Category: Trinitarian Commentary

To the challenge that we have coming from another site that where I dealt with their “response” to an earlier blog, I see there has been a response to my response. As I said, I am not going to play blog ping pong back and forth so if you want to come and push your, um, response, to what I said somewhere, then I invite you to come to TheologyWeb and I’ll be glad to meet you there.

Tonight, our passage is going to be Daniel 7:9-14. This is a vision of Daniel and I am not going to get into the eschatology as fascinating as that would be, but instead I want to focus on the Trinitarian aspect firstly, because that’s more important, and secondly, because I want this blog to be about mere Christianity and not my doctrinal stance on secondary issues provided those issues don’t become heretical, like the position of the hyper-preterists.

9 “As I looked, 
       “thrones were set in place, 
       and the Ancient of Days took his seat. 
       His clothing was as white as snow; 
       the hair of his head was white like wool. 
       His throne was flaming with fire, 
       and its wheels were all ablaze.

 10 A river of fire was flowing, 
       coming out from before him. 
       Thousands upon thousands attended him; 
       ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. 
       The court was seated, 
       and the books were opened.

If there was any place where I thought somehow a theophany was taking place, it would be this one, although it must be stated that this is a vision. When the Angel of the Lord shows up in the OT, we have no reason to think that that is a vision.

I’d like you to notice something. Thrones are set in place in the 9th verse. Not a throne. Thrones. There is more than one that is making judgment here and if we think to the NT, we can think of claims of Christ that he has the right to judge.

Now, we don’t need to pay attention to the part about the little horn in the middle. This is just him getting ready to be judged. Let’s instead look at what is going on in verses 13-14.

13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Now let’s consider some things about this. First, it’s one like a Son of Man, so we can all tell through the lens of the NT that this is referring to Christ. Second, he is coming with the clouds and clouds are very often tied to deity in the OT giving us an understanding about the nature of this figure. We also keep in mind that he approaches the Ancient of Days and would seem to be the only one who can do so. That would tell us about the unique nature of this one as well in his relationship to the Father.

How does it end, we look at the things that he is given, which are characteristic of deity. Some of you might think this goes against a Trinitarian concept. Not at all and we will see this more in the NT, but basically, Christ came as the Messiah and set up his kingdom and based on your eschatology, he is given the kingdom at a certain time to rule based on what he’s done in his sojourn on Earth. It does not speak against his nature.

He is also worshipped, but no one is to be worshipped but God alone. God has even given sovereignty to this one. This is truly an exalted figure if he is to be sovereign and if he is to have dominion and receive worship.

When we get to the NT, we will see more about this kingdom, but for now, we know something more about the king and it is quite revealing.

I have recently seen that another site has made an attempt to deal with what I had to say on Isaiah 9:6. I’ll say upfront that on this verse, to avoid blog ping pong back and forth, this is the only reply I’ll be making on the blog and I recommend that if the writer wishes to challenge me, he should come to TheologyWeb where I do debates.

For those wanting to make sure I am quoting right, the blogpost in question I am responding to can be found here:

http://godandson.reslight.net/?p=82

I will put what they say into bold and my comments will be in regular print.

The claim is made that there is a difference between the child who is born and the son who is given. It is alleged that the child had a beginning in the incarnation, but the son, being fully of the nature of deity, does not have a beginning, but that he is given. In other words, the same old trinitarian dualism that trinitarians assume,  add to, and read into, many scriptures is being also assumed, added to, and read into Isaiah 9:6, thus splitting upon this one sentence so as to have part of the sentence apply to the alleged Jesus the alleged God being, and another part of the sentence is supposed to apply to Jesus the human being.

Following the link on dualism, one can see that our reviewer does not understand orthodox Trinitarian thought as shown in the Chalcedonian Creed, but is instead inserting a Nestorian idea for what he believes Trinitarianism teaches. Our critic seems to think that a functional subordination within the Trinity distracts from the deity of the Son. This is a nice assumption, but is not backed. The debate is over the ontology of the Son and not the function. I, as a Trinitarian, have no problem with the Son submitting to being sent of the Father for instance. 

Also, our writer assumes I am arguing for the Trinity from this passage. I am arguing instead for the foundations of Trinitarian thought to come to full revelation in the NT. If I was wanting to pick a passage all about the Trinity, I’d find one that included the Holy Spirit as well.

Our author notes that I have one sentence devoted to the humanity of Christ and one to the deity of Christ. I suspect somehow they think that this is a problem. I don’t. If the Scriptures speak of both, then we can expect both to be addressed. Would Christ having two natures be a problem for Arianism? Yes. It’s not one for Trinitarianism though.

The son of God, however, was indeed born. He was the firstborn creature (Colossians 1:15) Being the firstborn, he was indeed the first living creature to be born, brought forth into existence.

I plan on addressing this more when we get to Col. 1:15 in the NT, but note some thnigs. First off, I have no problem with the Son being born. The problem comes when we apply a temporal notion to the term which is not necessary to its understanding. Note also that the text says Christ made all things. Question! Does this include time?

Also, all things exist by him. Thus, if the son were to cease to be, all other things would cease to be. So all creation rests on a being that is less than God?

The scriptures show that Jesus was begotten/born/brought forth three times.

(1) as the firstborn creature. — Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22-25.
(2) of the holy spirit as a human. — Matthew 1:20.
(3) from the dead when raised from the dead. — Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33; Colossians 1:18; Hebrews 1:5; 5:5.

Note interestingly the differences in usage of firstborn here even. Can we truly say Jesus was firstborn from the dead? Others came back from the dead before him. Jesus was first though in his pre-eminence in that he is the first one to come back in the glorious body that we will. For the first, we’ve already addressed. For the second one, I don’t see the point in saying he’s the firstborn of a virgin since technically, he’ll be the only one born that way as far as we know.

So not only was Jesus born when he was begotten of God’s spirit as a human being, he was born again when he was raised from the dead.

What they mean by born again when raised from the dead must be something different than what Christ means for biblically, this is something that happens in one’s lifetime and reaches full fruition in the after-death.

The son given by Yahweh (Isaiah 9:7) is the spoken of in Luke 1:32 as the “son of the Most High.” This son given by Yahweh to Israel (and to the world) is not the Most High Yahweh who has given this son. The son of the Most High is never spoken of as the Most High. Only Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus, is spoken of as the Most High. —Genesis 14:22; Psalm 7:17; 83:18; 92:1; Luke 1:32; John 13:16.

I’d like my readers to think back. What did I say was the #1 error that is made by those who go against the Trinity? Answer! The one you’ve just seen done here. It is the assumption of Unipersonalism. Our writer has assumed God is one person and thinks by showing Jesus is the Son of God, he’s shown Jesus is not one who has the full nature of God. It does not follow. Every Trinitarian signs on the bottom line that Jesus is the Son of God. The question needs to be asked though of our opponents, what do you think “Son of God” means?

Scripturally, Isaiah 9:6 is speaking of one singular “name”, not “names” (plural). But the tradition has been to ignore the singular name, and then to render and misquote the verse as though it was speaking of a series of “names” (plural), all of which are then applied individually to the son who is given by Yahweh.

This is an assumption, but just that. An assumption. Where has this been demonstrated? If he thinks titles would be a better term than name, so be it. The concept behind it is still the same.

Thus, we find, as in this case, many refer to many of the words that make up the singular name as each a “name” in itself, and that is the way we find Isaiah 9:6 in most translations. The page that we are responding to does this; it ignores that there is only one name given, and then goes on to speak of various words as each an individual name that is supposed to be applied to the Messiah. In other words, it refers to “Wonderful”, “Mighty God”, “Everlasting Father”, and “Prince of Peace” as names (plural), and not as the scripture reads, a singular name. As a singular name, it is: Pelejoezelgibborabiaadarshalom. As a singular name, it is given the meaning: “Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace.” This recognizes the name by which the Messiah is to be called as a description of the God and Father of the Messiah, and not as a series of “names” given to the Messiah.

This is simply an assertion though and it is one I do not see being used by Hebrew scholars. The writers wish us to think that this is a passage describing God, but the passage is speaking about the child and about the things the child shall be called. Why think Isaiah is talking about God instead of the Messiah?

We are told that the word “Wonderful” is the same “name” that is applied to the angel of Yahweh in Judges 13:18. This is misleading.  The word translated *wonderful* in many translations at Judges 13:18 is Strong’s #6383. It is an adjective. There is no indication that the angel of Yahweh meant that this adjective was to supposed to be his  “name”, but rather that angel is simply using this Strong says of this word: “remarkable:–secret, wonderful.” BDBG defines it: “wonderful, incomprehensible, extraordinary.”* This word, as such, appears in only one other place in the Scriptures,Psalm 139:6, where it is translated “too wonderful” in the King James Version. We believe that the angel was using the word to say why he was not revealing his name, not as claiming this adjective to be his name. As such, we should realize that the angel was stating that his name — whatever it was — would not be appreciated by Manoah, and thus he was not revealing his name. Indeed, the names of none of the angels of Yahweh are revealed in the scriptures except that of Gabriel. The Hebrew word — an adjective — for wonderful found in Judges 13:18 and Psalm 139:6 does not appear inIsaiah 9:6, although we do find the noun form that is rendered “wonderful”. Forms of this “noun” may be found at least 13 times in the Old Testament. In all except one (Daniel 12:6), it is directly used to describe the works of Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus; likewise, we believe that as part of the singular name being attributed to Jesus in Isaiah 9:6, it is describing the God and Father of Jesus as “Wonderful in counsel”.

This is the kind of thing that sounds really impressive at first, but soon reveals itself to be smoke and mirrors. It’s the assertion of “We don’t think it means that so believe it.” The idea is given that Manoah would not appreciate the name of the angel given. Exactly why would that be so? Does the writer have any explanation also for why Manoah believed that he had seen God?  The word Wonderful is used of the Lord of Hosts in Isaiah 28:29 and in Judges, it is followed by the wonderful thing that was done of ascending. Apparently, Wonderful does always apply to something of YHWH, except for those inconvenient parts where it’d go against Arianism.

While we believe that “wonderful” here is referring to the God and Father of Jesus,  Jesus is , however, also “wonderful”, in that he did “wonderful things” through the power of the holy spirit of his God and Father.  — Matthew 21:15.

And I believe that peanut butter cookie dough is the best kind of ice cream. Just saying it doesn’t make enough of an argument though. Again, why should I think this passage talking about Jesus, which Matthew by the way, quoted the first two verses of in Matthew 4 and likely had the whole section in mind, is instead talking about God the Father? Because it supports Arianism?

We are next presented with “Mighty God” as an alleged “name” of the Messiah. The Hebrew of this is usually transliterated as “EL GIBBOR”. “EL” here signifies “God, a god, strength, might, power.” Jesus, of course, is a mighty one of power. While we do not believe that “EL GIBBOR” is being applied to Jesus as a singular name here, but rather to the God and Father of Jesus, the phrase EL GIBBOR can certainly be applied to Jesus, if one takes into account the broader meaning of the various forms of the word EL as applied to other persons or things than to Yahweh, that is, in the sense of might, strength, power, etc., having received might and power from the only true source of that power, his God and Father. The plural form of this phrase is is applied to human rulers in Ezekiel 32:21, which is rendered in the King James Version there as ““The strong among the mighty.” All translations we have examined renders it similar to the King James Version. We do not know of any translation that renders the phrase with the word “Gods” in Ezekiel 32:21.

And here we have a case of if you give an alternate meaning, then that somehow refutes the case in this usage. Considering the proximity of Isaiah 9:6 and Isaiah 10:21, we have reason to believe Isaiah understood the phrase in this passage to refer to deity. There is not a question that it can mean other things. Keep in mind that the Messiah has both terms applied to him also in Psalm 45, a passage that speaks of him as God.

The next “name” examined is “everlasting father.” We are told that this is applied to Jesus since Jesus is paternal in nature. Again, we believe that as part of the singular name in Isaiah 9:6, “everlasting father” is speaking of the God and Father of Jesus, and not as a separate “name” applied to describe Jesus. However, we do realize however that the phrase “everlasting father” could be applied to Jesus since he has become the “last Adam”, “the life-giving spirit.” — 1 Corinthians 15:45.

And once again the, “We believe that” without any backing whatsoever. I don’t need to know what you believe. I need to know why you believe what you believe. Can you give me any reason or is it just going to be an assertion?

And, finally, we have the phrase “Prince of Peace.” As shown above, we believe that this is not a separate name, but rather a part of the singular name given to Messiah that describes the God and Father of Messiah. Nevertheless, as a separate title, this could also apply to the one who rules on the throne of Yahweh, eventually bringing peace to the whole earth.

And again, we have the same thing going on. We believe and that settles it. Okay. Let’s see how this works.

I believe the Trinity is true and all that deny it are heretics.

You may repent now.

Regardless, what we do not find in Isaiah 9:6 is any mention of three persons in Yahweh; we do not find any mention of two persons in Yahweh. Any idea of the trinity has to be assumed, added to, and read into, what is stated there, just as in all of the other scriptures presented to allegedly prove the trinity dogma.

With this I agree. I do not find two persons in YHWH in this passage nor three. I instead find one person addressed in terms that show his nature as deity. This passage is not used to prove the Trinity in and of itself. It’s a stepping stone. To think my whole argument for the Trinity rests on one verse is a huge misunderstanding and fails to note that the Trinity is a systematic doctrine. It comes from taking all the information as a whole. I find the one who asserts that all of this is one name and then accuses this writer of reading his ideas into the text needs to check again. I would say the only reason the doctrine of the Trinity came is not because it was presupposed, but because it naturally works itself out of Scripture. If anything was presupposed, it would be Arianism.

It is Yahweh who performs what is spoken of in Isaiah 9:6, as shown in the next verse,Isaiah 9:7. Jesus does, however, perform the works of Yahweh, as the agent of Yahweh; this does not mean that he is a person of his God.

I have no problem with the idea that this is the work of YHWH done in the Messiah as that doesn’t rule out the ontological nature of the Messiah. Because one does the work of God does not mean that that person has ontological equality with God. That is true. One could ask though that if God himself does his work, does that rule out him having the ontological nature of God? It doesn’t. The function does not determine the essence. 

If our writers wish to continue, again, they may find me at TheologyWeb. They will need better arguments than this though and not just mere assertions.

We’re skipping over a lot of Scripture I realize, but much of that is because there’s a lot I want to save for when we get to the New Testament. When we get there and see how the New Testament interprets the Old Testament, we’ll go back to some of the passages that we didn’t cover.

Tonight, we’re going to be looking at the third chapter of Daniel. I would hope most of you know this story. We’re not going to go into the applicational side of it tonight such as the idea of overcoming adversity and having faithfulness to God despite whatever may come our way or that the idea that the Hebrew children said that even if their God doesn’t deliever them, they won’t bow, which goes against the doctrines of the Word of Faith heretics.

Well, maybe we will have some application there.

Let’s go on and give the story though. These three Hebrew boys have been taken hostage to Babylon when the city is destroyed along with their friend Daniel. Daniel through the miracle of dream interpretation quickly falls into the king’s favor. Chances are, that’s why he wasn’t present for this story. He was out doing some work for king Nebuchadnezzar.

King Nebby, as we will call him because typing out Nebuchadnezzar gets really tired after awhile and you’re bet this guy is thankful he didn’t live in an age where he had to write checks, one day decides that he’s going to have this huge idol built and indeed, it is something huge. Like many great kings, King Nebby was given to sudden fits of passion where he wanted what he wanted and he wanted it then and there.

So he has it built and he demands that all people within range bow down and worship this idol. Well, the officials want to get rid of these darn Hebrew boys and say “King Nebby. These boys aren’t bowing down before the idol that you’ve built.”

King Nebby brings the boys before him in order to talk some sense into them. However, the little pep talk doesn’t go too well. The Hebrew boys refuse and state categorically that under no circumstances will they bow down before the idol. They will remain faithful to YHWH.

At this point, King Nebby shows another trait of kings, the inability to put up with anyone going against their desires. He orders that they be thrown into the furnace. Keep in mind that this furnace was heated to such a degree that the soldiers who threw in the Hebrew children died from the flames.

King Nebby has a viewpoint to look in on the furance though and is astounded. He asks if there were three men thrown into the fire. He is told there were. Now he wants to know why there’s a fourth one walking around and this fourth one looks like a son of the gods!

We all know the story ends with the Hebrew boys coming out and facing no consequences and yet another trait of the king pops up as he suddenly says that all must honor the God of the three Hebrew boys. If anyone were to speak against them, their houses would become a heap of rubble. 

Makes you wonder what King Nebby might think of our society today. Even a pagan king knew better than we do.

The point? That fourth man. I am a believer that this was another appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ. This was YHWH being faithful to those who were in covenant with him even when they were in the land of their captors. YHWH had not forsaken them. His Son was there to show his presence.

When we get to the incarnation in the New Testament, we will discuss this more. Keep this in mind though of another Trinitarian motif from the Old Testament.

I know I said I’d go to the Psalms, but as I thought about it, I realized those verses would be better exegeted when we got to the NT. Of course, it’s my blog so I have the right to change my mind. Rest assured readers, I will do my best to make it good. Tonight, we’ll be looking at Isaiah 9:6. Here’s our text!

 6 For to us a child is born, 
       to us a son is given, 
       and the government will be on his shoulders. 
       And he will be called 
       Wonderful Counselor,  Mighty God, 
       Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I like what Ravi Zacharias says about this passage to begin with. He makes a note that in speaking about the messiah that the child is born, but the son is given. What makes the difference? The incarnation, the child, had a beginning in time. The Son, the very one who fully partakes of the nature of deity, does not. He is given.

Let’s go through the names that are given to the Son here.

The first one is Wonderful. If you remember from not too long ago, we discussed how the Angel of the Lord appeared to the parents of Samson. What did I ask you to keep in mind at that point? Think back on it.

I hope some of you remember that it was the name of the angel. The angel said his name was Wonderful. It was beyond understanding. Wanna guess where I’m going?

That’s right. It’s the same word used here. This child, I believe, is the same one that appeared in the form of the Angel of the Lord to speak to Samson’s parents.

The child will be Wonderful in his Wisdom as he serves as a counselor. His wisdom will be divine because he is divine. This very name speaks of his deity and the Jew would most likely catch the reference to the Angel of the Lord figure as well.

Mighty God. This is one the JWs like to use to show that Jesus is a mighty god. He is not the Almighty God though. The problem is that this same term is used in Isaiah 10:21 and there, the Jehovah’s Witnesses say it applies to Jehovah. Lo and behold, in their New World Translation, they have “Jehovah” in Isaiah 10:21, but they don’t do that in Isaiah 9:6. Bias anyone? What this name means is that not only is the Messiah going to have divine wisdom, he will be divine in his might as well.

Everlasting Father. Now what is this? Do the modalists have a point? Is Jesus the Father? Well, no. We’ve already been told he’s the son and the Jew would have realized that. This must be telling us something else. Indeed it is. This is referring not to his position but his character. He is paternal in his character. He will be as a father to his children. Keep that concept in mind.

Finally, the Prince of Peace. Now that we know of his might and wisdom and his paternal nature, we are told what kind of reign he will have. He will be one who brings in peace with his reign. All of this together points to the divine nature of this Messiah.

Tomorrow, we shall look further into Isaiah.

Tonight, as you can guess from the title of the post, we’re going to be looking at Proverbs 8. This is a passage that is absolutely essential to Christology for us today. Nothing I say will be in-depth on the topic however. For those who like what they’ve seen here and want to know more, I recommend going to J.P. Holding’s site and reading his article on Jesus as God’s Wisdom:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html

Throughout this passage, Wisdom has been speaking and now, we get to Wisdom describing herself. (For those concerned about the Christ-image being female, keep in mind Wisdom is seen as the helper role in this one, just as Eve was to Adam and thus, would naturally be personified as female. Keep also in mind that God describes himself in feminine terms at certain points in Isaiah.) 

Let’s go through the text.

22 “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, 
       before his deeds of old;

Some might say that Wisdom being brought forth points to a beginning. Not at all. Wisdom was always there as an attribute of the Father and was brought forth from the Father. There was never a time when Wisdom was not. After all, God was never unwise. Wisdom was there before the deeds of old, which would be referring to creation as we shall see.

23 I was appointed from eternity, 
       from the beginning, before the world began.

Before the world began, Wisdom was there and was appointed. Appointed for what?

 24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth, 
       when there were no springs abounding with water;

 25 before the mountains were settled in place, 
       before the hills, I was given birth,

 26 before he made the earth or its fields 
       or any of the dust of the world.

The work is referring to creation and how Wisdom was given birth before then. Again, we are tempted to think of this in temporal terms. It’s not. Wisdom was eternally in the bosom of the Father and came forward. Does that sound like any other passage?

 27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, 
       when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,

 28 when he established the clouds above 
       and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,

 29 when he gave the sea its boundary 
       so the waters would not overstep his command, 
       and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.

Again, Wisdom describes how she was there in every moment of creation.

30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. 
       I was filled with delight day after day, 
       rejoicing always in his presence,

 31 rejoicing in his whole world 
       and delighting in mankind.

And now, we realize that not only was Wisdom there, but Wisdom was the agent used in creation. Wisdom was rejoicing in the act of creation. Let’s keep this in mind for it will become more relevant later on. Wisdom is the agent of creation and is rejoicing in the creation.

Wisdom’s role will become more apparent later. Tomorrow night, I’d like to jump back and get to something in the Psalms.

Greetings to all my readers. Some of you are seeing this blog earlier than you normally would. The reason is that it’s Wednesday. I don’t have to be at work till 11:30, but I get off at 8 and get up bright and early at 6:30 the next day for work.

You do the math.

So, as I prepare to clock in for the day, I’m giving you today’s blog entry and our passage today will be Judges 13, the announcement of the birth of Samson.

2 A certain man of Zorah, named Manoah, from the clan of the Danites, had a wife who was sterile and remained childless. 3 The angel of the LORD appeared to her and said, “You are sterile and childless, but you are going to conceive and have a son. 4 Now see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink and that you do not eat anything unclean, 5 because you will conceive and give birth to a son. No razor may be used on his head, because the boy is to be a Nazirite, set apart to God from birth, and he will begin the deliverance of Israel from the hands of the Philistines.”

Note here that the Angel of the Lord has made yet another appearance and this time to a lady who is barren, which in that time and day was a disgrace. (One wonders what they’d think of our abortion culture.) He has told her that she will have a son and that he will deliver Israel from the Phillistines.

 6 Then the woman went to her husband and told him, “A man of God came to me. He looked like an angel of God, very awesome. I didn’t ask him where he came from, and he didn’t tell me his name. 7 But he said to me, ‘You will conceive and give birth to a son. Now then, drink no wine or other fermented drink and do not eat anything unclean, because the boy will be a Nazirite of God from birth until the day of his death.’ “

This is a passage that gives further credence to the idea that the Angel of the Lord was not always recognizable. The lady only knew about a prophecy, but she attributed it to a man of God. She did say that he looked like an angel of God. However, that is all we have from her at this point.

8 Then Manoah prayed to the LORD : “O LORD, I beg you, let the man of God you sent to us come again to teach us how to bring up the boy who is to be born.”

 9 God heard Manoah, and the angel of God came again to the woman while she was out in the field; but her husband Manoah was not with her. 10 The woman hurried to tell her husband, “He’s here! The man who appeared to me the other day!”

The husband, Manoah prays that the visitor will return and refers to him as a man of God. When the wife sees the Angel again, she refers to him as a man of God as well.

 11 Manoah got up and followed his wife. When he came to the man, he said, “Are you the one who talked to my wife?”
      “I am,” he said.

 12 So Manoah asked him, “When your words are fulfilled, what is to be the rule for the boy’s life and work?”

 13 The angel of the LORD answered, “Your wife must do all that I have told her. 14 She must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, nor drink any wine or other fermented drink nor eat anything unclean. She must do everything I have commanded her.”

 15 Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, “We would like you to stay until we prepare a young goat for you.”

 16 The angel of the LORD replied, “Even though you detain me, I will not eat any of your food. But if you prepare a burnt offering, offer it to the LORD.” (Manoah did not realize that it was the angel of the LORD.)

In this interchange, we see at the end that the Angel of the Lord says he won’t eat anything, but if an offering is made, let it be made to the Lord, thus speaking of the Lord as someone else. However, the passage ends with saying “He did not realize that it was the angel of the Lord.” This would tell us that had he known, he would have responded differently.

17 Then Manoah inquired of the angel of the LORD, “What is your name, so that we may honor you when your word comes true?”

 18 He replied, “Why do you ask my name? It is beyond understanding. “

The idea of the name should have clued Manoah in some more, but apparently, it didn’t at this point. Now some of you are hoping I’ll comment on this name. I won’t yet. I say to just wait. Sometime in the future, we will see this again. Some clever exegetes might already be putting two and two together and finding the other reference.

19 Then Manoah took a young goat, together with the grain offering, and sacrificed it on a rock to the LORD. And the LORD did an amazing thing while Manoah and his wife watched: 20 As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heaven, the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground. 21 When the angel of the LORD did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the LORD.

We see here another parallel with what happened to Gideon. Also it seems that the terms “LORD” and “Angel of the Lord” are being used interchangably in this part. It is at this point that they realize the identity of their guest.

 22 “We are doomed to die!” he said to his wife. “We have seen God!”

 23 But his wife answered, “If the LORD had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and grain offering from our hands, nor shown us all these things or now told us this.”

If we ever wanted a passage that showed how the Israelites viewed the Angel of the Lord, this would be the one. The husband is immediately sure that they will die for they had seen God, but the text is clear that they saw the Angel of the Lord. Fortunately, his wife sets him straight on the matter.

So, it seems that we have a deepening doctrine as we go along on the Angel of the Lord. As we continue, we will see more Trinitarian aspects in the Old Testament.

I’d like to thank Dan for his comment on last night’s blog. He is definitely right in what he says and I’d like to emphasize something about that. Too often, we speak of New Testament Christianity, for instance. I don’t really like that term. Christianity is about more than the New Testament. The Old Testament is vital for us. We cannot truly appreciate the New Testament without a good understanding of the Old Testament. Remember that for a time, the Old Testament was the Bible of the church and we’re too quick to relegate it to secondary status in our thinking.

Tonight, we’ll be looking at Judges 6. The story of Gideon is a very interesting story, but we’re not looking at the whole thing. We’re only interested in the Trinitarian concept therein with the focus being on the Angel of the Lord.

11 The angel of the LORD came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. 12 When the angel of the LORD appeared to Gideon, he said, “The LORD is with you, mighty warrior.”

Once again, we have a similar pattern showing up. The Angel of the Lord appears and when he speaks, he will speak of the LORD as if the LORD is someone else.

13 “But sir,” Gideon replied, “if the LORD is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonders that our fathers told us about when they said, ‘Did not the LORD bring us up out of Egypt?’ But now the LORD has abandoned us and put us into the hand of Midian.”

At this point, Gideon might not know for sure who this visitor is. It’s likely that the Angel of the Lord simply appeared as a man and Gideon just saw him as an eccentric guest.

 14 The LORD turned to him and said, “Go in the strength you have and save Israel out of Midian’s hand. Am I not sending you?”

 15 “But Lord ,  ” Gideon asked, “how can I save Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family.”

At this point, we see the shift again. The text says “The LORD.” Of course, Gideon can’t see a text so he doesn’t notice this. However, Gideon could have noticed that the Angel of the Lord said “I am sending you.”

 16 The LORD answered, “I will be with you, and you will strike down all the Midianites together.”

 17 Gideon replied, “If now I have found favor in your eyes, give me a sign that it is really you talking to me. 18 Please do not go away until I come back and bring my offering and set it before you.” 
      And the LORD said, “I will wait until you return.”

Gideon is not know as a man of faith and so he wants to put this to the test. (Note for those of you who want to use Gideon’s fleece idea to find “God’s will for your life.” It shows that you really don’t have much faith in God to use Gideon’s technique.) However, the Angel of the Lord is still being referred to as “The LORD.”

19 Gideon went in, prepared a young goat, and from an ephah of flour he made bread without yeast. Putting the meat in a basket and its broth in a pot, he brought them out and offered them to him under the oak.

 20 The angel of God said to him, “Take the meat and the unleavened bread, place them on this rock, and pour out the broth.” And Gideon did so. 21 With the tip of the staff that was in his hand, the angel of the LORD touched the meat and the unleavened bread. Fire flared from the rock, consuming the meat and the bread. And the angel of the LORD disappeared. 22 When Gideon realized that it was the angel of the LORD, he exclaimed, “Ah, Sovereign LORD! I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face!”

Now we have something quite interesting. The Angel of the Lord clearly does a miracle in bringing fire to the offering and then disappears. However, Gideon cries out to the sovereign LORD and speaks of another person saying he will die for he has seen the Angel of the Lord face to face. This is quite fascinating because Israelites knew that death came if you saw God face to face. Remember why Jacob named the place he wrestled Peniel?

23 But the LORD said to him, “Peace! Do not be afraid. You are not going to die.”

 24 So Gideon built an altar to the LORD there and called it The LORD is Peace. To this day it stands in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.

And note that the LORD speaks to him. Now if this is the Angel of the Lord being referred to this way, we cannot know for sure, but I don’t see any reason why it couldn’t be.

Why bring this up again? Once again, I want to establish that this is a consistent pattern we see in the OT. It’s not just hidden away in a few places. It’s all throughout. Tomorrow, we’ll see the Angel of the Lord shows up again in Judges.

Today, we’re looking at the book of Joshua as he brings the children of Israel into the Promised Land. For those who are interested can follow along in their Bibles in Joshua 5:13-6:2. I am going to be giving some of the details, but like in many other cases, the more familiar you are with the background story, the more you’ll get out of it. Consider that an example to be in your Bibles more. 

The basic background is that this is the generation that was wandering in the wilderness for the forty years. When Joshua brings them to the Promised Land and they cross the Jordan, they haven’t been circumcised yet and seeing as this is the sign of the covenant between Israel and God, they must have all the men circumcised. 

Naturally, this would be a time they’d have to wait and rest. If you remember in the book of Genesis, Simeon and Levi tricked a whole town this way by telling them that all their men needed to be circumcised. Then, while all the men were in recovery (And we men can certainly imagine that’d be a LOT of recovery), Simeon and Levi came in and killed everyone in the town.

Now that everyone has been entered into the covenant, they’re ready to proceed to Jericho and start the conquest. On their way though, Joshua looks and sees that there is a man standing before them. At this point, let us go to the text itself. Joshua 5:13 will give our introduction.

Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”

Joshua at first does not know who this man is so he seeks to go and ask whose side he’s on. The man answers him. 

“Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?”

Joshua immediately understands who the man is. This is again the Angel of the Lord figure. Joshua’s reply is one that is worship and asks what message the Lord has for his servant, realizing the Lord has come to help them win their first battle.

The commander of the LORD’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.

The next verse further demonstrates the thesis. Joshua surely knew that his predecessor had been asked to take off his sandals for he was on holy ground and this was when he was standing before the one who proclaimed himself as “I AM.” (Which gives great impetus to the belief that that’s who Joshua is before now.)

 1 Now Jericho was tightly shut up because of the Israelites. No one went out and no one came in.

 2 Then the LORD said to Joshua, “See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men.

The next two verses continue the pattern we’ve seen. The figure is introudced as someone distinct from God, but at the same time being treated as fully God. A Trinitarian can explain this as this is one person in the Godhead showing a distinction between another person in the Godhead.

It’s my hopes that this isn’t seeming pedantic, but I want many of my readers to see this rich legacy to the Trinity that is in their Old Testament. We often quickly go to the New Testament to show the Trinity. The truth is, we need to spend some time in the Old Testament as well.

 Tonight, I’m going to be writing on the Shema. For those who do not know, this is the passage in Deuteronomy 6:4-5 which is seen as one of the defining passages in Judaism. Your observant Jew will recite this passage once in the morning and once in the evening.

It will also be used by many a non-Trinitarian be that a modalist or an arian to disprove the Trinity. Let’s go to the text.

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

To begin with, I don’t really think this passage is talking about the nature of God. One wonders if the typical Jew wandering  in the desert would have been pondering, “I wonder if God is one or if he is two.” Chances are, such questions weren’t rising up in thir minds. Now when we get to a situation like Second Temple Judaism even before the time of Christ, such questions are being asked in relation to the divine identity, as Richard Bauckham uses the term in “God Crucified.”

This is a statement instead of monotheism which is why some translations indicate that the passage is saying that the Lord is Lord alone. This is the way Paul understood it in 1 Cor. 8:6

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Paul in the face of polytheism is actually Christianizing the Shema and including Jesus in what is called the divine identity, which is a concept we will look at more when we get to 1 Cor. 8:6 so please keep that in mind readers. If anyone wants a preview, I recommend they go out and read the Bauckham book that I referred to earlier. The point is that in the face of polytheism, Paul, certainly a Jew who knew his Torah well, sees this as a statement of monotheism.

However, I can picture someone asking what if I’m wrong. What if this is a statement about the nature of God?

I still have no problem.

It really amazes me that so many people start an argument against the Trinity by going to this passage and they want to point out that God is one.

One what?

Now I’ll admit that if the passage said God is one person, we’d have to get a new concept besides the Trinity. It would no longer fit. The text doesn’t say that though. It simply says that God is one. I, as a solid Trinitarian can affirm that God is one. In fact, it’s an essential to the doctrine of the Trinity that we believe that God is one. However, the terminology that is used here is interesting.

The word for one is “echad.” It is not “yachid.” If a singular person had been meant  be spoken of, Moses would have used yachid. However, echad can refer to a compound unity and often does such as night and morning being one day and man and woman being one flesh. I urge the reader to go to a website like blueletterbible and look up the usages of this word.

Now does this prove the Trinity? No. This does not demand that God is a triune being, but it does leave the door open and at this point, that is all we’re wanting to do.

Tomorrow, we shall go to the book of Joshua.

We’re continuing our look at Trinitarian passages in the Old Testament and that includes a study on the Angel of the Lord. We’re now going to be going to the book of Numbers where we find a seer (Which archaeology has found evidence of his existence) named Balaam who the king of Moab is wanting to hire to curse Israel so that they can be defeated. For more information on Balaam in archaeology, click the following:

http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Biblical_Archeology_Prophet_and_the_Earthquake0.asp

The text will be Numbers 22 focusing on the passage starting at verse 22.

Balaam sounds good for awhile saying he won’t go unless the Lord commands, but the insistence of the offers seems and Balaam’s asking again after more money is offered him seems to indicate that he might be in it for some gain. (Considering later biblical history doesn’t praise him including Numbers 31, we have a good precedent for this.)

However, while on the journey, God is angry with him and the Angel of the Lord appears. However, the Angel of the Lord in this “appearance” is actually invisible. Balaam is traveling on his donkey and suddenly, the donkey turns and goes into a field.

What Balaam doesn’t know is that the Angel of the Lord is standing there and he has his sword drawn. The donkey can see this and Balaam and Balaam, naturally thinking his donkey is being obedient, strikes her to get her back on course.

Then, Balaam and the donkey are traveling in a narrow path with walls on both sides and the Angel of the Lord is there again and once again, the donkey is the only one who sees him. This time, the donkey presses herself to the wall along with Balaam’s foot, so he strikes her again.

The Angel of the Lord goes further now and there is another path where there’s no way to turn right or left. When the donkey, who is again the only one able to see the angel, sees the Angel of the Lord there, she lies down and Balaam strikes her once again.

Now a miracle occurs as the Lord opens the mouth of the donkey and she asks Balaam why he’s hitting her. Balaam’s reply is that the donkey has embarrassed him and had he had a sword, he would have killed the donkey. 

The donkey reminds Balaam that she has been faithful to him all her life. Has she ever acted like this? Balaam replies that she hasn’t. At this point, Balaam’s eyes are opened and he sees that while he might have drawn a sword to kill his donkey, someone else has drawn a sword who could have killed him.

The Angel of the Lord asks Balaam why he struck his donkey those three times and tells him that if he had kept going, he would have killed Balaam and let the donkey live. (Kind of makes you think our friends in PETA would be pleased with this passage.)

The commands are then that Balaam is to go but to be sure, he is only to speak the words that the Angel of the Lord tells him. Does Balaam understand this figure then to be the one that he had prayed to earlier? I don’t think this passage can tell us in isolation, but it is one we need to keep in mind.

Especially since we’ll see an angel with sword drawn later.