Miscellaneous Speculative and/or Suggestive Arguments In Defense of the Trinity

The following will be ongoing comments. I'll add to this blog as I find little nuggets that suggest the doctrine of the Trinity both in the Old and New Testament. Notice I said "suggest", not "prove." These are meant to be supplementary suggestive and confirmatory evidence. These are NOT the best evidences, and so should not be presented before the better evidences.



Most commentators agree Isa. 14:12-14 (and surrounding verses) have Isaiah likening the arrogance of the King of Babylon to that of Satan's pride which lead to his fall.

12    "How you are fallen from heaven,
        O Day Star, son of Dawn!
    How you are cut down to the ground,
        you who laid the nations low!
13    You said in your heart,
        'I will ascend to heaven;
    above the stars of God
        I will set my throne on high;
    I will sit on the mount of assembly
        in the far reaches of the north;
14    I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
        I will make myself like the Most High.'- Isa. 14:12-14

The Devil or Satan is here described as wanting to take Almighty God's place above the heavens. Satan is not looking to take the place of the highest person below Almighty God. Rather Satan wants to be the Most High God (el elyon). This interpretation is especially highlighted by the Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser. He has pointed out that during Old Testament times gods were the ones who were considered to be those who rode the clouds. Clouds were, in effect, the chariots of the gods. Baal was especially known for being the god who rode the clouds. That's why (according to Heiser) the Jews started to refer to their God (the God of Israel) as the true cloud rider. This designation of their God by Jews is recorded in the Old Testament. In every instance in the canonical Old Testament where a being rides the clouds, it is the one true of God Israel. The only exception is that of the mysterious figure named "the Son of Man" in Dan. 7:13. Heiser has argued that Jesus' allusion to and application of this verse to Himself before the Jewish Council is what caused Him to be condemned to death for blasphemy. Because He was, in essence, claiming to be God. I've argued this in my blog, Markan Christology. So, in the same way that Satan wanted to take Almighty God's place as God by ascending above the heights of the clouds, Jesus actually did so according to Jesus' prediction before the Jewish Council. Beyond the Gospels, there are New Testament epistles that also portray Jesus as above the heavens, and therefore strongly suggest that Jesus is Almighty God (YHWH/Jehovah/Yehovah/Yahweh)

For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.- Heb. 7:26

He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)- Eph. 4:10

This gives new meaning to Jesus' statements the Gospel of John:

He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all.- John 3:31

John Gill in his commentary states regarding John 3:31 and the phrase "above all":

above John, before whom he was preferred, for he was before him; above the prophets of the Old Testament, and even above Moses, the chief of them; yea, above all the angels in heaven, being God over all, blessed for ever: wherefore all glory is to be given him; no honour is to be envied him, or detracted from him.

 See also any standard Christian defense of Christ's deity based on Phil. 2:5-11 (e.g. HERE, HERE). In summary, what Satan tried to take from "below the clouds" and which didn't inherently belong to him, Jesus (already "above the clouds" so to speak; Phil. 2:6-7) was willing to let go of and so received it back again when the Father glorified Him for His obedience (cf. John 17:5; Phil. 2:6-11). Jesus already was God, being "in the form of God" (Phil. 2:6) prior to His incarnation (and during His incarnation, according to Greek grammar).


See also my comments on Mark 14:26 which deals with the connection between Dan. 7:13 and Jesus' claim to be the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven.

Also My blogs:

Romans 9:5 and Christ's Full Deity

---

In connection with the previous argument it's interesting that while Satan is condemned for trying to ascend above the stars of God (i.e. the angels of God), the author of the book of Hebrews in Heb. 1:6  applies the combined themes of Ps. 97:7 and Deut. 32:43 to Christ so that all of God's angels are to worship Christ. This parallels John 5:23 where John attributes to Jesus the teaching that we are to honor the Son in the same way we ought to honor the Father. What was inappropriate and blasphemous for Satan to attempt to acquire (viz. a position higher than God's angels) is naturally the position Christ is in and we are required to render due honor and worship to Christ that corresponds to that exalted position. Therefore, Christ is truly and fully God.

---

Psalm 99:8 calls God the "God-Who-Forgives" (NKJV). The Hebrew word there for "forgives/forgiving" is nōsē’ and comes from the verb nāsā’, which means "to lift up, to carry, to bear, to bear away, to convey, to remove to a distance, to forgive". Literally ’ēl nōsē’ means "God forgiving" and is translated variously as "a God who forgave/forgives" or "a forgiving God" (ESV). The Hebrew word nāsā is the word "bear" in Lev. 16:22.

The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness.- Lev. 16:22

 It is the same word used in Isa. 53:11 where the Messiah (Jesus) was to "bear" the iniquities of sinners. Jesus' atonement being the fulfillment of Lev. 16:22.

Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
    by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
        make many to be accounted righteous,
        and he shall bear their iniquities.- Isa. 53:11

If we put this all together, Ps. 99:8 may be a prophetic remez (hint) indicating that God Himself will bear the sins (and its punishment) of His people upon Himself in the person of Jesus. If so, then that would imply that Jesus is Jehovah/YHWH God.

---

Similar to the above argument, is the argument made by some which may or may not actually work. I'm not sure since I'm not a Hebrew scholar. But many have argued that Gen. 22:8 is actually a remez (hint) that God Himself with be the Lamb that God provides for ultimate atonement.

HERE'S ONE ARTCLE that argues for this. The article is from a King James Only website. I disagree with KJV Onlyism, but that doesn't entail that all their arguments are bad.

(KJV)  And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
 
(ASV)  And Abraham said, God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son. So they went both of them together.

(JPS)  And Abraham said: 'God will provide Himself the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son.' So they went both of them together.

(MKJV)  And Abraham said, My son, God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering. So they both went together.

(RV)  And Abraham said, God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son: so they went both of them together.

---

In the New Testament there are various passages that teach that Christ is in believers. That would suggest that Jesus is fully God since that would imply omnipresence. Moreover, Christians are called temples of the Holy Spirit. This argues for the fully deity of the Holy Spirit (as I argued HERE). Moreover, in John 14:23 Jesus says that if anyone loves Him and keeps His word, both He (Jesus) and the Father will come to him and make their home with (or in) him. If the the Father is God and can make His home with a believer, then it isn't a stretch to conclude that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit is God because they can make their home with or in the believer as well.

But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.- Rom. 8:10

Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?---unless indeed you fail to meet the test!- 2 Cor. 13:5

 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.- Gal. 2:20

 Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.- John 14:23

cf. Gal 4:6; Rom. 8:9; Phil. 1:19

---

Jesus is the the antitype of the type that Melchizedek portrayed whom the author of Hebrews described as, "having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever" (Heb. 7:3) Clearly this verse is teaching Jesus is eternal, without beginning or end. But it's not the only place since the author describes Jesus by applying an Old Testament passage about Jehovah/Yahweh's eternality to Christ.

10    And,
    "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
        and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11    they will perish, but you remain;
        they will all wear out like a garment,
12    like a robe you will roll them up,
        like a garment they will be changed.
    But you are the same,
        and your years will have no end."- Heb. 1:10-12 [Quoting Psalm 102:25-27]

Then the author finishes his book by stating that Jesus Christ is "the same yesterday, today and forever" (Heb. 13:8). The author of Hebrews also describes Christ as having an "indestructible life" in Heb. 7:16. Something which more aptly describes or fits Christ having God's very nature rather than a nature fitting an Arian or Semi-Arian Christology.

---

1 Tim. 2:5 has perennially been used to argue against the full deity of Christ.

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.- 1 Tim. 2:5-6

However, this doesn't necessarily pose too much of a problem for Trinitarianism for at least two reasons. 1. It's precisely because Jesus is both God and man that He can mediate between the two parties. If Jesus' humanity qualifies Him for representing humanity to God, then His divinity qualifies Him to represent God to man. 2. The name Christ Jesus literally means, "anointed one Jehovah's salvation." The name "Jesus" or "ιησους" in Greek is of Hebrew origin. In Hebrew it is "Yeshua," which itself is a contracted form of "Yehoshua," which is itself a combination of two words, "Yehovah" and "Yoshia" to mean, "Yehovah Saves." Jesus' very name implies He is Himself "Yehovah/Jehovah." Which means His name indicates He is God. Therefore, 1 Tim. 2:5 need not be interpreted to affirm Christ's humanity to the exclusion of His divinity.

---

In various books and websites Chuck Missler has presented an argument where he claims the names of the genealogy from Adam to Noah present the Gospel in a hidden form in the Old Testament. Here's a link to one of the websites:

A Hidden Message: The Gospel in Genesis by Chuck Missler

Here's a link to a video version of the argument. Click HERE. [summary version HERE]

Missler also points out that the ten names are also attributes of the Messiah (click HERE for the cued video).

IF, I say again, IF Missler's claim is true and it does present the Gospel in hidden form, then it would be evidence for the full deity of Christ since He is being referred to as "the Praised God" or "the Blessed God." That's a common description of the one true God in the Old Testament (Hebrew, but especially the famous Greek translation named the Septuagint). It's so well known as a description of the one true God that that's precisely why many Unitarians do their very best to argue against Jesus being referred to as "the Blessed God" in Romans 9:5. Though, I do think Rom. 9:5 does present Jesus as the "Blessed God" and therefore as the one true God (i.e. full deity).

See these links discussing Romans 9:5:

Romans 9:5 Research By Gary F. Zeolla
Part ONE,  Part TWO

Jesus Christ – He who is over all, God blessed forever! by Sam Shamoun
Part ONE, Part TWO 

Christ's Divinity in Romans 9:5 by Jeremy Pierce

An Examination of Romans 9:5

http://www.forananswer.org/Romans/Rom9_5.htm

 http://www.christiandefense.org/Article_Rom%209.5.htm

Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus by Murray J. Harris (pages 143-172)

Here are some quotes that I copied from The Trinity: Evidence and Issues

Canon Liddon in his Bampton lectures at Oxford University said that a doxology to Christ as God "is the natural sense of the passage. If the passage occurred in a profane author and its essence and structure alone had to be considered, few critics would think of overlooking the antithesis between [Greek which I, AP, am guessing should be transliterated as 'ho Christos to kata sarka'] and [Greek: 'theos eulogetos']. Still less possible would it be to destroy this antithesis outright, and to impoverish the climax of the whole passage, by cutting off the doxology from the clause which precedes it, and so erecting it into an independent ascription of praise to God the Father."

Hendriksen wrote:
"This item serves as a fitting climax. From them, that is, from the Israelites (see verse 4) Christ derived his human nature. He was and is a Jew. What a source of intense satisfaction and rejoicing this should be for Jews! The apostle hastens to add that although Jesus is indeed a Jew, he is also much more than a Jew. Though he has a human nature, he also has a divine nature. He is God! It should be clear that when Paul says, 'Christ, who is over all God blest forever,' he confesses Christ's deity."

A.T Robertson wrote in his Word Studies
"A clear statement of the deity of christ following the remark about his humanity. This is the natural and the obvious way of punctuating the sentence. To make a full stop after sarka (or colon) and start a new sentence for the doxology is very abrupt and awkward. See Acts 20:28 and Titus 2:13 for Paul's use of theos applied to Jesus Christ."

Charles Hodge wrote:
"The relative who must agree with the nearest antecedent. There is no other subject in the context sufficiently prominent to make a departure from this ordinary rule, in this case, even plausible."

Deal Alford wrote:
"The rendering...is the only one admissible by the rules of grammar and arrangement."

Raymond Brown wrote:
"...This interpretation would mean that Paul calls Jesus God. From a grammatical viewpoint this is clearly the best reading, [sic] Also, the contextual sequence is excellent; for having spoken of Jesus' descent according to the flesh, Paul now emphasizes his position as God."

Lenski wrote:
"Christ is over all, i.e., the supreme Lord. This apposition is complete in itself. If no more were added, this apposition makes Christ God, for we have yet to hear of one who is 'over all' and is not God."

Robert Haldane wrote:
"The awful blindness and obstinacy of Arians and Socinians in their explanations, or rather perversions, of the Word of God, are in nothing more obvious than in their attempts to evade the meaning of this celebrated testimony to the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ. They often shelter themselves under various readings; but here they have no tenable ground for an evasion of this kind. Yet, strange to say, some of them have, without the authority of manuscripts, alter the original, in order that it may suit their purpose. there is no difficulty in the words - no intricacy in the construction; yet, by a forced construction and an unnatural punctuation, they have endeavored to turn away this testimony from its obvious import. Contrary to the genius and idiom of the Greek - contrary to all the usual rules of interpreting language, as had often been incontrovertibly shown - they substitute 'God be blessed'...Such tortuous explanations are not only rejected by a sound interpretation of the original, but manifest themselves to be unnatural, even to the most illiterate who exercises an unprejudiced judgment."

Quotes taken from pages 332-335 of Robert Morey's The Trinity: Evidence and Issues. I'm too lazy to type out all the sources. So, if you want the sources, get a copy of Morey's book.

---

3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.- 2 Thess. 2:3-4

If this passages refers to the anti-Christ, and if the the term anti-Christ means in the place or stead of Christ, then the fact that the anti-Christ falsely claims to be Almighty God in the temple of God, would imply that Jesus the true Christ is Himself the true God. Since the anti-Christ is a counterfeit to the true. I place this argument in this blog because it is a speculative argument. Since, this passage may not be referring to "the" anti-Christ. Since, the term isn't used here but in 1 John where it refers to many anti-Christs. Therefore, there may not be a single person who is the epitome of the anti-Christ spirit. But it would make sense that someone described as "the man of lawlessness" and who enters the "temple of God" (either referring to the Jewish temple building or to the Church) would be "an" if not "the" anti-Christ.

---

What makes Christ the perfect mediator or "go-between" is that Christ shares the nature of both humanity and divinity. It's also why Christ was the perfect atonement. By being human, Christ was able to redeem human beings with a human nature. By being God, possessing the same nature as God the Father, He could pay the price of sin on account of the infinite value of His life. Something which could not be true of finite creatures (man or angel).

---

5    The Lord is at Your right hand;
    He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath.- Ps. 110:5 NASB

5    The Lord is at Your right hand;
    He shall execute kings in the day of His wrath.- Ps. 110:5 NKJV

Both the NASB and the NKJV capitalize the "y" in "Your" to indicate that the pronoun refers to Almighty God. Yet the underlying Hebrew word for "Lord" is "adonai" (which is only used of the one true Lord, Almighty God Himself). This might suggest two divine persons are being described here.

John Gill states in his commentary regarding this verse:

These words are either directed to Christ, at whose right hand the Lord was to help and assist him, Psa_16:8 or to the church, consisting of the Lord's willing people, at whose right hand he is to save them; is ready to help them, and is a present help to them in time of need, Psa_109:31 or rather to Jehovah the Father, at whose right hand the "Adonai", or Lord, even David's Lord, and every believer's Lord, is, as in Psa_110:1, and who is spoken of in all the following clauses; and to whom the things mentioned are ascribed...

Though, this is not the only possible interpretation as the NET Bible points out in a footnote on this verse:

As pointed in the Hebrew text, this title refers to God (many medieval Hebrew mss read יְהוָה, yehveh, “Lord” here). The present translation assumes that the psalmist here addresses the Lord as he celebrates what the king is able to accomplish while positioned at God’s “right hand.” According to this view the king is the subject of the third person verb forms in vv. 5b-7. (2) Another option is to understand the king as the addressee (as in vv. 2-3). In this case “the Lord” is the subject of the third person verbs throughout vv. 5-7 and is depicted as a warrior in a very anthropomorphic manner. In this case the Lord is pictured as being at the psalmist’s right hand (just the opposite of v. 1). See Pss 16:8; 121:5. (3) A third option is to revocalize אֲדֹנָי (’adonay, “Lord”) as אֲדֹנִי (’adoniy, “my lord”; see v. 1). In this case one may translate, “My lord, at his [God’s] right hand, strikes down.” In this case the king is the subject of the third person verbs in vv. 5b-7.

It should also be pointed out that the second "Lord" in the famous first verse of this chapter (which the New Testament quotes repeatedly) could be pointed as "adoni" or "adonai". The vowel pointings we have received from the Masoretes are a standardization that goes back only to after the beginning of Christian era. Depending on the passage, we don't know for certain which pointings ante-date the beginning of the Christian era. Often we can only infer pointings based on the interpretations of other Rabbinic literature. Which themselves are often a compilation of teachings/saying with uncertain dates of origin (sometimes ante-dating and other times post-dating the coming of Christ). Therefore, "adoni" is not necessarily the only and correct way to interpret the verse.

Psychologically speaking, it's not impossible that some early post Christian Era Jewish scribe(s) intentionally changed the pointing from "adonai" to "adoni", or erased evidence for a dual tradition of both pointings so that only the "adoni" pointing was preserved for posterity. While scholars disagree on what the correct vowel pointing of the tetragrammaton was/is, all agree that the Masoretes tried to hide it out of reverence for the Name. If they were willing to do that with the Divine Name, how much more might they be willing to "correct" and/or eliminate what they (honestly) thought to be an errant vowel pointing tradition? Especially so as not to encourage or lend support to what they considered to be the heretical position of Christianity which elevated the purported Messiah to Deity.

See also Steve Hays' great blogpost:

The Lord said to my Lord

---

Some Unitarians hold to a position similar to Greg Stafford that rejects not only the full deity of Christ but also Christ's dual nature. If with Stafford they also reject the distinction between 1. person and 2. being (or substance or essence), then that presents a dilemma for them with respect Matt. 1:23 which applies the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 to Christ. The prophecy says the messiah would be called/considered "Immanuel" (which means "God with us"). If Jesus didn't have two natures at once upon incarnation then Jesus ceased to have the nature (or being/essence/substance) of God (or "a god") during the incarnation. In which case Jesus couldn't have been "Immanuel" since God WOULDN'T be "with us." On the other hand, one way they can affirm "(a) god with us" is to say that while Jesus ceased being a god during the incarnation, it was still nevertheless the same PERSON as the god who previously existed with a god-like nature and now has a human nature. The problem is that then they would be conceding a Trinitarian distinction between person and being. Which therefore opens up the possibility of the truth of Trinitarianism which teaches God is one in being and three in person. That is, One WHAT and Three WHOS.

Also, it must be understood that the prophecy was probably not initially understood to mean that Almighty God Himself would take on human nature. Regardless of whether one applies the principle of dual fulfillment regarding Isa. 7:14 or not, the original audience would have interpreted the prophecy to mean that at some future date a human would be born who would represent and inaugurate (in some sense) Almighty God being with "us", that is, His people,  in the sense of being on their side helping and delivering them. The original audience would not have assumed that an elohim that was an inferior supernatural being to Almighty God (but submitted to Almighty God) would be on their side. Therefore, when Matt. 1:23 applies the prophecy to Christ as el or elohim in the flesh, the natural interpretation would be that Matthew intends to teach that the el or elohim who was "with us" wasn't a mere angelic being but God Himself. Moreover, it seems to me the Greek says "ho theos." Which is usually (though not exclusively) reserved for Almighty God in the New Testament. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Interlinear (1969 and 1985) says, "With us the God."

---

"He who comes from above is above all, he who is of the earth is from the earth and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all.- John 3:31

Twice in this verse Jesus said said to be "above all." Being "over all" or "above all" is normally a description reserved for God alone. Therefore, this verse suggests Jesus is fully divine.

For the LORD, the Most High, is to be feared, a great king over all the earth.- Ps. 47:2


that they may know that you alone, whose name is the LORD, are the Most High over all the earth.- Ps. 83:18

The LORD is great in Zion; he is exalted over all the peoples.- Ps. 99:2


The LORD has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all.- Ps. 103:19

---

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.- John 3:36

that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.- John 5:23

"Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me.- John 14:1

In these three verses in the Gospel of John we are taught to believe, obey, and honor Jesus in ways that would seem should and could only be appropriately given to true Deity. Therefore, these verses suggest Jesus is fully and truly God. What creature, no matter how highly exalted, could command, demand or deserve the same belief/trust, obedience and honor as God? None. Therefore, Jesus is fully God (as many other parts of the Gospel of John teach).

---

 So Abraham called the name of that place, "The LORD will provide"; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided."- Gen. 22:14

 While reading Genesis chapter 22 in the ESV I noticed that the translator's footnote for verse 14 states the ending could be translated "he will be seen." I thought that might suggest the manifestation of Jehovah as Christ/Messiah. Since, this episode of Abraham sacrificing Isaac is recognized by all to be a type of the antitype of God the Father's sacrifice of His only Son the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross. So, I decided to read some commentaries. Here is what two say.

Jehovah - jireh - יהוה יראה  Yehovah-yireh, literally interpreted in the margin, The Lord will see; that is, God will take care that every thing shall be done that is necessary for the comfort and support of them who trust in him: hence the words are usually translated, The Lord will provide; so our translators, Gen_22:8, אלהים יראה  Elohim yireh, God will provide; because his eye ever affects his heart, and the wants he sees his hand is ever ready to supply. But all this seems to have been done under a Divine Impulse, and the words to have been spoken prophetically; hence Houbigant and some others render the words thus: Dominus videbitur, the Lord shall be seen; and this translation the following clause seems to require, As it is said to this day, בהר יהוה יראה  behar Yehovah yeraeh, On This Mount The Lord Shall Be Seen. From this it appears that the sacrifice offered by Abraham was understood to be a representative one, and a tradition was kept up that Jehovah should be seen in a sacrificial way on this mount. And this renders the opinion stated on Gen_22:1 more than probable, viz., that Abraham offered Isaac on that very mountain on which, in the fullness of time, Jesus suffered. See Bishop Warburton.- Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

"And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh,...." Which may be rendered either "the Lord hath seen", as the Septuagint, or "has provided", the future being put for the past, as Abendana observes, and so it is called, in answer to what Abraham had said, Gen_22:8; "God will provide": now he had provided, and, as a memorial of it, gives the place this name; or "he will see or provide" (m); as he has provided for me, so he will for all those that trust in him; as he has provided a ram in the room of Isaac, so he has provided, and will send his only Son in the fulness of time to be a sacrifice for the sins of his people:

"as it is said to this day, in the mount of the Lord it shall be seen"; from this time to the times of Moses, and so on in after ages, even until now, it has been used as a proverbial saying, that as God appeared to Abraham, and for his son, in the mount, just as he was going to sacrifice him, and delivered him, so the Lord will appear for his people in all ages, in a time of difficulty and distress, and when at the utmost extremity, who call upon him, and trust in him. This may also refer to the presence of God in this mount, when the temple should be built on it, as it was, 2Ch_3:1; and to the appearance of Christ in it, who was often seen here: some choose to render the words, "in the mount the Lord shall be seen" (n); "God manifest in the flesh", 1Ti_3:16, the "Immanuel", "God with us", Mat_1:23, who was frequently in the temple built on this mount, and often seen there in his state of humiliation on earth.
(m) יהוה יראה "Dominus videbit", V. L. Montanus, Drusius, Schmidt; "Dominus providebit", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator. (n) בהר יהוה יראה "in monte Dominus videbitur", Pagninus, Montanus, Tigurine version. - John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

---

 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.- Matt. 1:20

And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy---the Son of God.- Luke 1:35

 These verses suggest the true personality of the Holy Spirit since in Jewish thought only persons can be the agency of conception. And the fact remains that every other kind of spirit (e.g. angelic, demonic, Divine) is personal. It's true that the same words for spirit (ruach in Hebrew and pneuma in Greek) is also used to refer to the wind or air. However, the context determines whether it refers to physical wind or a supernatural person. Clearly the Holy Spirit isn't a physical gust of wind. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is a person. Especially since the Holy Spirit possesses all the attributes of persons (as I've shown HERE).

Also, if the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were fallen angels (which is one possible, not to mention ancient interpretation), then their ability to conceive children supports the idea that only persons can do so. Hence, the Holy Spirit is a person.

---

12    Since we have such a hope, we are very bold,13 not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end.14 But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts.16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.- 2 Cor 3:12-16


If the "Lord" in verse 16 is the Lord Jesus Christ, then that would suggest the full deity of Christ because it seems to echo (however faintly) Isa. 45:22 which states, ""Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other." Remember too that the very next verse, Isa. 45:23 is a passage in about Jehovah that's applied to Christ in Philippians chapter 2.

---

Some Trinitarians are offended by the following analogies to the Trinity, but I myself think they are helpful. One view of the Trinity sees each person as a "center of consciousness." Assuming this version for the sake of argument, then the Trinity could be analogous to a human being with multiple personality disorder or to the mythical dog of the underworld Cerberus. In both cases there is one being but three centers of consciousness.

Cerberus was often described as having multiple heads (often 3). Each head had it's own center of consciousness. Each consciousness could be said to be Cerberus. Yet, at the same time each consciousness is distinct/different from the other two consciousnesses. Similarly, each person of the Trinity is fully God, even though each person is not the other two persons, yet there is only one God not three Gods.

12 And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him---A THREEFOLD CORD IS NOT QUICKLY BROKEN.- Eccl. 4:12 (see verses 9-12)

Ecclesiastes 4:12 may or may not be a remez regarding the Trinity. Even assuming it isn't, the verse can illustrate the Trinity in some sense.

T1 The First-Cord is not the Three-Fold-Cord

T2 The Three-Fold-Cord is Cord

---

Is the First-Cord Cord or not? Yes and no. On the one hand, the First-Cord is Cord in it's own right. Yet, on the other hand (and in another sense) the First-Cord is not Cord in the sense of being the Three-Fold-Cord. The Same is true of the Second-Cord and the Third-Cord.

Similarly, the Trinity is God, and the Father is God even though the Father is not the Trinity, or the Son or the Holy Spirit.

The three incomparable parables of our Lord - The Lost Son, The Lost Sheep, The Lost Coin (Luke 15), fittingly illustrate the work of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit in man's redemption. - Herbert Lockyer, All the Divine Names and Titles in the Bible, p. 310

---

2019/03/27

I was reading  The Great Mystery; or, How Can Three Be One? by Jewish convert to Christianity Christian William Henry Pauli and I came across an interesting claim by one rabbi in pages 25-26 that the word "Hear" in the Shema has (at the very least a possible second) a meaning of "gather" or "unite" as a similar word that's used in 1 Sam. 15:4.

"Hear, O Israel: YHVH our God, YHVH is one."- Deut. 6:4

"So Saul summoned the people and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand men on foot, and ten thousand men of Judah."- 1 Sam. 15:4

The point being that this implies the doctrine of the Trinity.

Shema signifies, "to gather together, to unite, as in 1 Sam. SV. 4, 'Saul gathered together the people.' The meaning implied is, The Inherent-Ones are so united together, one in the other without end, they being the exalted God. He mentions the three names mystrically, to indicate the three exalted original Ones, (lit., Fathers.)" - page 25

 Not knowing Hebrew I don't know how strong or weak this kind of argumentation is. But I found it interesting.

---

Reading the book Waiting on God by Andrew Murray got me to thinking about how often in the Bible believers are called to "wait on God". The fact that we are told to wait on or for Christ and the Holy Spirit might be suggestive of their Divinity.

9    For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God,
10    and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.- 1 Thess. 1:9-10

Compare Titus 2:13, Heb. 9:28 and Jude 1:21 where we're admonished to be "waiting for" (or "looking for" in some translations) the appearing of Jesus and his salvation in the form of mercy. Possibly Phil. 3:20 where it states believers wait/await for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

4    And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, "you heard from me;
5    for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."- Acts 1:4-5

In this above passage the disciples are waiting for the Holy Spirit.

---

It's common for Unitarians to argue that there is no Old Testament passage that teaches or predicts YHVH would himself make atonement for sins by bearing the iniquity of sinners upon Himself. The insinuation is that the Trinitarian idea of Jesus (the sin bearer) being the incarnation of one of the persons of YHVH is completely foreign to the Old Testament. However, in Jewish interpretation of Scripture there's the principle of reading a "Remez" in the Bible. Which is part of the Jewish PaRDeS method of Biblical interpretation.

According to David H. Stern's Jewish New Testament Commentary:

(2) Remez ("hint") — wherein a word, phrase or other element in the text hints at a truth not conveyed by the p'shat. The implied presupposition is that God can hint at things of which the Bible writers themselves were unaware. - page 12

(1) P'shat ("simple") — the plain, literal sense of the text, more or less what modern scholars mean by "grammatical-historical exegesis,"...- page 11

There are various Old Testament passages concerning the future Messiah that aren't explicit but are clearly hints of the messiah. Interestingly, While I was listening to Karaite Jew Nehemia Gordon quote Ex. 34:6-7 he said that verse 7 that says in English translations that YHVH forgives sins, that in the Hebrew it literally says YHVH carries or bares the sins of those whom He forgives. I thought that might be suggestive of the Trinitarian view where Jesus (as YHVH) bears the iniquity of sinners. I wondered if other Christian scholars who knew Hebrew picked up on this possible connection.  I checked John Gill's commentary and he made the same connection. Gill says in his commentary on verse 7: "...the word used signifies a lifting it up, and taking it away: thus Jehovah has taken it from the sinner, and put it on his Son, who has borne it, and made satisfaction for it; and in so doing has taken it quite away, so as to be seen no more; and, through the application of his blood to the conscience of a sinner, it is taken away from thence, and removed as far as the east is from the west; from whence it appears, that it is in Christ, and for his sake, that God forgives sin, even through his blood, righteousness, sacrifice, and satisfaction; and this forgiveness is of all sin, of all sorts of sin, original or actual, greater or lesser, public or private, open or secret, of omission or commission, of heart, lip, and life...."

 For more of the Jewish PaRDeS hermeneutic, see my blogpost HERE. There's also a link there to lecture three of Arnold Fruchtenbaum's lecture series The Jewish Life of Christ where Fruchtenbaum explains the Pardes method and gives examples.

---

Surprisingly a Unitarian Facebook friend once challenged his fellow Unitarians with the following observation:

//Something for biblical unitarians to think about ...

Many biblical unitarians claim that "making himself equal with God" in John 5:18 was intended to be taken as a false accusation of the Jews.  Here's one glaring reason we can see that this is not the case.  

There are 81 times in the 4th Gospel that the writer explicitly used the phrase "were saying" to refer to when people said things that were either true or false about Jesus.  This does not occur in the context of John 5:18.

One thing that is important to consider when doing sound exegesis is looking at the specific language that a writer uses to express something like an accusation.  The 81 citations in the 4th Gospel are a substantial number that indicates a pattern of usage.

Thus, we can conclude that, if the writer of the 4th Gospel intended John 5:18 to be taken as something the Jews "were saying"about Jesus (whether good or bad) he would have noted that they "were saying" it and not attributing to Jesus "making himself."//

I'm not sure how true his numbers are, but if they are accurate then there is some evidential weight to the Trinitarian position that Jesus really was "making himself equal with God."

---

---

---

---