master and swore to him concerning this matter. Then the servant took ten of his master’s camels and departed, taking all sorts of choice gifts from his master; and he arose and went to Mesopotamia to the city of Nahor.” In all three cases, “master” is plural. But since Abraham is a singular being, the plural is to be understood as an intensive plural, not a numerical plural.
In Gen 40:1 we read, “Sometime after this, the cupbearer of the king of Egypt and his baker committed an offense against their lord (“lords”) the king of Egypt.” Again, same thing here; the plural is clearly intensive, not numerical. What’s most significant about this example is that here we find the same title used by Joseph’s brothers when they spoke of Joseph. However, Moses is not quoting anyone here (as is the case with Gen 42:30); it’s simply part of the narration; just as objectively true as Pharaoh was the “king of Egypt,” so he was the “lord” (plural intensive) of the cupbearer and the baker.

There are other examples, but I think the above are sufficient to show that, while certainly not as common as when God is being referred to (for obvious reasons, even from a non-trinitarian view), the intensive plural was an idiom not used exclusively or reservedly for God. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Joseph’s brothers were using the intensive plural when speaking of Joseph as a way to insult him in the sense that you suggested. To illustrate (albeit, simplistically) my problem with your argument that the use of plural titles, when referring to God, provides support for trinitarian doctrine, here’s a fictitious (and silly) dialogue:
Brother # 1 (as they’re all leaving Egypt): "Can you believe that guy? What a jerk! (At this point he pretends to act like someone very dignified) “Hey everyone, look at me, I’m ‘lord’ (plural) of the land! Everyone bow to me!” (all the brothers laugh)

Brother # 2 (who is somewhat denser than the others and tends to ask dumb questions): "Wait…why did you use the plural for “‘lord’?”

Brother # 1: “Duh, because we use plural titles like Elohim and Adonai when we’re talking about YHWH, and I’m insulting this guy who evidently thinks he has divine status or something!”
Brother #2: “Oh, ok…” (He is obviously still confused) “Uh, remind me again why we use plural titles for YHWH.”

Brother # 1: “I’m glad you asked! I’ve been giving it a lot of thought myself lately, and have concluded that it’s because…wait for it, guys…YHWH is a plurality of persons!”

(His brothers stare at him in stunned silence)

Brother #1 continues: “That’s right - as difficult as it may be for you all to comprehend (especially you, Bro # 2) - YHWH is more than one ‘he.’ YHWH is a “they!” That’s why we refer to him most of the time as ‘Elohim’ and ‘Adonai.’ It’s to reflect his multiple personhood!”

At this point brother #3 (who is noticeably flustered) speaks up: “What the #@!* are you talking about? YHWH isn’t a ‘plurality of persons,’ you idiot. We use plural titles for YHWH - such as Elohim instead of El, and Adonai instead of Adon - because the plural form simply emphasizes and intensifies the meaning of a word.”

(Brother #1 then quickly changes the subject; end imaginary dialogue)

Now, do you think “brother # 1” was closer to the truth, or “brother # 3?” Or do you think neither of them really knew why plural titles were used for YHWH (like brother # 2)?

Aaron, quoting from Zondervan’s New International Dictionary, wrote:Even a single heathen god can be designated with the plural elohim (e.g. Jdg. 11:24; 1 Ki. 11:5; 2 Ki. 1:2).

Judges 11:24 is not a great example of this: the speaker is a character known as Jephthah, unfamiliar for a long time with the ways of his people (11:1-6), trying to negotiate with rank polytheists after living among other polytheists himself.

1 Kings 11:5 is a much better example, and probably shows the point to calling such false gods “gods”–for “Ashtoreth” is also considered plural elsewhere when talking about the idols of her. (2 Kings 23:14, to give one of several examples; compare to v.13 just previously in that chapter. The term “ashtoreth” isn’t used for the plural, but it would be like us saying “ashtoreths” in English.) The same goes for the Baals. (10:6, 10) When 2 Kings 1:2 is talking about Ahaziah sending messengers to go inquire of Baal-zebub, the “gods” of Ekron, that is because there were numerous “baals” set up as idols, even of one god “Baal-zebub” (who was, in turn, one of many such Baals or lords).

The example of usage, consequently, proves rather too much! A false god was occasionally called “gods” because there were multiple instances of that god scattered around as idols, with the idols themselves regarded as actually being the god themselves (even when the multiple idols were of the same god).

Actually, I welcome your point (assuming it’s valid, of course), as I think it supports my point that elohim can either be understood in a numerically plural sense, or an intensive plural sense. When it’s referring to “more than one,” it’s understood in a numerically plural sense. But when it’s understood to refer to “one,” it’s understood in an intensive/emphatic plural sense. But it’s still the case that elohim is used to refer to singular (i.e., non-multi-personal) entities. As such, it must be understood as an intensive plural, and not as a numerical plural: Ex 7:1; 32:8, 31, 35; Judges 16:23; 1 Kings 18:25, 27; Psalm 45:6; Nehemiah 9:18.

The rabbi Tzvi Nassi (a lecturer in Hebrew at Oxford) wrote in a book from 1970 (The Great Mystery, published by Yanetz in Jerusalem), that “the majestic plural was a thing unknown to Moses and the prophets. Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, David and all the other kings, throughout [the Law, the Prophets and the Hagiographa], speak in the singular, and not as modern kings in the plural. They do not say we, but I command.”

And yet, you have found a pagan king who apparently does so (Artaxerxes) and a Jewish king who… well, is not really speaking to other people as a royal plurality.

2 Chronicles 10:6-9; “Then King Rhehoboam consulted with the elders who had stood before his father Solomon while he was still alive, saying, “How do you counsel to answer this people [who are asking to be put under a lighter load and then they will loyally serve him, v.1-5]? And they spoke to him saying [be merciful and kind]. But he forsook the counsel of the elders which they had given him, and consulted with the young men who grew up with him who stood before him. So he said to them, “What counsel do you give that we may answer this people, who have spoken to me.”

In point of fact, he’s addressing a group of people for advice on how they, as a group (with himself as their leader of course), are to answer the plea.

Which of course explains why kings sometimes spoke in the plural: because they had counselors whom they got together with to formulate policy. Artaxerxes would be no different. (Indeed, the need for translators itself implies this! As does the fact that he immediately goes on to talk in first person and keeps on doing so.)

So, if the parallel is to be followed, then Isaiah would be a spokesman for angels of the heavenly counsel as well as for YHWH–Who consults with no one but Himself! (e.g. Isaiah 40:13-14.)

That the heavenly hosts are being referred to when God speaks of “us” and “our” (which again, is the exception and not the rule) need not suggest that God receives advice from them as a human king who is limited in knowledge receives counsel from other men. And I’m not sure what other passages you have in mind other than Isaiah 40:13-14 (not to say there aren’t any), but these verses are evidently about God gaining understanding and knowledge from men, and do not mean that God doesn’t involve angelic beings in the decisions he makes (e.g., 1 Kings 22:19-22).

[Aaron]

Aaron, in reply to Hos 1:2-7 wrote:This [where “YHWH” specifically states He will have compassion on the house of Judah and deliver them by YHWH their God Who will smite the Assyrians Himself] is simply a more emphatic way of saying “by Myself”

Why wouldn’t it be a way of stating that YHWH will deliver them by the some not-God Angel of the Presence? Isn’t that mere not-God angel functionally representative enough to be called YHWH their God? (He would sure seem to be elsewhere, dozens or maybe hundreds of times earlier, by the logic of your functional representation appeal! )

Well in one sense, I do think that’s the case (since we’re told it was the angel of YHWH who personally executed the judgment by killing 185,000 Assyrians and thus postponing the fall of Jerusalem for almost 150 years - 2Kings 19:29-35 - or maybe that was not an angelic servant of God at all, but the pre-incarnate Son of God slaughtering all of those people?). But I don’t think angelic representative agency is what’s necessarily being denoted here. I believe YHWH is simply speaking of himself by name as their God to emphasize that he, YHWH, was still the God of the house of Judah, and that it would be he, YHWH their God, who would deliver Judah instead of their deliverance being due to the implements that men use to conquer by means of battle (how he did this was by means of one of his heavenly hosts). A similar example of a “redundant” use of God’s name or title for emphatic purpose can be found in Dan 9:17, which reads, “Now therefore, our God, hear the prayer of Your servant, and his supplications, and for the Lord’s sake cause Your face to shine on Your sanctuary, which is desolate.” Here the expression, “for the Lord’s sake” is simply an emphatic way of saying, “for your own sake” (which, notably, is how the ESV translates it). For other examples of the Hebrew idiom in which a name or title is repeated for the purpose of emphasis, instead of using a pronoun, see Gen 4:23-24; 16:16; 18:17-19; Ex 34:35; 1 Kings 2:19; 10:13; 12:21; Esther 8:8; Ezekiel 11:24; Dan 3:2-3; Ex 16:6-7; 1 Sam 3:21; 12:7; 2 Chron 7:2.

I have suggested some difficulties and alternate possibilities of translation myself, in a recent comment on this thread. Here I only want to point out that the term AeL GBWR is used in Isaiah again, where it sure seems to refer to God Most High. Which mighty God is rebel Jacob to return to in 10:21? Is it not YHWH, the Holy One of Israel (v.20)? Is “Mighty God” there supposed to only refer to some merely human king as (merely) representative of God on the battlefield, whom God empowers in a supernatural way? Will we be talking about the real Mighty God anytime soon, or only one of several created not-God substitutes?!

As I pointed out earlier, YHWH may take human titles that have nothing inherently or necessarily to do with Deity and apply them to himself. Isaiah 10:21 may very well be an example of this. Just as God is “our father” and “Israel’s husband” so he is a “mighty leader” (or however you think the expression in Ezekiel 32:21 should be rendered). If this is the case, then the expression Ael GBWR should probably be understood as having already been in use in reference to powerful men before it was ever applied to YHWH as a title.

Aaron wrote:But what about the phrase, “eternal Father” (or “Father eternal”)? Well, this poses a problem for orthodox trinitarians as well

Not really. Doctrinally the Son shares the substantial identity of the Eternal Father (“not dividing the substance”), as well as sharing the names of the Father; and the Persons are well distinguished in this (and many many other) passages (“not conflating the Persons”).

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying above; are you saying it’s within the bounds of ortho-trinitarianism to identify the Son as the Father and the Father as the Son?

JasonPratt, in the digest, wrote:Of particular interest is Gen 1:26-27, where Elohim says, “Let us make Man in our image, according to our likeness”. The pronouns and name-title are plural, but the nouns for image and likeness are singular.

Aaron, in reply to this wrote:It was a common Jewish understanding that Yahweh dwelled in heaven with a countless multitude of created beings that served and worshipped him; if the use of “us” and “our” is to be understood in this way in these verses, then Genesis 1:26 would be teaching that the angels somehow participated in, and were involved with, God’s creative work in some significant way.

That is indeed a common view even among trinitarians; and if all of us humans can (corporately) be made in the (single) image and likeness of God (being rationally aware, spiritual creatures, plus also deriving our subordinate executive authority from Him that way), then the same could also be said of God speaking to already-created heavenly beings–maybe.

But the ease of this solution is masked by our habit of translating Elohim as we know to be a single entity, “God”, even though the term is plural. Then God(s) (plural noun but referring to one entity) said (singular verb) “Let us (plural pronoun) make (plural verb) man in our (plural) image (singular) and in our (plural) likeness (singular).” If it wasn’t for the plural verb for ‘make’, and the plural pronouns, wouldn’t this be considered only done by God (despite His plural description)?

Again, although elohim is a plural word, it’s not plural in a numerical sense when referring to YHWH, but in an emphatic sense. If it was to be understood in a numerical sense, we would likely find plural verbs and pronouns used with it throughout Scripture when YHWH was in view. But that’s not the case.

For example, if we read there, “So God(s) created the man in His image (singular), in the image of God(s) He (singular) created (singular) him; male and female, He (singular) created them.” Would we think the singular God (despite the plurality of His name) was creating mankind (singularly and plurally) in His own image? Or would we think more persons were involved in creating us in the singular image of the God Whose name is God(s)?

Which of course is how the creation goes when we get down to verse 1:27! Where are the heavenly lesser beings God was supposed to be creating us with?

I think the reader would just be led to think that either the heavenly hosts were involved in the creation of mankind in some way, or perhaps God created through their agency (just like in Hosea 1:7, where God said he would save Judah himself, though he carried out their deliverance through the agency of “the angel of YHWH,” who actually executed the judgment upon the Assyrian people).

Whether the original author of Genesis (the human author anyway) understood the plurality in God’s creation of mankind in terms of the Trinity, I personally also doubt.

Well I’m glad you at least concede that! It means the word Elohim, when referring to YHWH, could legitimately be understood by the Hebrew people apart from an understanding that YHWH was a “plurality of persons,” and that the “us” and “our” used did not necessarily convey to them the idea of a multiplicity of divine persons. It would mean that the word Elohim (and the plural pronouns used in the opening chapters of Genesis) had an inherent and understandable meaning to the author and original audience that did not necessarily suggest or imply that God consisted of more than one person. For the author and original audience would not have used and read the language without ascribing some meaning to it; but if that meaning did not originally suggest to them a plurality of persons in God, then it is no evidence for such a doctrine.

But as you note from Wehham’s word commentary, it came very quickly to be considered that way among Christians. The question there is whether they were following some kind of (legitimate) lead from teachings represented by the canonical NT (going back ultimately to Jesus).

And I think that’s a valid question. But as I think the OT seems to lay a very solid Unitarian foundation, and that any support that the OT offers for a trinitarian understanding of God is, at best, pretty ambiguous (deriving much of its strength from a presupposed trinitarian understanding of the NT), I don’t think we should approach the NT expecting it to reveal something that we have little reason to believe the “human authors” of the OT understood about God or his Messiah. So when we extend this discussion into the NT, one thing I will be attempting to show is that a change in the understanding of how many God is would have produced far more controversy, and required far more argumentation, than we find concerning, say, the covenantal acceptance of both Jews and Gentiles as God’s people, and the laying aside of circumcision and food laws as “badges” of covenant membership.

Aaron wrote:The plural “us” [in Isaiah 6] probably carries the same import as it does in Genesis, since it is clear that there is only one divine person sitting on one throne addressing the prophet

We’ll be getting back to that later. I’m glad you acknowledge that a divine person is sitting on the one throne of God there.

(Well, maybe you don’t think that this is the one throne of God Who is AeCHaD; or perhaps you would say that someone else less than God could rightly sit there and delegate prophets to go out and speak for him, while being declared by angels as YHWH of Armies Whose glory fills the whole earth, also being acknowledged as ADNY and YHWH of Armies by Isaiah who laments that he must be destroyed for his eyes have looked upon YHWH. But up to this point, in talking about this scene, you haven’t indicated that this is less than God Most High of Whom the Shema is said. Up to this point. )

First, I have no problem at all understanding the divine Person sitting on the throne as being YHWH himself (not themselves! ), since I understand this to have been a vision (or perhaps a dream), and not something actually transpiring in time and space. That is, it was not an actual, objective experience that Isaiah saw with his eyes and heard with his ears. I don’t think Isaiah was actually beamed up to the heavenly throne room, or that he actually saw God’s face (for no mortal can see the face of God and live!). So yeah, I do see this divine Person as representing (in vision form) YHWH (i.e., the Father, who is “the only true God”).

Second, I’m going to try and anticipate where you might be heading when you say you’re glad that I “acknowledge that a divine person is sitting on the throne of God here.” I could be wrong, but based on my discussions with Trinitarians in the past, you may have John 12:38-41 in mind. It’s commonly argued by Trinitarians that when Isaiah saw this divine person on the throne he was seeing “God the Son” (for in v. 41 John writes that Isaiah saw [the Messiah’s] glory." But that’s not at all the only possible (and I think certainly not the best) way to understand John’s words. I understand “these things” in v. 41 to refer back to both the quotation from Isaiah 6 and the quotation from Isaiah 53. So what I would suggest is that Isaiah “saw” the Messiah’s glory and spoke of him in both cases. But how did Isaiah see the glory of the Messiah? As a fulfilled reality? No; I believe he saw it in the same sense that Abraham saw the Messiah’s “day” and “was glad” (John 8:56) - that is, he saw it prophetically, in an anticipatory sense (this is most apparent from the prophecy in Isaiah 53, which is one of the greatest Messianic prophecies in all of the OT!). So I submit that it could be said by John that Isaiah “saw” the Messiah’s “glory” when anything Isaiah wrote (i.e., “spoke”) had prophetic application to the coming Messiah. And because (according to John) the prophecy in Isaiah 6 had a dual fulfillment and was thus applicable to BOTH Isaiah’s own day (i.e., when he saw YHWH in vision and was commissioned by him) AS WELL AS to the time of the Messiah, it could be said that, in both cases, Isaiah “saw [the Messiah’s] glory.”

Aaron wrote:So if “ADNY” in the OT expresses the idea that God is a multi-personal being and refers to him (them?) as such, then Psalm 110:1 expresses the idea that the Messiah is distinct from this multi-personal being.

That would only be true if adonei (my lord) and Adonai (lords) could not be applied to the same person. (They’re spelled the same in written Hebrew, too, ADNY. But the NT does testify to at least one meaning being adonei, my lord. What else it does or does not testify to, in regard to Psalm 110, including that first verse, remains to be seen.)

At any rate, Psalm 110:1 does testify to some kind of distinction of persons, since YHWH is speaking to ADNY. Which, incidentally, is why one post-Christian rabbinic tradition involves this poem being spoken by an anonymous court poet to David, so that David could be the “my lord” (adonei) of the ADNY and thus certainly not the divine title Adonai!

Not just two persons, but two persons with two different titles - titles which, though similar, would distinguish one as YHWH and the other as a being less-than-God. I think an important question is this: was adoni (my lord) EVER used in the OT to denote YHWH? I have yet to find anywhere that this is the case (unless this be the sole exception!); in every instance it appears to refer to a being who is not YHWH - that is, unless it is believed that the angel whom Daniel addressed as “my lord” (e.g., Dan 10:16; 12:8) was understood by Daniel as being God himself!

Aaron wrote:The Messiah is clearly distinct from, and not to be identified with, the “Ancient of Days” (i.e., Adonai/Yahweh).

He seems personally distinct somehow compared to the Ancient of Days; and you acknowledge YHWH/ADNY as being the title of God Most High. So it will make a difference whether the Messiah is not only called by those divine titles but is referenced back to OT scripture where YHWH/ADNY/Elohim Most High is in view. (If He ever is?!)

I have no problem understanding certain references to YHWH in the OT as being later applied to Christ in the NT by Paul and other authors, since I understand Jesus to be YHWH’s ultimate representative agent. When Jesus was “made Lord” (Acts 2:36) he was given functional equivalence to YHWH in the sense that, just as everyone who called on YHWH would be saved (Joel 2:32), so everyone who, since the time of Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation, calls on Christ will be saved (Rom 10:13) - since, as YHWH’s supreme representative agent, he has been given “all authority in heaven and on earth” - which includes the power and authority to save mankind. This delegation of divine authority to Jesus by YHWH was, I believe, foreshadowed in the story of Joseph. For instance, whereas the people would previously had gone to Pharaoh for their needs to be met, after Pharaoh elevated Joseph to the exalted position he was given over Egypt (even giving him his signet ring), he told the people, “Go to Joseph” (Gen 41:55).

I will however note that Dan 7:9 some plural number of thrones are set up–despite the fact that only one throne is ever mentioned as being sit upon (by the Ancient of Days, also verse 9). More interestingly, when one of the figures standing by volunteers to interpret the vision for Daniel (15-38), the singular Son of Man seems to be described plurally as “holy ones of the highest one”. How the various NT authors (and Jesus by report) deal with this will be discussed later.

VI. More Particular Comments on Representative Agency (or not) in the OT
Aaron wrote:Yahweh sent these two angels to destroy the cities [of Sodom and Gomorrah]; they were the ones who carried out Yahweh’s will (vv. 13, 21-22). Thus it was actually the angels who “rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of heaven” (v. 24).

Are you sure you want to go with that answer? Because the text at verse 24 says YHWH did so: the Hebrew is quite clear, “YHWH rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire (or sulfurous fire) from YHWH out of heaven.” Not ‘the angels’ much less ‘one of the angels pretending to be YHWH with YHWH’s approval’, or anything else of that sort.
It is of course true that it says two “messengers” went on to Sodom, and they claim (ahead of time) to be involved somehow in the forthcoming destruction. But they are not referred to as YHWH; rather they talk about YHWH sending them there to destroy it. (v.13)

Well to be sure, there are some (both Trinitarians and Unitarians) who see the second use of YHWH in v. 24 in an emphatic sense. In that case, it would simply mean, “YHWH rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from himself out of heaven.” And I think that’s very possible - as noted earlier, this would not be an isolated example of this kind of figure of speech being employed in the OT when persons (or God’s power/operative presence!) are in view (Gen 4:23-24; 16:16; 18:17-19; Ex 34:35; 1 Kings 2:19; 10:13; 12:21; Esther 8:8; Ezekiel 11:24; Dan 3:2-3; 9:17; Ex 16:6-7; 1 Sam 3:21; 12:7; 2 Chron 7:2). But this would not negate the fact that the angels were the agents through whom which “YHWH himself” carried out this judgment upon the cities (which you seem to come close to admitting above). The narrative is pretty clear that the two angels were the ones who were sent to carry out this judgment (v. 13), which seems to imply that YHWH did not directly execute the judgment. So, since it was the angels (plural) who were sent to execute the judgment, v. 24 would simply serve the emphasize who was ultimately behind it. The two angels were simply doing the job God had authorized/empowered them to do, and God took ultimate responsibility as the one who destroyed these cities.

Moreover, as I’m sure you’re aware, in Hebrew thought the “first cause” is not always distinguished from “intermediate” or “secondary” causes. That is to say, the “principal” is not always clearly distinguished from the agent (i.e., the one commissioned to carry out an act on behalf of another). Sometimes the agent, standing for the principal, is treated as if he or she were the principal him or herself, though this is not literally so. The principal and agent remain two distinct persons, but they act in complete harmony. The agent acts and speaks for the principal. For instance, in v. 16 we’re told that “the men (i.e., the two angels) seized [Lot] and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, YHWH being merciful to him, and they (the two angels) brought him out and set him outside the city.” While you appear to go on to use this verse as evidence that YHWH was personally present with them at this point, that is not necessary to make sense of what’s being said. We’re specifically told that “the men” (the two angels that came to Sodom at the beginning of chapter 19) were the ones interacting with Lot and his family and physically leading them to safety. But the merciful act performed by the angels (i.e., the agent) is here said to have been the mercy of YHWH (i.e., the principle), even though the angels were the ones who actually performed the act of mercy by (almost forcefully) moving Lot and his family to a safer location so that they could carry out their orders from YHWH (which are made known in v. 13). Being God’s agents, the mercy they show is the mercy shown by YHWH himself, for he sent them for that purpose. But again, the repeated use of the divine name in v. 24 may or may not be an example of an agent or agents being referred to as the principle they represent. Although I think representative agency is present earlier in chapter 18 (and perhaps in vv. 17-22), v. 24 may simply be emphasizing who was ultimately behind the judgment, and is not necessarily an example of a non-God person or persons being called YHWH as his representative agent. It should also be noted that, while the two angels make known their orders from YHWH in v. 13 ("…and YHWH has sent US to destroy it"), they go on to say, “Get out of this place, for YHWH is about to destroy the city.” There is no contradiction or need for trinitarian speculation when we take into account the idea of agency. Even though the angels were the ones who were sent to execute the judgment, it was YHWH who sent them to do it. Consequently, it could be said that YHWH was “about to destroy the city.”

Is there evidence that there is some kind of switch or addition between the angels and someone else? Yes, actually there is: for as “they” are taking Lot and his family outside the city, once outside “he” says to Lot–and after that it’s all singular. (Except for Lot calling “them” either Adonai or adonei, which might or might not be plural who knows? ) Lot addresses this person(s) saying, “Your servant [Lot] has found grace in your sight and you have magnified your mercy which you have shown to me in saving my life.” Who is having mercy on Lot? YHWH, back in verse 16 (which may be where YHWH shows back up again as the men are taking Lot and his wife and daughters by the hands.) This person takes personal responsibility for destroying Sodom, and accepts Lot’s plea to spare the little suburb of Zoar (where Lot flees to). After which YHWH rains down the fire from YHWH in heaven.

What you say above is, I think, an example of trinitarian doctrine (or perhaps the metaphysical constraint that grounds your trinitarian doctrine) being presupposed and read into the passage in order for it to provide any kind of support for the doctrine. But there is nothing in the passage that is inconsistent with the view that there are three angels in the narrative, with one functioning specifically as YHWH’s representative agent who, as YHWH’s mouthpiece, speaks on YHWH’s behalf (i.e., in chapter 18 and perhaps in 19:17-22) and the other two angels being sent for the purpose of actually carrying out the judgment for which YHWH sent them. Now, it is possible that Lot is simply addressing the two angels previously in view when he uses the word adonai in v. 18. The ESV (which, in spite of its trinitarian bias, remains my Bible of choice) even renders adonai “lords” here, which means the translators understood adonai here as a numerical plural (since two angels had previously been in view), and not as an emphatic plural: “And Lot said to them, 'Oh, no, my lords.”

But I’m not against the idea that the person introduced in chapter 18 as YHWH comes back into the narrative at this point. But even if the person whom Lot addresses in v. 18 as “ADNY” is the person called “YHWH” of chapter 18, it is not necessary to understand this person as being YHWH in an ontological sense (i.e., the “principle”). Instead, this person need only be understood as the duly appointed representative agent who legally speaks and acts on YHWH’s behalf and with YHWH’s authority (while the other two angels, while still God’s agents, were sent merely to execute the judgment upon the cities while saving Lot and his family). As noted before, it is a fact recognized by OT scholars that, in Jewish custom, whenever a superior commissioned an agent to act on his behalf, the agent was regarded as the person himself (which is well expressed in The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion: “Agent (Heb. Shaliah): The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, ‘a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself’”). And the fact that the person speaking in v. 21 grants the request made by Lot is perfectly consistent with the idea of representative agency; as God’s representative agent, this angel would have had full authority to grant such a request without being ontologically equal to YHWH.

I think a failure to fully appreciate the Jewish law of agency has led trinitarians to assume that any person who is referred to as YHWH and speaks as YHWH must be YHWH. Admittedly, the concept of representative agency is not something with which we’re familiar today; the closest thing we have to it our society is “durable power of attorney.” But what I’m having trouble understanding is this: You seem to acknowledge that the concept of representative agency is not in fact foreign to the Bible, yet it seems that whenever an example appears in the OT that can be understood as being an example of representative agency, you act as if representative agency couldn’t possibly be a valid explanation of what’s been described. It’s like you accept the idea of representative agency theoretically, but if someone were to claim that any one passage could be reasonably explained by the concept representative agency, you deny it. Again, the Jewish law of representative agency is expressed in the dictum, “A person’s agent is regarded as the person himself.” If that’s the case, then it would be perfectly natural and appropriate for beings who are not YHWH ontologically (but are his representative agents) to yet be identified and referred to in the narrative as if they were YHWH. To deny this is to deny that there is such a thing as representative agency (or that this motif ever appears in Scripture). If you do deny it, that’s fine; but I don’t think it’s fair to allow for it and then cry foul when someone argues that a passage like Gen 18 is an example of a being who, though not by nature YHWH, is yet regarded as YHWH because he is functioning as YHWH’s representative agent at that particular time.

An example of this which has previously been touched on is Moses’ being made “elohim” to Aaron and Pharaoh (Ex. 4:16; 7:1). Now, in Exodus 7:17-21 YHWH says, “By this you will know that I am YHWH: behold, with the staff that is in my hand I will strike the water that is in the Nile, and it shall turn into blood…” YHWH then says to Moses: “Say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt…” So while YHWH said that he himself would strike the waters with the staff in his own hand, it was actually Aaron’s hand that held the rod, and Aaron who struck the Nile. But Aaron was Moses’ “prophet,” and thus Moses’ representative. So here we find that YHWH (as principal) was represented by Moses (the agent), who in turn was represented by Aaron (so does that make Aaron a triple agent? ).

That representative agency was not something exclusive to the OT can be seen in the account of Jesus healing the centurion’s servant, as found in both the Gospel of Matthew and Luke. While Matthew speaks of a conversation between the centurion himself and Jesus (Mt. 8:5-13), Luke tells us that the centurion did not in fact come personally. He sent some “Jewish elders” and, subsequently, some “friends” to Jesus with his requests (Luke 7:1-10). The centurion here is the principal; the Jewish elders and the centurion’s friends are his appointed, commissioned agents. Because in Hebrew thought the principal and the agent are not always clearly distinguished, Matthew mentions only the principal (the centurion) without distinguishing the agent (the Jewish elders and friends). Luke mentions both principal and agents. So in Matthew’s account, the elders (agents) stand for and are treated as the centurion (principal), even though this is not literally true. Another example of representative agency in the Gospels can be seen by comparing Mark 10:35-40 with Matthew 20:20-23. See also John 4:1-3.

To return to Genesis 18. Since Moses was the author, do we have reason to believe that Moses understood the being who he describes in Gen 18 as YHWH (and perhaps ADNY in ch. 19) to be YHWH himself, in an ontological sense? Well we know from the NT at least that “no one has seen God at any time” (John 1:18; 1John 4:12; 1Tim. 6:16). But was this Moses’ understanding as well? I think so. Before I go on, however, I first need to retract a statement I made earlier, since I think I somewhat overstated my position. Previously, I said, “I submit that in every instance in which Moses is said to have interacted with YHWH, he was interacting with one or more of these angelic beings who spoke and acted on behalf of God.” But I don’t think what I said was completely accurate. Here’s why: In Exodus 33:11, we are told of how “YHWH used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” As said earlier, I believe this refers to the fact that God, through the agency of an angelic representative, personally interacted with Moses in an objective sense, as opposed to his making himself known in a vision or a dream, as he did with other prophets (Num 12:6). But we’re also told that Moses “[beheld] the form of YHWH” (v. 8). While I think this may be explained by Moses’ speaking directly to a divine representative, it is possible that Ex 33:18-23 is being referred to. In this passage, we find that Moses makes a very bold request to YHWH: “Please show me your glory” (v. 18). From this request alone we might not have understood what Moses meant. But YHWH goes on to say, “Behold, here is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen” (vv. 21-23). We are later told of how YHWH “descended in the cloud and stood with [Moses] there” and “passed before him,” proclaiming “the name of YHWH” (34:4-6).

What are we to make of this highly unusual and mysterious account? Well, at the very least I think we are to understand God’s granting of Moses’ request as being a very unique and highly exceptional thing for God to have done. God was going to do for Moses what he had never done for anyone else, and perhaps would never do again. What is here being described was no doubt intended to fill the reader with awe and wonder. So what took place? Well, it’s significant that YHWH previously told Moses that, while he would see his “back,” his “face” would “not be seen” (for God had told Moses, “You cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live”). But if YHWH had personally appeared to people on several occasions already (with Gen 18 being just one example), why was it such a big deal that Moses get to see YHWH’s “back,” while not being allowed to see his “face?” If YHWH had already been showing his “face” to people, why would his “back” be the most Moses could see? Were other people simply seeing another YHWH (or, as trinitarians would have it, one of the three persons who are all equally YHWH) who was much less glorious to behold? But if each of the “members” of the trinity are equally God in an ontological sense, wouldn’t they all be equally glorious to behold? If God is comprised of three persons (Father, Son and Spirit) who are all equally God in an ontological sense, wouldn’t that which makes the Father infinitely glorious make the Son and Spirit equally glorious? And if the Father’s “face” is so glorious as to be unable to be looked upon by mortals without them dying, why not also the face of the Spirit and the pre-incarnate Son? Is the glory of the Son that much more “dim” than that of the Father that people will die if they see the latter but not so much as faint if they see the former?

I think this can best be explained by the understanding that YHWH had not made any prior personal appearances to people before this unique incident. Instead, he’d sent a duly commissioned non-God agent to act and speak on his behalf. But when YHWH granted Moses’ request and “passed by” him, Moses experienced something that no one else had previously enjoyed. Whereas before YHWH had sent an angelic agents to represent him, at this time it would seem that YHWH himself appeared before Moses. But because no mortal could see YHWH’s face and live (v. 20), Moses would only be able to see YHWH’s “back.”

Moving on to Psalm 45…
Aaron wrote:While part of this Psalm is certainly prophetic and would later be appropriately applied to Jesus, there are certain verses that cannot properly be applied to Jesus (except in a highly figurative sense).

Perhaps we should just stick then, as I did, with the verses that would later be appropriately applied to Jesus, and leave aside the verses that cannot be properly applied to Jesus (except in a highly figurative sense).
Aaron wrote:Now, we know that the Psalmist’s own understanding of the nature of this Messianic figure is that he would be human and not deity, for he speaks of him as being “the most handsome of the sons of men” and as being blessed by God (v. 2).

Unless God is such that He can become the most handsome of the sons of men while still being distinctively God (and having a distinction of Divine Persons as well). Such a king would in fact have companions among the sons of men, being himself a Son of Man. That the Father cannot be personally anointed beyond His companions by anyone, is nothing to the point, if this is not the person of the Father but a person (both a son of man and also Elohim) being anointed by the Father (also Elohim).

In other words, your rebuttal only works if you are the one reading a theological restriction into this verse. That’s a metaphysical debate, not an exegetical one.

Perhaps, but which “theological/metaphysical restriction” is justified - mine or yours? Like I said before, I believe God defined what a “man” is when he created the first man, Adam. So when Scripture refers to the Messiah as a “Son of man,” I understand this expression based on what the word “man” means - i.e., my understanding is derived from what God created on the sixth day, and what this creature continues to be today. That’s my working definition of “man” and “human nature,” and as such it places a constraint on what my reason will and will not accept. It is this “metaphysical constraint” that prevents me from rationally accepting the Trinitarian proposition that the Messiah is “both fully God and fully man,” or that we are to derive from any OT prophesy the idea that the Messiah would be what is inherently a contradiction. At the very least, the word “man” denotes a created being. Well if Jesus is fully man, then he is a fully created person - which excludes him from the category of uncreated persons.

Also, the figurative statements you adduce from vv.4-11 are statements figuratively applied elsewhere to God Most High, are they not? They do not necessarily have to apply only to a not-God human person, do they?

Unless a multi-personal understanding of God is presupposed and read into the text, I submit that no Hebrew reader would have any reason to understand this Psalm to be teaching the existence of two supreme, self-existent Elohims, with one Elohim described as being anointed by another Elohim who, despite being “co-equal” to him (according to trinitarian theology) is also his Elohim. So are there really two persons in view who are both Elohim and YHWH in the same sense? Well that’s two Gods and two YHWH’s, for God is but a personal title like “king,” and YHWH is but a personal name like “Jason.” Two persons with the same title “God” make two Gods, not one God (just like two persons with the same title “king” make two kings, not one king, and two persons who share the name Jason make two Jason’s, not one Jason). To argue from this that there are two persons who are both referred to as “God” but together make up one God is like arguing that two persons who are both referred to as “President” together make up one President. But the text clearly distinguishes between two Gods. To argue that there is only one God in view one would have to prove that there is only one person in view. Moreover, you’ve made much of the fact that the word elohim is plural, and see this as support for a multi-personal understanding of God; well if the plurality of the word Elohim denotes a plurality of persons, we have here two self-existent Elohims who are both a plurality of persons!

What specific statements did you have in mind you understand to be also applied to God Most High? Surely you don’t think God Most High has “daughters of kings” as his “ladies of honor,” or that a queen stands at his right hand in “gold of Ophir?” Or that God Most High is the one who will desire the beauty of the daughter who is instructed to “forget” her people and her “father’s house?”

Bird-dogging off a moment, since you bring these up as examples to compare with Psalm 45:

Psalm 82:1-8 is not a very good example of elohim “in a representational or functional sense” being applied to a single person (or even to plural persons–considering that they are rebels!) If it wasn’t for a particular NT application of this, would anyone think anyone but Elohim Himself (with singular grammar) was taking His stand in the midst of judgment to judge the rebel judges whom He appointed as gods but who now are judging against Him? (But more on that later.)

I’m not exactly sure if I understand your argument above. Each “rebel judge” being referred to in Psalm 82 is a single person to whom the title “elohim” was applied - and unless each rebel judge is to be identified with YHWH in an ontological sense, then I think Psalm 82 is an appropriate example of “elohim” being employed in a “representational or functional sense” - or at least, in some sense other than ontological.

Back to Psalm 45 commentary.
Aaron wrote:Thus this Psalm is a good example of how “God” could be used in Scripture to describe both Yahweh as well as those to whom Yahweh has given a degree of divine power and authority to act and function as his representative.

Not just “a degree”! More like the totality of divine power and authority–sitting on the throne, beyond all his companions, as Elohim (Thy throne O Elohim), into forever! Non-Christian Jews themselves are quite aware of how dicey this is (which is why in the current JPS Tanakh the editors translate “Elohim” out of the vocative and apply it as an adjective to the throne instead. It’s still the king’s “divine throne”, but at least he isn’t being called Elohim now! )

When I said “degree” I was referring to all non-divine beings who are referred to as “elohim” in the OT in a representational sense; I do believe that the Messiah was given “all authority in heaven and on earth,” which places him far above all former agents who represented God to humanity.

[Aaron]

Time to talk for a while about Cyrus the Tyrant Pagan Messiah, and Isaiah 48 (which sure doesn’t seem to be talking about any pagan tyrant ).

I originally wrote:
“First, there is much scholarly consensus that the one whom Yahweh “loves” in v. 14 refers to Cyrus (cf. Isa 44:28; Isa 45:1; 45:13; 46:11). Methodist commentator Adam Clarke (who was a Trinitarian) understood it this way, and translates the verse as follows: “He whom Jehovah hath loved will execute his will on Babylon…” Jamieson, Fausset and Brown agree with this interpretation in their Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (though they go on to say that Cyrus should be understood as “a type of Messiah”). The English Standard Version (my devotional version of choice!) reads, “Assemble, all of you, and listen! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD loves him [Cyrus]; he shall perform his purpose on Babylon, and his arm shall be against the Chaldeans. I, even I [Yahweh], have spoken and called him [Cyrus]; I have brought him [Cyrus], and he will prosper in his way. Draw near to me [Yahweh], hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there.” The ESV (as well as the NIV) closes the quotation marks at that point, and a new speaker then says: “And now the Lord GOD has sent me with his Spirit.” Like the ESV and NIV, the NET Bible closes the quotation marks just prior to this declaration, and translates it as follows: “So now, the sovereign LORD has sent me, accompanied by his spirit.” It then notes that “The speaker here is not identified specifically, but he is probably Cyrus, the Lord’s “ally” mentioned in vv. 14-15.” This is not a “second Yahweh” speaking, for again, there is only one Yahweh - not two or three (Deut 6:4). Even if we see him as a type of Messiah, in the context it is clearly Cyrus who is here represented as declaring that he had been sent by Yahweh to fulfill Yahweh’s purpose against Babylon.”

At the risk of going against much scholarly consensus (including by well-meaning trinitarians), I am relatively sure that Cyrus the Tyrant–an anointed messiah to be sure, but one who did not even know the Lord (45:4) and who was being instructed (ultimately unsuccessfully!) by God through Isaiah the prophet (or maybe by someone of his school subsequently) to worship YHWH alone (“there is no other; beside Me there is no God”) --was not declaring such things publicly from the first from the time such things took place, that “I am He, I am the First and the Last” and “Surely My hand established the Earth, and My right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand together.” He does not even seem to have been declaring such things to be true about God Most High from the first.
Whereas if he was declaring such things from the first about himself, that would be excellent evidence he did not know God and should be exhorted by a monotheistic prophet to worship God alone! Especially since Cyrus was about to whomp Babylon who was making similar claims! (And in some ways not even as extensively so.)

Though I can appreciate your dissent from scholarly consensus on this topic, I don’t find your argument against the majority view very compelling at all. I don’t know of any scholars who have argued that Isaiah was representing Cyrus as “declaring such things publicly from the first from the time such things took place, that ‘I am He, I am the First and the Last’ and ‘Surely My hand established the Earth, and My right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand together.’” I could be wrong, but I think most are in agreement that YHWH is the one speaking from v. 12 through most of v. 16. That was certainly my understanding. So does it follow that Isaiah can’t be representing Cyrus as speaking at the end of v. 16 merely because Cyrus wasn’t making the declarations in vv. 12-13? I don’t see why this would be the case at all. Unless it is already presupposed that there is more than one person who is YHWH (and in spite of trinitarian insistence to the contrary, I’m really unsure as to how two persons who both refer to themselves as YHWH can equate to something other than two YHWH’s), the person represented as speaking at the end of v. 16 would most naturally be understood as being someone who is not to be identified as YHWH. Do you not see how a trinitarian understanding of God must already been taken for granted in order for this verse to be understood as providing any kind of support for a multi-personal view of YHWH? Even if the identity of the speaker at the end of v. 16 were to forever remain a mystery, and there were no contextual clues as to who Isaiah might be representing as speaking, it is not even possible to understand the speaker to be YHWH apart from the presupposition that YHWH consists of more than one person! If the reader doesn’t come to the text with such a presupposition, the only reasonable understanding of who is speaking is that it’s a non-divine person who was commissioned by YHWH to accomplish something (e.g., Cyrus or Isaiah himself).

Now, I would understand why you might not agree that the person represented as speaking at the end of v. 16 was Cyrus if the words appeared somewhere prior to, say, Isaiah 44:28 - or maybe somewhere after chapter 60. But that’s not the case. These words appear at the end of several chapters whose primary focus has been the judgment that God was purposing to bring upon Babylon through the instrumentality of Cyrus, the one who YHWH had previously called his “shepherd,” his “anointed,” and the one “whose right hand I have grasped”; about whom YHWH says, “I call you by name, I name you, though you do not know me” (45:4) and, “I have stirred him up in righteousness, and I will make all his ways level; he shall build my city and set my exiles free” (v. 13). I think the reader could even be excused for being unsure of who was represented as speaking at the end v. 16 if, say, vv. 14-15 were absent from the text, and the words spoken in v. 16 appeared immediately after what was said in v. 13. Even though I think the larger context would provide some good clues, I might concede that in this hypothetical scenario the reader might have a difficult time identifying who the speaker might be. But again, that’s not the case. Verses 14-15 are very clearly for the purpose of temporarily bringing Cyrus back to the forefront. It is most certainly not a transition by which Isaiah provides himself the opportunity to begin waxing metaphysical about the existence of multiple persons in the Godhead.

Also, the prophecies concerning Cyrus (as you referenced) are so loaded with such cosmic level final eschaton language, that Cyrus himself quickly drops out of view, with YHWH taking center stage.

Again, most scholars would challenge your assertion that Cyrus “quickly drops out of view” after 45:13 (which is the last verse in this chapter that refers specifically to Cyrus). He is referred to again in 46:11. And throughout chapter 47, it is implied that Cyrus (not Jesus) would be the instrument through whom YHWH would make Babylon “sit in the dust” and “sit on the ground without a throne” (47:1), “sit in silence and go into darkness” (v. 5). It would be through the instrumentality of Cyrus (not Jesus) that YHWH, Israel’s Redeemer, would “take vengeance” on Babylon (v. 3) and make her “sit as a widow” and “know the loss of children” (vv. 8-9). It would be through the instrumentality of Cyrus (not Jesus) that “evil” and “disaster” and “ruin” would fall suddenly upon Babylon (v. 11). So no, Cyrus does not “quickly drop out of view.” While it is true that Isaiah devotes a substantial portion of these chapters to YHWH’s rebuke of Babylon’s idolatry (etc.), as long as the judgment of Babylon has been in view, Cyrus has been in the background the whole time. He is still present up to and in chapter 48. And in case the reader had begun to forget that Babylon’s judgment through the instrumentality of Cyrus was a primary theme of this portion of Isaiah’s prophecy (and was in fact how this portion of the prophecy was introduced!), Isaiah reminds the reader in 48:14-16. Jesus is not the one whom YHWH said would “perform his purposes on Babylon!” It is not Jesus’ “arm” that would be “against the Chaldeans!” Isaiah is again referring to Cyrus, just as he had in the previous chapters. It is Cyrus who was the one “called” and “sent” by YHWH for the purpose of executing judgment upon Babylon - not Jesus.

If Cyrus and his forthcoming overthrow of Babylon (who blasphemes by figuratively claiming divine self-existence (47:8), a blasphemy no less serious for being figurative) is being treated as an analogy for something that will ultimately happen later, who is the ultimate judge and king Cyrus is a type for? On the page, only YHWH is in view! But as you yourself know, Cyrus is also widely considered a type for the King Messiah to come. But if this King Messiah is himself only a type and not in identity God Himself, then there must be a final judgment to come after the King Messiah, too. Except that there isn’t. The King Messiah is the final ultimate judge of rebellion against God; and God is the final ultimate judge of rebellion against God; and this judicial authority and enactment is not sequential (unlike with Cyrus).

But I never said the Messiah is a “type” of God himself; that’s not my position.

Put another way, when verse 16 says, “YHWH loves him, he shall carry out his good pleasure on Babylon”, the only person in view isn’t Cyrus. He dropped out of sight long ago. In fact, the last time he was on the page was back near the beginning of chapter 45. Everything after that might have been spoken to Cyrus, but it isn’t necessarily about Cyrus. (On the contrary, it is a warning about idolatry!–which Cyrus the pagan would have been as guilty of as anyone. Also, Cyrus didn’t fulfill many of those prophecies when he did come; both of which are reasons why interpreters tend to see more than Cyrus in ultimate view here. Neither has Jesus, yet!–which is one reason why non-Christian Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah. The typical Christian answer is that we expect Jesus to fulfill them later. But I am not aware of anyone, Christian or non-Christian, who expects Cyrus the Tyrant to fulfill those as-yet-unfulfilled prophecies later.)

Again, Cyrus did not, in fact, “drop out of sight long ago” - no more than Babylon did. And the fact that Cyrus was guilty of idolatry is nothing to the point, for the guilty nation in view whose judgment is being prophesied is Babylon, not Persia - and certainly not every idolater who has ever existed throughout history (Cyrus included).

The statement “YHWH loves him” looks rather to be an answer to the question “Assemble all of you * and listen!–who among you has declared these things?”*

My understanding is that the declaration, “assemble, all of you, and listen,” refers to the people of Jacob and Israel (v. 12). “Who among them” most likely refers to those among the idols and astrologers of the Chaldeans (who had not prophesied such things as what YHWH was about to bring upon Babylon, and Israel’s redemption). “YHWH loves him” is not an answer to this question; it is an affirmation of YHWH’s purpose to use Cyrus to deliver his people from the nation that was oppressing them.

Yet again, in the transition to Chapter 49, the Messiah Israel (prince of God) is in view, redeemer of rebel Jacob (thus Israel as a nation, which is who needed the redeeming, is not who is being spoken of as “Israel”). Cyrus is waaaaaay out of view by this point. The one whom God has been talking about the whole time, springboarding off Cyrus as a typological figure (and off Israel, too), is now revealed.

Again, Cyrus has never been “waaaaaaay out of view” at any point prior to this verse. Cyrus has been in view for as long as Babylon (and Babylon’s judgment) has been in view. I see no good reason why we shouldn’t understand Cyrus to be primarily in view from 44:28 through chapter 48, with the ultimate Messiah (of whom Cyrus was but a type) taking center stage in chapter 49. It is not until Isaiah has left the subject of Babylon’s judgment (and vv. 14-16 are evidence that he has not transitioned from this subject yet) that Cyrus drops out of a view and a new figure comes to the forefront.

I think it is interesting, by the way, that you would consider the speaker at the end of verse 16 going into 17 to be Cyrus a man who does not even know God (and who certainly didn’t convert to being a Jewish high prophet for the people). Would it not be more reasonable (if a second person of YHWH must be excluded by metaphysical principle!) for this to be the human man delivering the message?–namely Isaiah (or some prophet from his school afterward)?

I think it’s possible that Isaiah is speaking of himself; I have simply opted to defend the view that it’s Cyrus. But to see it as Isaiah is, I think, a much more reasonable understanding of the verse than reading a “second person of YHWH” into the passage - especially when there has been no prior revelation in the OT (at least, one that is unambiguously so) that a “second person of YHWH” even exists, and that YHWH (who is consistently presented as a singular person throughout the OT) is really more than one person.

I’m not sure how to transition into the topic of angels giving the Law, so I’ll just announce that the next comment will be dedicated to that topic.

VII. Did Only Angels Give the Law at Sinai?

Time for a lot of discussion about multiple angels giving the law (or not):
Aaron wrote:Was the entity speaking to Moses “in very nature and identity God?” Not at all. In Acts 7:53, Stephen ends his rebuke of his unbelieving Jewish brethren with the following words: “…you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”

As long as we’re referring to Acts 7, Stephen not only calls the entity in the burning bush an angel (v.30, 35), he (and the entity, too!) treats the entity as actually being YHWH the God of the patriarchs (v.31-34). (But of course one hardly has to go to Acts 7 for this, since Exodus 3 and 4 are far more detailed about it. As I myself made a point of mentioning. )

Yet it must also be admitted, that Stephen goes on to say (by report at verse 35), “This Moses whom they disowned, saying ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’ is the one whom God has sent both a ruler and a deliverer with the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the thorn bush.”

So Stephen is clearly making some kind of personal distinction between the Angel of God’s Presence and God Who sends the angel. He also, just like Moses (and just like the entity!) treats this presence as being God’s real presence, with the entity speaking so as to claim the identity of YHWH.

That this angelic entity sometimes claims the identity of YHWH, and speaks as if he is YHWH, is perfectly consistent with the Jewish concept of representational agency: a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself. But it would be most inappropriate to refer to an entity who is YHWH himself as his “angel.” In Hebrews 1, the author is at pains to show the superiority of Christ over all the non-human angels of God - and if all non-human angelic entities are inferior to Christ, then they are certainly inferior to (and not in any way to be identified with) Christ’s superior! Any non-human entity who functioned as the “angel of YHWH” is, by virtue of being an angel, inferior to both Christ and God. So I would submit that the very fact that this entity is called an “angel of YHWH” necessarily excludes him from being, at the same time, YHWH himself.

With that in mind, Stephen may be rebuking the Sanhedrin for their taking the Jewish tradition that angels were involved at Sinai (as Moses states in Deut 33:2, although there it is YHWH Who comes from the “thousands of holiness”, or from thousands of angels as the Septuagint translates it–and thus it is still YHWH by identity Who is coming forth to give the Law at Sinai) and applying that tradition to downgrade the Angel of the Presence to someone less than YHWH Himself.

I see no evidence whatsoever in this context or anywhere else in Scripture that Stephen was rebuking (or would have had any reason to rebuke) the Sanhedrin for “downgrading the angel of the Presence to someone less than YHWH himself.” In order for this to even be considered as a possibility, it must already be pre-supposed by the reader that the angel of the presence is in fact YHWH himself. It must be taken for granted by the reader that the angel of the Presence is YHWH before the reader could possibly understand the downgrading of the angel of the presence to someone less than YHWH himself as being something even worthy of a rebuke! But again, the very fact that the entity called the “angel of the presence” is an angel immediately disqualifies him from being identified with God. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence that Stephen was being sarcastic and alluding to something he thought was an erroneous “Jewish tradition” when he spoke of the law as being “ordained by angels”; his rebuke remains just as forceful, and would have been just as infuriating to the Sanhedrin, if we take his words about the angels ordaining the law at face value. The natural reading is that Stephen is simply stating an undisputed fact, just as he had been stating undisputed facts throughout his speech. And the fact that Stephen had previously made explicit mention of an “angel” that spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai right before referring to the “living oracles” (i.e., the law) that Moses received to give to the children of Israel makes it more than probable that when he ends his speech with reference to the law being ordained by angels, he is alluding back to this.

And when we consider the other two NT witnesses (Hebrews 2:2 and Galatians 3:19), the idea that Stephen was speaking sarcastically becomes even less plausible. There is no indication in Hebrews 2:2 that the author is speaking sarcastically, or alluding to a tradition he believed to be erroneous, when he referred to “the message declared by angels” which “proved to be reliable.” Now, if the OT left us no reason to think that angels were somehow involved in the giving of the law, then we might have reason to question whether the author is speaking as matter-of-factly here as he seems to be doing throughout the epistle. But we do have reason to believe that angels were involved during this highly significant event in Israel’s history, so to read Hebrews 2:2 as some kind of sarcastic rebuke seems inappropriate and forced. The same goes for Galatians 3:19. While it is true that Paul’s letter to the Galatians is not without rebukes, the immediate context in which Paul’s statement concerning the law being “put in place through angels” is hardly that of a rebuke; it reads more like a simple statement of fact. To read Paul’s words here as yet another jab at a popular tradition that he and the other apostles believed was erroneous (but is only referred to in such a way that makes it appear as if the author believed it himself!) seems a bit of a stretch. As in the epistle to the Hebrews, Paul appears to simply be stating an undisputed fact that was incidental to his larger argument.

There would be a significant irony in tagging them with the charge that in claiming the Law was ordained by angels, they have instantly ceased keeping that very same Law which begins with the insistence that “You shall have no other gods before/beside Me! You shall not worship them or serve them, for I, YHWH your God, am a jealous God.”

Believing the law to have been delivered or instituted (diatagē) by angels is hardly an example of failing to keep the first commandment. Again, Paul wrote to the Galatians that the law was “put in place through angels” with no indication that believing this made one guilty of breaking the first commandment. But if holding this view did constitute idolatry, then I believe Paul’s letter to the Galatians would have been considerably longer!

If God had sent an angel to say, “YHWH Elohim sends me to you, saying this, which you are in turn to tell the people: So says YHWH Elohim, ‘I am the Lord your God etc.’” that would not instantly abrogate the First Commandment–unless we were foolish enough to worship that angel as being God and as having himself ordained the Law. At which point, one would expect the angel (if he thought we were honestly mistaken) to say something like, “Do not worship me, for I am a servant like you; worship God alone!”

But if God sends a not-God angel to make claims and be worshiped as if this not-God angel was God Himself, then God Himself would be instantly invalidating the First Commandment: you shall not worship lesser lords or gods or serve them with religious service. Because God Himself would be setting up a not-God entity whom we are not only supposed to treat religiously as God Himself but who then busily and repeatedly makes statements identifying himself as being God Himself–claims which synch with the requirement that we worship that messenger as (not merely as if) God Most High.

My understanding is that idolatry consists of worshipping a created thing in place of God - i.e., as a substitute for God. But to do homage, make obeisance and show honor to God’s representative is to do homage, make obeisance and show honor to God, who is being represented. To refuse to “worship” the agent which God legally invested with his authority would be an act of disloyalty toward God himself.

Since you mention Heb 2:2, it goes on in verse 3 to say that our great salvation was first spoken through the Lord: a Lord Who-or-who is vastly greater than the angels (1:6-14). The Hebraist certainly is distinguishing personally between the Son and the Father (in chapter 1), and probably also personally between “the Lord” and “God” in 2:3-4 (with the Holy Spirit being mentioned, too!) But without yet getting into what EpistHeb has to say about Christ (including how the author treats OT scripture, and especially how he treats the use of the term “Lord” in relation to scripture), I can say that the distinction of persons in 2:3-4 is far from the end of that matter.

I have no problem understanding “the Lord” as referring to Jesus in v. 3. But isn’t it curious that we never read of “God” and “the Father” as two distinct persons like we read of “God” and Jesus? Whenever the Father is being spoken of in distinction from the Son, he is often referred to simply as “God,” and Jesus is referred to by his name or by some other title.

As to whether the Hebraist’s reference to the “logos” being spoken (or declared or proclaimed) through angels, might be a rebuke concerning a Jewish tradition of putting mere creatures in the place of God even at Sinai, there are two interesting contexts to note: the immediate context, v.1, warns–after having just spoken at length about how much greater the Son is than angels–“For this reason we must pay much closer attention to the things that have been heard, lest we drift away.” So the Hebraist thinks some Jewish traditions have gotten rather far off whack, which could be corrected by paying more attention.

Your assertion that “the Hebraist thinks some Jewish traditions have gotten rather far off whack, which could be corrected by paying more attention” does not follow from v. 1 or from the preceding chapter. There is no indication that the author thought the views of those to whom he wrote concerning the status of angels needed correcting. Simply to affirm the superiority of Jesus over the angels need not imply that they were in danger of elevating angels over Christ, or of “putting creatures in the place of God.” That from which they were in danger of “drifting away” was not a correct view of angels, but their allegiance to Christ himself, and their faith in the Gospel.

The force of the Hebraist’s argument in chapter 1 pretty much depends on the fact that Christ was not understood to be the God of Israel whom the Jews worshipped. The very fact that Jesus was understood to be a created being demanded argumentation that proved he was, nonetheless, far superior to the even the highest rank of created beings (the angels) and held a unique status that was his alone. While it is implied that the Old Covenant world had been subjected to angels, the “world to come” (the Gospel age) was subjected to Christ (Heb 2:5-8). But to spend a chapter and a half arguing with Jews that YHWH is superior to angels would have been wholly unnecessary, for no Jew would be caught dead suggesting such a thing. (While Colossians 2:18 may be offered as evidence that angel worship was a problem among some of the Jews in Paul’s day, the Jewish Encyclopedia notes that, “The charge of angel-worship raised against the Jews, based upon Col. ii. 18, is decidedly unfounded. Paul had probably the same Gnostic sect in mind that Celsus refers to when he repeats the charge of Aristides (“Apology,” xiv. 4; see Origen, book i. 26, v. 6-34, 41), telling us (Origen, vi. 30) of magical figures on which he found the seven angels inscribed: (1) Michael, with the figure of a lion; (2) Suriel, as a bull (shor or tura = Turiel; see Jerome on Hab. i. 14); (3) Raphael in a serpentine form; (4) Gabriel as an eagle; (5) Yalda Bahut with the countenance of a bear; (6) Erathaol as a dog; and (7) Onoel in the shape of an ass. Of these seven archons (Celsus, vi. 27) Paul speaks continually in his letters (I Cor. ii. 6-8; Col. ii. 8, 20). But this Ophite sect has nothing to do with the Jews.”)

Now, you had quite a lot to say on Galatians 3, much of which left me scratching my head! Here’s why: I’ve always understood the “mediator” (or more accurately the “intermediary”) of whom Paul speaks in Gal 3:19 to have been Moses. In Deut 5:3-5 we read, “Not with our fathers did the LORD make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today. The LORD spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire, while I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD. For you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up into the mountain…” (And of course, we are told by Stephen that the being to whom Moses spoke on the mountain was actually an angel - i.e., a non-God being). And that which had been “put in place through angels by an intermediary” is not “the promises” but “the law,” which is the subject of this verse (i.e., that which Paul said had been “added because of transgressions”).

VIII. The Holy Spirit and Representative Agency (or not) in the OT
But, leaving aside other criticisms involved in the interpretation of Isaiah 48:12-22 (already discussed at some length above), and supposing for purposes of argument that the Lord God is sending Cyrus (or anyway some not-God person) and also “His Spirit” (i.e. God’s Spirit) in verse 16, the parallelism still indicates that the Lord is sending two persons (or at least two things): the messiah (or maybe the prophet Isaiah) and the Spirit.

Now, if God is sending His Spirit in such a way that it can be distinguished along with the sending of a person other than the person of God Who is doing the sending (regardless of whether this sent person is also divinely YHWH or not), then is the Lord sending a Spirit Who is a person? Or not a person?

There is no reason to understand the Spirit to be a personal, self-aware being just because it is being sent with whoever is in view in v. 16. Interpreting the Spirit of God to be his operational power and presence works just fine here, for it is this that was at work in (or with) the person who was sent by YHWH (whether we understand him to be Cyrus or Isaiah).

Then we get to Isaiah 63:8-10:
Now, you certainly consider “the messenger of YHWH” to be a Person distinctly not the Father (and so therefore, per the imported metaphysical constraint, distinctly not God.) This angel of the Presence is the same one that went before Israel during the Exodus. Yet not only is YHWH declared the Savior of the people, becoming their Savior (with the angel of His presence saving them in verse 9), but in verse 11 His people wan to know, after He (and His Holy Spirit) turned Himself to become their enemy and fought them (v.10), “Where is He Who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd(s) of His flock? Where is He Who put His Holy Spirit in the midst of Him?” Are they not asking for the Angel of the Presence?–someone you consider a distinct person, though not God Himself?

They’re asking for YHWH to be present with them in the same or similar miraculous sense in which he was present with them before - i.e., through the “angel of his presence” (an angel in whom he had invested divine authority to act and speak on his behalf). The “love and pity” in which the children of Israel were “redeemed” is the love and pity of YHWH manifested through the angel who functioned as YHWH’s representative agent at that time, by which YHWH could be said to be present with his people while still remaining in his “dwelling place” in heaven (1Kings 8:39; 2Chron 6:39). The “Holy Spirit” they grieved is not the spirit of the angel, but of YHWH. We read of “his Holy Spirit” twice in this chapter. However many persons one thinks YHWH to consist of, YHWH can no more be made equivalent to the very “Holy Spirit” he is said to have and send than he can be identified with “his glorious arm” in v. 12. The Spirit OF YHWH cannot also be YHWH; it is an attribute of YHWH. But the question “how many is YHWH” shouldn’t even have to be asked, for YHWH is spoken of throughout this passage as a single person (not a plurality of persons), with the pronouns “he,” “himself” and “his” used in reference to him.

However else this section is parsed, the people are not treating the Angel of the Presence as being less than YHWH Himself; but rather that what the Presence does is what YHWH Himself is doing in presence among them in a fashion distinct from a lesser not-God entity, like for example Moses–or the prophet Isaiah for that matter! (YHWH doesn’t tell Isaiah in answer to the plea from the people, ‘Very well, you can go among them as if you were Myself, to be worshiped religiously as though you are Me and to in fact speak as though you yourself are identifiably Me!’) The people want the real Presence of YHWH back.

The people are treating the angel of YHWH’s presence as just that: an angel which carried the name of YHWH, and was the means by which YHWH was present among his people. This does not at all mean Isaiah or the people understood the angel to have been YHWH in an ontological sense. But to be in the presence of this angel through whom God was able to interact with his people was a blessing and privilege that was the closest thing to seeing God’s face in heaven itself (which no mortal could do and live).

Yet again, the Spirit is also regarded as the operative presence of YHWH. But if the Spirit is the operative presence of YHWH, and so actually is YHWH Himself,

How can anything that is “OF” YHWH be “actually YHWH himself?”

operating in and as the Angel of the Presence, then why is the Angel to be considered anything other than YHWH Himself present among them (the Angel of His Presence)?

Because he’s an angel, and, being an angel, is not to be identified with YHWH himself.

Obviously, the only reason is that there is too much evidence that the Angel of the Presence is somehow personally not the person Who sends the Angel. But this leads to an exegetical conundrum. If the Angel is not to be considered YHWH, why is the Angel considered to be YHWH (and not only that but necessary to be considered YHWH)? But if the Angel is not to really be considered YHWH, why is the Spirit to be considered YHWH, when the Spirit operates as God’s presence among the people (just as the Angel of the Presence does)? But if the Spirit is not YHWH, what is it and why does it do the deeds and act as the presence of YHWH?–is it another created entity? (You seem to think it is not.) And again, if the Angel of the Presence is a person different from the person who sends the angel, why is the Spirit not a different person?–especially when it is operating here as YHWH doing these things through the Angel? Is the Spirit not at least a different Person (as YHWH Himself) compared to the Angel? But then, why have a not-God entity acting as YHWH’s Presence distinct from the Spirit of YHWH (Who actually is present and operating on the scene)?

God’s Spirit, or operational presence, is simply his power at work in the world. It is not acting “distinct from” the angel; it is acting in and through the angel. The angel was the means by which God’s operational presence was manifested to the people of Israel at that time.

The doctrine that the One Who sends is a Person, and the Angel and Spirit both are Persons, yet all three are one YHWH in actual identity (not three YHWHs), solves the exegetical problem without having to introduce a palpable useful fiction (the Angel isn’t really YHWH after all but must be treated as being YHWH) that isn’t necessary if the Spirit of God is on the scene doing those deeds as the real presence of YHWH (whether a distinct person thereof or not).

I deny that there is an exegetical problem that needed solving. I don’t see any interpretive or exegetical difficulty with the view that YHWH sent an angel to function as his representative to the people of Israel, and it was through this angel that God’s Spirit (his operative presence/power) manifested itself among them.

As to whether the Spirit is a distinct Person along with the Father, would that not depend on whether God sends His spirit in a fashion similar to His sending of a person? Such as in Isaiah 48:16? (But you have not yet discussed this parallel sending.)

“And now YHWH God has sent me, and his Spirit *.” Understanding YHWH’s “Spirit” in this way makes fine sense of the verse without resorting to the idea of God consisting of multiple persons/YHWH’s.

If that is true, there should be no need for a mere created entity to be the functional (operative!) representative of God by which God puts His thoughts and purposes into action! The Spirit of God fulfills this role already. It can even create visible effects (as you agree). It might as well create a visual effect of appearance and save God a step!–more importantly, save God a step that amounts to a running falsehood: that the visible Presence is not in fact the presence of YHWH but rather the presence of a not-God creature which must be treated in totality as YHWH anyway including for religious trust and devotion. (While also being denied as being God, since that must be impossible and maybe also would be idolatry to treat a not-God entity as God.)

Again, I believe the “mere created entity” which is the angel of the presence was the means through which God’s Spirit (his operational presence) manifested itself among his people. Sure, God could have “created a visual effect of appearance” and “save himself a step,” but apparently God likes to work through created personal beings. I mean, he took the time to create them, so I guess it only makes sense that he’d put them to good use.

[Origen]

“I believe that the God of the Old Testament (YHWH) was in fact, the preincarnate Christ. According to the visions of YHWH that the prophets received, the YHWH had the appearance of a man!”

“The fellow walking in the garden of Eden and the fellow who spoke to Adam in the garden. Was not God the Father but the preincarnate Christ, the Word (YHWH), who had the appearance of a man in the visions of the prophets.”

“The visions are not an added extra to add color to the narration. The visions help us to identify who YHWH really is.”

Questions about the Nicene Creed and some Christian forum rules about...

[Origen]

I favor that viewpoint, though don’t consider it necessary for salvation.