Having, in
the preceding chapter, proved the unity of the divine Being, or that there
is but one God, I now proceed,
II. To prove that there is a
plurality in the Deity, which I shall endeavor to do; First, From the plural
word
Elohim, so frequently used when the divine Being is spoken of; and
that in different forms of construction: As,
1. It is sometimes in
construction with a verb singular, as in Gen. 1:1. "In the beginning God,
or
Elohim, created the heavens and the earth". Elohim being a word in the
plural number, and Bara, which is rendered created, being singular, many
think ‘tis designed to express the truth of a plurality of persons in the
unity of essence. Moses might have made use of some of the names, or
appellations of God in the singular number: He might have said, Jehovah
Bara, Jehovah created; a name by which God had made himself known to
Moses, and by him, to the people of Israel; or he might have made use of
Eloah, the singular of Elohim, which he has made use of in Deut. 32:15, 16.
So that he was not obliged to make use of this plural word, from any want
of singular appellations of God, or from any barrenness in the Hebrew
language. And when we consider that one design of Moses writings is to
oppose and extirpate the polytheism of the Heathens, it may well seem
strange that he should make use of a plural word, when speaking of God,
which might have a tendency to strengthen them in their notion of a
plurality of gods: Nor certainly would he have used it as he does, thirty
times in this history of the creation, and, perhaps, five hundred times
more, in one form of construction or another, in the five books of his
writings, had he not designed some kind of plurality or another. Now a
plurality of gods he cannot mean; because this is contrary to what he
asserts, Deuteronomy 6:4:
"Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord";
nor a plurality of names or characters, to which creative powers cannot be
ascribed, but a plurality of persons. For the words may be cast into a
distributive form, in perfect agreement with the idiom of the Hebrew
language, and be thus read: "In the beginning every one of the divine
persons created the heavens and the earth"; and then the historian goes on
to take notice of some of these persons, as concerned in the creation. He
makes mention of the spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters, in
ver. 2. which the ancient
[Zohar. in Genesis fol. 107.
col. 3. and 128. 3. Bereshit Rabba, Parash. 2. and 8. Vajikra Rabba,
Parash, 14. Caphtor. fol. 113, 2. Baal Hatturim in loc.] Jews understood of the spirit of the
Messiah: And in ver. 3, he observes, that "God said, i.e. God, the Word
said, Let there be light, and there was light."
2. This word is
sometimes in construction with a verb plural, of which there are several
instances, as Gen. 20:13. "And it came to pass, when אלהי אתי התו the gods
caused me to wander from my Father’s house". And so Gen. 35:7, "And he,
i.e. Jacob, built there an altar, and called the place El-bethel; because
there גלז אליז האלהי, the gods appeared to him, etc." And once more, in
2 Sam. 7:23. "And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like
Israel, whom הלכו אלהי the gods went to redeem for a people to himself".
[Allix’s judgment of the Jewish Church, p. 124.] Now as one well observes, "That however the construction of a noun
plural, with a verb singular, may render it doubtful to some, whether
these words express a plurality or no; yet certainly there can be no doubt
in those places, where a verb or adjective plural are joined with the word
Elohim".
The plurality here expressed, cannot be a plurality of
gods, for the reason above given; nor of mere names and characters, but of
persons; for to these Elohim are ascribed personal actions; as their
removal of Abraham from his father’s house; their appearance to Jacob, and
their redemption of the people of Israel.
3. It is sometimes in
construction with adjectives and participles plural, as Deut. 4:7, 5:26. And
in other places, where mention is made of the living God, ‘tis expressed
in the plural אלהייי the living gods; as in 2 Sam. 7:26, 27, Ge 33:16. A
very remarkable construction of this kind we have in Jer. 10:10, where
‘tis said, "But the Lord is the true God; הוא אלהי יי he is the living
Gods"; expressing, at once, a plurality of persons in the one divine
Being. Of the same kind is Jos. 24:19, where Joshua says to the
Israelites, "Ye cannot serve the Lord, for he is an holy God"; which, in
the Hebrew, is אלהי קרי הוא the holy Gods is he; which, in the natural
construction of the words, should have been אלהי קדי ה the holy Gods are
they, had not this mystery of a plurality in the one God been intended.
Hence we read of more holies than one, in Prov. 30:3. "I neither learned
wisdom, nor have the knowledge קדי of the holy ones".
Once more,
in Psa. 58:11, "Verily there is אלהי פי gods that judge in the earth". Now
of these Elohim it is said, that they live, are holy, are near to God’s
people, and judge in the earth; all which are personal characters; and
therefore they, to whom they belong, must be persons. This is the first
kind of proof of a plurality in the Deity. I do not begin with this
because I judge it to be the clearest, and strongest proof of the point,
but because Elohim is one of the names, and one of the most usual names of
God. Nor do I lay the stress of the argument on the word, Elohim itself,
but as it appears in a very unusual form of construction. I am sensible
that the word is used of a single person in the Deity, in Psa. 45:6, 7.
And it need not be wondered at, that a name that is common to all the
three divine persons, should be appropriated to one of them; especially
when it is considered, that each divine person possesses the whole essence
and nature common to all three. I know it is also given to Moses, who was
appointed to be a god, or Elohim, to Aaron and Pharaoh: And good reason
there is for it, when he represented and stood in the room and stead of
the trine-une God to them. Wherefore ‘tis of little service to the
[Vet. Nizzachon, p. 4. Ed. Wagenseil.]
Jews to object this to us: Nor ought it to be thought strange, when the
idols of the Gentiles, in imitation of the true God, are called Elohim;
whose names, as well as worship, Satan has endeavored to mimic. The
ancient Jews not only concluded a plurality, but even a Trinity, from this
word Elohim; as appears from a passage in the book of Zohar,
[In Lev. fol. 27. col. 2. Ed. Sultzbach. fol 29 Cremon.] where
the author says: "Come, see the mystery of the word Elohim: There are
three דרגי degrees, and every degree is distinct by himself,
notwithstanding they are all one, and are bound together in one, and one
is not divided from the other".
This is so full an account of the
Trinity, that one would rather have thought it came out of the mouth of a
Christian, than of a Jew. Was an Athanasian to give an account of his
faith in the doctrine of the Trinity, he would do it in much the same
language, except, that instead of degree he would use the word person. And
yet we find Tertullian,
[Tres autem non statu, sed gradu; nec substantia,
sed forma; nec potestate, sed specie; unius autem substantiae & unius
status & unius porestatis; quia unus deus, ex quo & Gradus isti, & formae
& species, in nomine patris & filii & spiritus sancti deputantur,
Tertullian, adv. Praxeam, c. 2. Hoc mihi & in tertium gradum dictum sit,
quia spiritum non aliunde puto, quam a patre per filium, ib. c. 4.] an ancient Christian writer, uses the word
degree, when speaking of the persons in the Trinity; and calls the Holy
Ghost particularly the third degree. I have took no notice of the word,
Adonim, as applied to God; which though it is sometimes used of one, for
the sake of honor, in the second and third, yet never in the first person
plural, as it is of God in Mal. 1:6. "If אדוני אני I am lords, where is my
fear"? But I go on secondly, To prove a plurality in the Godhead, from
some plural expressions which are used of the divine Being in scripture:
And shall begin,
1. With Gen. 1:26, "And God said, Let us make man
in our image, after our likeness". The pronouns us and our, do so
manifestly express a plurality, that he must willfully shut his eyes, who
does not see it; and yet, lest we should from hence conclude a plurality
of gods, the words image and likeness are expressed in the singular
number; a plurality in the Deity being entirely consistent with the unity
of essence. Nothing is more plain from hence, than that more than one was
concerned in consultation about, and in the formation of man. Hence we
have those plural expressions used of the divine Being, when he is
represented as the Creator of men; as in Job 35:10. "Where is God, my
Makers?" And Psa. 149:2. "Let Israel rejoice ביז in his Makers," And Ecc.
12:1. "Remember בראי thy Creators in the days of thy youth". And Isa.
54:5. "For בלי thy husbands are thy Makers; the Lord of Hosts is his
name". Now what reason can be given for these plural expressions, if there
was not more than one concerned in man’s creation?
The
[Vid. Menasseh ben Israel, conciliat, in Genesis
quaest. 6.] Jews
have tried at many things to evade the force of this text. Sometimes they
tell us, that God consulted with the souls of men, and with second causes;
with the elements, and particularly with the earth
[So
Ver. Nizza hon, p. 5. Lipman. Carmen memorial.], out of which he
formed man; and then breathed into him the breath of life: So that, in
respect of his body, which is of the dust of the earth, he was made after
the image of the earth; and in respect of his soul, after the image of
God; and so in respect to both, after our image. But this is so wretchedly
stupid, that it deserves no further notice. Others
[Bereshit Rabba, Parash. 8. Jarchi. & Aben Ezra in loc.] of them say, that
God consulted with his angels, and speaks to them about man’s creation,
which is the reason of this plural expression. But it ought to be observed,
that angels are creatures, and so not of God’s counsel. For "who hath
directed (Isa. 40:13, 14) the spirit of the Lord; or, being his counselor,
hath taught him? With whom took he counsel"? Not with any of his
creatures; no, not with the highest angel in heaven; they are none of them
equal to him, nor equal to the work mentioned in the text, under
consideration:
They are creatures, and therefore cannot be
possessed of creative power; nor were they concerned in man’s creation;
nor was man made after their image and likeness. Others
[R. Saadiah Gaon in Aben Ezra in loc. R. Bechai in loc.] of them say,
that God here speaks even more, after the manner of kings; who in their
edicts, proclamations, etc. use the plural number to express their
dominion, honor, and majesty. But it ought to be considered, that the
reason why kings and princes use plural expressions in their edicts,
proclamations, etc. is because they connotate other persons, kings acting
by the advice of their ministers, or privy counsel. Besides, this aulic or
courtly way of speaking is not so ancient. No one instance can be produced
in scripture, where the kings of Israel speak after this manner nor
indeed, where those proud, haughty and arrogant monarchs, Pharaoh,
Nebuchadnezzar, and Belshazzar use the plural number, when speaking of
themselves only. The instances which are usually produced are foreign to
the purpose; and as a learned Jew
[Aben Ezra in Gen.
1:26.] observes, are די קר false
witnesses. And as a worthy prelate
[Bp. Kidder’s
demonstration of the Messiah, part 3. P. 90.] observes, ‘Tis a very extravagant
fancy to suppose that Moses alludes to a custom that was not (for what
appears) in being at that time, nor a great while after.
The
first instance of this royal way of speaking, is in the letters of
Artaxerxes, king of Persia, mentioned in Ezra 4:18, 7:23. which, as it is
the most early intimation of this mode of expression, so it ought to be
observed, that it first appears in the latest accounts of things which the
scriptures of the Old Testament give; and further, that ‘tis only a proof
of this way of speaking in the Chaldee, and not in the Hebrew language,
and probably might take its rise in the court of Persia, from the
conjunction of Darius the Mede, and Cyrus the Persian, in the government
of the empire; in both whose names edicts and decrees might run, and
letters be sent. This might occasion the first use of such plural
expressions, and their successors might continue them to express their
power and glory. After all, the Jews are conscious to themselves, that
these words do furnish out an argument, for a plurality in the Deity.
Hence in
[Bereshit Rabba, Parash. 8.] one of their ancient commentaries upon this place, they say,
That when Moses was writing the six days works, and came to this verse, he
made a stop, and said, Lord of the world, why wilt thou give an occasion
to heretics to open their mouths against the truth? And add, that God
should say to him, Write on; he that will err, let him err.
Now
this fabulous story is hatched on purpose to defend themselves against the
argument of the Christians, for a plurality in the Godhead, founded on
this text; and sufficiently discovers the sense they had of the force of
it, and the self-convictions they labored under from this passage. They
also tell us,
[Talmud, Megilla, fol. 9. 1.] that the seventy two interpreters, who were employed by
Ptolemy, king of Egypt, to translate the law, when they came to this text,
read it not נה, let us make; but as if it was אה, I will make: And this
change was made by them, lest Ptolemy should think that they held a
plurality of gods as well as he. And for the same reason they made
[Talmud, ib. Bereshit Rabba, Parash. 38.]
the like change in other places, where there is an intimation of a
plurality, as Gen. 11:7. And Philo
[ειπε γαρ φησι,
κυριος ο θεος ποιησομεν ανθρωπον κατ εικονα ημετεραν κι καθ ο Philo de
consusione ling. p. 344. Ed. Par. He asserts the same in his book De
Profugis, p. 460.], the Jew, affirms, That these
words declare πληψος, a plurality; and are expressive
[οτι ειπεν ο θεος ποιησομεν ανθρωπον οπερ εμφαινει
συμπαραληθιν ετερων, ως αν συνεργων Idem de opisicio, p. 16. 112] of others, as
co-workers with God in the creation. A late writer
[The
great concern of Jew and Gentile, p. 20.] tells us, That he
"can conceive" how God is said to do this, i.e. to make man in our image,
and after our likeness, by his word and spirit; for that he acted, in
those respective characters, in his Christ, and through his holy child
Jesus.
That the Word and Spirit were concerned with God in the
creation of man, is a truth, and is the true reason of this plural
expression; but then, these are not to be considered as mere characters,
under which God acted; for mere names and characters cannot be consulted
with; nor can creative powers be ascribed to them; nor have they any image
and likeness after which man could be made. The words are a manifest proof
of a plurality of divine persons, who were equal to one another, and to
the work of man’s creation, in which they were jointly concerned.
2. Another scripture, which bears a testimony to a plurality in the Deity,
is Gen. 3:22, "And the Lord God said, the man is become as one of us".
Which words are not spoken to angels, as say
[Bereshit
Rabba, Parash. 21. Aben Ezra in loc.] the Jewish writers; for
they are not God’s socials or equals, nor any of the Deity, as these here
are said to be. Had the words any reference to angels, they should have
been read, The man is become as one of you. The words of the serpent to
Eve determine the sense of these, when he says to her: "Ye shall be as
Gods, knowing good and evil". Now whatever equivocal, ambiguous,
fallacious, or deceitful meaning, the Devil had in these words; yet it is
certain, that he intended she should understand him of the divine Being;
and so she did.
The bait which he laid for her, and which took
with her, was not an equality to angels, but to God: This our first
parents affected, and this was their ruin. The words may be considered
either as an irony, or sarcasm on man’s folly and vanity, in affecting
Deity; and then ‘tis as if he had said, Behold the man whom Satan
promised, and who himself expected to be as one of us. See how much like a
God he looks; who, but just now, was covered with fig-leaves, and now
stands clothed with the skins of slain bears; and who, by his sin, has
brought ruin and misery on himself, and all his posterity: Or else, they
may be considered as a comparison of his past and present state: "Behold
the man"
[Vid. R. Abendana in loc.] היה, was as one of us, i.e. he was made in our image, and
after our likeness; but he has sinned, and come short of his former glory:
He has defaced this image; he is not like the man he was; and since he has
done this, What will he not do? And now therefore, lest he put forth his
hand, etc. Consider the words either way, they prove a plurality in the
Deity. Philo, the Jew
[και παλιν ειπεν ο θεος, ιδου
γεγονεν Aδαμ ως εις ημων του γινωσκειν καλον κι πονηρον το γαρ ως εις ημων
ουκ εφ ενος αλλ επι πλειονων τιθεται, Philo de confus. ling. p. 344, 345] acknowledges that these words are to be
understood of more than one.
3. Another passage of scripture,
which expresses the same thing, is Gen. 11:7, "Go to; let us go down, and
there confound their language". Which cannot be meant of Angels, in which
sense the
[Targum jon. & Aben Ezra in loc. Jarchi on the
place, says That God consulted with his house of judgement.] Jewish writers understand it; for God never speaks in such
language to them: Had he spoke to them, it would have been in such a form
as this: Go ye down, and do ye confound their language. But he does not
thus speak; but let us go down, etc. Besides, the work to be done, was
such as angels could not do, nor any mere creature. The same God that gave
man the faculty of speech, and use of language, could only confound it.
There was as great a display of divine power in the confusion of language,
as there was in bestowing the gift of tongues on the apostles, at the day
of Pentecost. No, this was not the work of angels, but of those divine
persons, who are the one Jehovah; who, in Gen. 11:8. is said to scatter the
people abroad from thence, upon the face of all the earth. Philo,
[δευτε κι καταβαντες συγχεωμεν αυτων την γλωτταν
φαινεται γαρ διαλεγομενος τισιν ως αν συνεργοις αυτου Philo de confus.
ling. P. 344.] the
Jew, says, That it is plain that God speaks to some here as co-workers
with him.
4. Another text, which might be produced as a proof of a
plurality in the Deity, is Isaiah 6:8, "also I heard the voice of the Lord,
saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, here am I,
send me".
These are not the
[So Kimchi and Aben Ezra in loc.] Seraphim, in Isaiah 6:2, 3, who are
here speaking, but the Lord, who says, whom shall I, Jehovah, send, and
who will go for us? Neither the name, nor the work agree to angels. Not
the name Jehovah; for that is incommunicable to creatures: Nor the work,
which is the sending forth ministers to preach the gospel. For Angels
themselves "are ministering spirits; sent forth to minister to them, who
shall be the heirs of salvation". These are divine persons, and are no
other than the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Of the Father, there
is no question; nor need there be any of the Son, since he expressly
refers the words to himself, John 12:39, 40, 41, as the Targum on the
place does, to the Word of the Lord: Nor ought there to be any with
respect to the Holy Ghost, seeing they are manifestly applied to him in
Acts 28:25, 26.
5. There’s one passage more in this prophecy of Isaiah 41:21, 22, 23. which I’ll just mention: "Produce your cause, saith
the Lord; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the king of Jacob: let
them bring them forth, and show us what shall happen: Let them show the
former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the
latter end of them; or declare unto us things for to come. Show the things
that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are Gods: Yea, do
good or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together". In
which words ‘tis manifest, that the Lord, the Jehovah, who is the king of
Jacob, continues speaking all along in the plural number; upbraiding the
gods of the Gentiles for their ignorance and imbecility. These are proofs
out of the Old Testament, to which some have added Song 1:11.
6. I might now produce some passages out of the New Testament, which discover a
plurality in the Godhead. Some have thought the words of our Lord, in Jonh
3:11, are an indication of it; where our Lord may be thought to use the
plural number, not on the account of his disciples, who were not concerned
in that discourse of his, with Nicodemus; but with respect to the Father,
and the holy Spirit. For he was not alone but these spoke in him, and bore
witness with him. But I shall conclude this kind of proof with John 14:23:
"Jesus answered and said unto him, If any man love me, he will
keep my words; and my Father will love him; and we will come unto him, and
make our abode with him".
That more than one person is here
intended, is certain; nor can we be at a loss about two, and who they are:
For the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, are expressly mentioned, as
divine persons, having personal characters and actions, such as coming to
the man that loves Christ, and making their abode with him, ascribed unto
them. But I proceed, Thirdly, To endeavor to prove a plurality in the
Deity from those places of scripture which speak of Jehovah, and of the
Angel of Jehovah; which angel is also said to be Jehovah. And my argument
from thence will be this: That if there is one who is Jehovah, that sends;
and another who also is Jehovah, that is sent; then there must be a
plurality in the Godhead. Let us attend to some instances.
The first passage I shall take notice of is in Genesis 16:7, where we read of an
angel of the Lord who found Hagar, Sarah’s maid, in the wilderness, and
bid her return to her mistress; which angel appears to be Jehovah; for in
Genesis 16:10, he promises her that he would "multiply her seed exceedingly,
that it should not be numbered for multitude"; which a created angel, or
any mere creature, could never perform. And to put it beyond all doubt,
that this angel of the Lord was Jehovah, in Genesis 16:13. ‘tis said, that
"she called the name of the Lord, which spake unto her, thou God seest
me".
Again, in Genesis 18:1, 2, we read, that the Lord appeared to
Abraham, in the plains of Mamre; and that when he lifted up his eyes, and
looked up, lo, three men stood by him; which were angels, as appears from
Genesis 19:1. Now one of these was the great Jehovah, as is manifest from the
name Jehovah being given to him, Genesis 18:13, 20, 26, and in many other
verses; and from his separation from the other two, Genesis 18:22, and from
the works of Jehovah, which are ascribed to him, Genesis 18:14, 17. Yea, he is
called the judge of all the earth, who will do right, Genesis 18:25. And
Abraham all along pays the utmost deference, and gives the profoundest
respect unto him, Genesis 18:27, 30, 31, 32. So that from the whole, there’s
sufficient reason to conclude that one of these three angels was Jehovah.
The angel of the Lord, who appeared to Abraham, when he was about
to sacrifice his son, and bid him desist from it, Gen. 22:11, 12, was no
other than Jehovah; for he tells him, that he had not withheld his Son,
his only Son, from him. Now it was at the command of God, and not a
created angel, that Abraham went about to sacrifice his son; it was to the
Lord Jehovah that he devoted him, and to whom he was going to offer him up
in sacrifice, and not to a created angel. And because the Lord himself
thus opportunely appeared to him, he called the name of the place Jehovah
Jireh, i.e. the Lord will appear. And again, a second time, the same angel
of the Lord called unto him, and swears by himself, which no creature
ought to do, and promises that which no creature can do, that in blessing
he would bless him; and in multiplying, he would multiply his seed as the
stars of heaven: All which the author of the epistle to the Hebrews
applies to the great God, Hebrews 6:13, 14. So that we may be assured that the
angel of the Lord, who here speaks,
[See The great
concern of Jew and Gentile, p. 34.] spoke in his own name, and not
ministerially in his who sent him.
The angel mentioned in Genesis
48:16, cannot be understood of a created, but of an uncreated one. He
stands upon a level with the God of Abraham, and Isaac; and as great an
act of divine power and goodness is ascribed to him as to that God, before
whom Abraham and Isaac walked: As he fed Jacob all his life long; so this
angel redeemed him from all evil. Yea, he makes him the object of his
supplication, and invokes a blessing from him as from God, upon the lads,
the sons of Joseph.
The angel of the Lord, which appeared to Moses
in the bush, Exodus 3:2, was no other than Jehovah; which appears from the
names by which he is called, viz. Jehovah, God, the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob; I am what I am, Exodus 3:4, 6, 13, 14, 15. As also from the
divine works and actions ascribed to him: As, seeing the afflictions of
the Israelites; hearing their cries; coming down to deliver them out of
the hand of the Egyptians; and to bring them out of their land into a land
flowing with milk and honey. The same may be said of the angel in Exodus
23:20, whom the Lord promised to send before his people Israel, to keep
them in the way, and to bring them into the place which he had prepared.
Here he requires them to yield obedience to him; to be cautious of
provoking and offending him; and assures them, that he would not pardon
their iniquities; which would have been needless to have observed to them,
had he been a creature. None can forgive sins but God. Besides, he says
his name was in him; that is, as a late
[Ibid. p. 24.] writer well enough observes,
his name Jehovah; and if that is in him, which is incommunicable to a
creature, then he must be the most high God, whose name alone is Jehovah.
Moreover, the apostle Paul has assured us, that he who led and guided the
people of Israel through the wilderness, and against whom they there
rebelled, was Christ; when he says, 1 Cor. 10:9. "Neither let us tempt
Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents". We
read also of an angel of the Lord, in Zech. 3:1. who not only is called
Jehovah, in Zech. 3:2. but declares to Joshua, in Zech. 3:4. that he had
caused his iniquity to pass away from him, and would clothe him with
change of raiment; which none but the most high God can do: For who can
take away sin, pardon it, or acquit from it, or clothe with a justifying
righteousness but him?
Now ‘tis easy to observe, in many of these
instances, that obedience to this angel is required; that he is invoked
and represented as the object of worship and adoration; which would not
be, was he not the true Jehovah. This the author of 'The great concern,
etc.' seems to be aware of; and therefore tells us, That this angel
personated Jehovah, and had his likeness; and that the people of God,
under that shadowy dispensation, were permitted to worship him. But to do
this, is a breach of that command (Matt. 4:10), "Thou shalt worship the Lord
thy God, and him only shalt thou serve"; and to be guilty of that which is
condemned by the apostle, Col. 2:18, even worshipping of angels: As we have
no instance of divine worship and adoration given to angels, but on the
contrary, that they are called upon to worship God’s first begotten Son,
Hebrews 1:6. So when an offer of this kind has been made to them, they have
always rejected it: An instance of which we have Revelation 22:8, 9. Indeed this
author intimates, that since the Messiah, the substance, is come, it is
not proper or lawful to worship angels: As if the change of the dispensation
made any change in the object of worship. Since the coming of Christ, some
things have been altered, as to the outward form or manner of worship; but
the object of worship is invariably the same: Though God may change the
one, he cannot change the other without denying himself. It is expected
[The great concern of Jew and Gentile, etc. p. 20.] from us, that we should reconcile these appearances of Jehovah, under
the Old Testament, to the invisibility of God. When our Lord says, in John
1:18. That "no man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is
in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him"; he means God the
Father, who is manifestly distinguished, in the text, from his only
begotten Son. And still more plainly does he express himself, in John
5:37. "And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath born witness of
me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape."
It is a rule, which, I believe, will hold good, that whenever any
voice was heard under the Old Testament-dispensation, which is ascribed to
Jehovah, it is always to be understood, not of the Father, but of the
Word; and whenever any visible shape was seen, it was the shape and form
of the human nature, which the Lογος, or Word assumed as a pledge and
presage of his future incarnation. Besides, that God should, in some form
or other, make some singular appearances of himself, or afford his
singular grace and presence to his people, is no ways inconsistent with
the invisibility of his nature or essence. For though he is that God,
"whom no man hath seen, or can see," i.e. his nature or essence; yet there
is a state of glory and perfection, in which the saints shall see him as
he is. To conclude this head: My argument from these passages of
scripture, as I before observed, stands thus: That if there is one who is
the true Jehovah, that sends and another distinct from him, who is also
the true Jehovah, who is sent by him; then there must be more than one who
is Jehovah; and so consequently there must be a plurality in the Deity:
Which is the thing I have undertaken to prove. But, Fourthly, This will
also admit of proof from those passages of scripture, which speak of two
as distinct from each other, under the same name of Jehovah, or God. I’ll
just mention two or three instances of this kind. In Genesis 19:24. it is
said, That "the Lord, or Jehovah, rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah,
brimstone and fire from the Lord, or Jehovah, out of heaven." This
wonderful conflagration was not made by the ministry of angels; for
wherever it is mentioned, as in Jeremiah 50:40, Amos 4:11, it is represented as
the work of Elohim, of every one of the divine persons. In Psalm 45:6, 7, it
is said:
"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever — Thou lovest
righteousness, and hatest wickedness: Therefore God, thy God, hath
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."
Jeremiah 12:5, 6, is another instance of this kind; where Jehovah promises to raise up to
David, a righteous branch, whose name should be called Jehovah, our
righteousness. And to add no more, in Hosea 1:7, Jehovah, or the Lord God
declares, That he would "have mercy on the house of Judah, and save them
by the Lord their God"; or, as the Targum paraphrases it, by the word of
the Lord their God. Now, in all these passages, it is manifest, that two
are spoken of, as possessed of divine perfections, and as distinct from
each other. He that rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah,
must be distinct from him, from whom this fire and brimstone was rained,
and must be one of equal power with him. He that was anointed with the
oil of gladness, or the Holy Ghost, must be distinct from him, by whom he
was anointed: The anointer and the anointed cannot be, in all respects,
the same. And so likewise Jehovah, who raised up the branch to David,
must be distinct from the branch which was raised up by him; as he also
that promises to save his people, must be distinct from him, by whom they
are saved. Now this distinction must be either nominal or real; not
nominal, because they both bear the same name in all these passages. The
distinction therefore, must be real; and if it is real, it must be either
essential or personal; not essential, for there is but one divine nature
or essence; otherwise there would be more gods than one. It remains then,
that the distinction is personal, and consequently that there is a
plurality of divine persons in the Godhead.
There is one passage, which I have not taken notice of under any of the foregoing heads, which
seems to express a plurality in the Deity: It is in Daniel 4:17. "This matter
is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy
ones." These words are commonly understood of angels. And I deny not, but
that they may be called watchers, and holy ones; and that they may be said
to declare the decrees of God, and be the executioners of them: But then
these decrees are not theirs; not any affair, that is done in this world,
is done in consequence of any decree of theirs, much less a matter of so much
importance, as this which concerned so strange a revolution in the
Babylonian monarchy. Besides, this decree is called the decree of the Most
High, in Daniel 4:24, from whence we learn who these watchers and holy ones
were. They are no other than the divine persons in the Godhead, who are
holy ones, and watch over the saints for their good; and over the wicked,
to bring evil upon them. There are called watchers and holy ones, to
express a plurality in the Deity; and they are called the Most High here,
and the watcher, the holy one, in the singular number, Daniel 4:13, to secure
the unity of essence. This I take to be the true sense of these words: Nor
am I alone
[Vid. L’Empereur not. in Jachiad. in loc. And
Allix’s judgment of the Jewish Church, etc. p. 152, 153.] in it. There are now some of the proofs of a plurality in the Godhead, which the scriptures furnish us with; there are many
more which I might have collected; but as they also prove a Trinity, I
have referred them for their proper place.
The above is similar to John Gill's statements in Book 1, Chapter 27 of his book "A Body of Doctrinal Divinity." The chapter is titled, "Of A Plurality In The Godhead." I've quoted portions from that chapter in the following blog Quotes from "Of A Plurality In The Godhead" by John Gill
