Someone in the comments of this Blog asked me to review a dialogue between a New Testament Unitarian named Sam Tideman and the well known anti-missionary rabbi Tovia Singer. Here's the link to the video: https://youtu.be/Jg40zoYJIrM . The following are some of my comments and observations.
I listened to the entire dialogue and I didn't hear anything particularly new or devastating to Trinitarianism. It was a long video, I can only give comments on highlights. I can't review every video everyone asks me to review. I would like to, but I don't have the time. I agreed to do it in this case because in the past I've found both speakers interesting.
Every objection I heard in the dialogue/discussion I can or have refuted or have heard Anthony Rogers address and refute before. Though, not being fluent in the Biblical languages, I wouldn't be able to address the detailed arguments based on Hebrew or Greek. But Anthony Rogers can and has addressed the linguistic issues. There are a lot of good defenders of Trinitarianism alive today, but I think Anthony Rogers is the best one around. I recommend his videos and debates located in his YouTube channel, and in other people's channels. Also his older articles. He has a number of videos addressing rabbi Tovia Singer's objections. I've linked to many of Anthony's videos in this Blog. People can browse or search Trinity Notes.
Anthony Rogers' Youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/Ousias1/videos
Anthony Rogers' Articles at Answering Islam on the Trinity and Islam:
https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers.html
Many (if not All) of Anthony Rogers' Debates in MP3:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/anthony-rogers-debates/id1443906144?fbclid=IwAR196HAP6DuPTG8m3X1SPg26oTjojva_FDjtO2nsqk7o9zmyQcpVV7dnN-w
Unless otherwise indicated, I'll be quoting the ESV for the most part. I'll sometimes quote other translations that are less biased [e.g. for Josh. 5:14 where "worshipped" isn't used in a biased manner, so that the idea of obeisance might be a possible and optional interpretation].
- At 0:07:40 into the video Tovia relayed asking some students, if they were God, and wanted to convey to mankind there's only one God, what would they put in the Bible. After he gives his usual spiel, he then goes on to contradict himself [or at least cause tension in his views] by admitting the Tanakh sometimes refers to creatures representing God [whether humans like Moses or angels] as God. He called it an "inconvenient" reality and feature of the Tanach. Exactly.
Well, to answer his original question about how I would inspire the Bible if Unitarianism were true, I DEFINITELY WOULD NOT use "elohim" or "adonai" to refer to God as the Tanakh does. Why? Because, as Anthony Rogers points out, in the Bible the word Elohim is used thousands of times for “God”; Adonai is used hundreds of times for “Lord”; *both of these words are PLURAL nouns in Hebrew*. This BY ITSELF doesn't prove the Trinity, and not all instances can be used to support the Trinity [e.g. sometimes it refers to men or angels, etc.], but some can. If God were absolutely singular, then it would have been wise for God to not use "elohim" and "adonai."
Nick Norelli in his book The Defense of an Essential: A Believer’s Handbook for Defending the Trinity listed the following:
1. Plural Verbs
o Genesis 20:13
English Translation: God caused me to wander
Hebrew: ה התתְעוו ו אלתהים, א אלֹל ה היםם
Literally: They caused me to wander
o Genesis 35:7
English Translation: God appeared
Hebrew: נהגתְלֹו ו א אלֹלָיםו לָ ה א אלֹל ה היםם
Literally: They appeared
o 2Samuel 7:23
English Translation: God went
Hebrew: לָ הלֹתְכוו ו -א א אלֹל ה היםם
Literally: They went
o Psalms 58:12
English Translation: God that judges
Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם ששלפתְ ה טיםם
Literally: Gods that judge
2. Plural Adjectives
o Deuteronomy 5:26
English Translation: living God
Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם ח חים ה יםום
Literally: Living Gods8
o Joshua 24:19
English Translation: holy God
Hebrew: א אלֹל ה היםם תְ קדֹלששהיםם
Literally: Holy Gods
3. Plural Nouns
o Ecclesiastes 12:1
English Translation: thy Creator
Hebrew: בוולרתְ אֶ איםךלָ
Literally: Creators
o Isaiah 54:5
English Translation: For thy Maker is thy husband
Hebrew: בל ע עולֹחיִךתְ עולששחיִךתְ
Literally: Makers, Husbands9
o Malachi 1:6
English Translation: Master
Hebrew: ע אדֹולנהיםם
Literally: Masters10
o Daniel 7:18
English Translation: Most High
Hebrew: אֶ עולֹתְיםולנהיםן
Literally: Most High Ones
footnotes:
8 See also 1Samuel 17:26, 36 & Jeremiah 10:10, 23:36 for “living Gods”
9 See also Psalm 149:2 for “Makers”
10 Nearly every occurrence of the noun “Lord” ( ע אדֹולנהים ) in reference to God appears in the plural form.
END QUOTE
When all is said and done, the Old Testament uses plural nouns, plural pronouns, plural verbs, plural adverbs, and plural adjectives for God. Pretty unwise for God to do that, if there's no sense in which God is multiple in His unity.
Regarding Tovia's admission of the "inconvenient" reality and feature of the Tanakh that someone other than the Father is called God, he can't just chalk it up to it always referring to creatures. Sometimes the Angel of Yahweh is worshipped [or at least bowed down to in obeisance ] in ways seemingly only Yahweh is supposed to be. And the Bible claims or describes the Angel of Yahweh to have done things or to do things other passages [sometimes in the same book] say Yahweh did. Rogers goes into this very well and in-depth. Just Watch Rogers' videos (including his debates). I don't have time to elaborate much. For example these passages:
Judges 2:1-2 [COMPARE with the first of the 10 Commandments where Yahweh says He did it.]
1 Now the angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And HE SAID, "I BROUGHT YOU UP FROM EGYPT and brought you into the land that *I SWORE* to give to your fathers. I said, 'I will never break *MY COVENANT* covenant with you,
2 and you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall break down their altars.' But you have not obeyed my voice. What is this you have done?
Joshua 5:13-15 NASB95
13 Now it came about when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing opposite him with his sword drawn in his hand, and Joshua went to him and said to him, "Are you for us or for our adversaries?"
14 He said, "No; rather I indeed come now as captain of the host of the LORD." And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down, and said to him, "What has my lord to say to his servant?"
15 The captain of the LORD's host said to Joshua, "Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy." And Joshua did so.
Presumably, this commander of the LORD's army is the Angel of the LORD, yet Joshua takes his sandals off in reverence, or even worship. Similar to what Moses did at Burning Bush.
- At 1:38:52 into the video this passage of Jos. 5:13-15 is addressed. But neither Sam nor Tovia addresses or even mentions the issues of Joshua being commanded to take off his sandals because he's on Holy Ground [presumably due the commander's presence]. The answer Tovia and Sam the host give about it being reverence/obeisance [while true in other circumstances] doesn't seem to fit here because of the issue of Holy Ground and the removal of sandals. About 20% way through the video Sam [with Tovia's approval and encouragement] plays/pretends to be a Trinitarian to help Steelman the Trinitarian position and arguments, rather than Strawmanning them. However the host doesn't play the part of Trinitarian's Advocate well by failing to connect it with the Burning Bush incident where something very similar happens. And where a similar command to remove one's sandals is given. So much so are the similarities apparent, that it almost self-prompts the question of whether the Angel of the LORD/Yahweh in the Burning Bush is the same person here in Joshua 5. Compare Exo. 3:2 and the entire chapters with each other. Sam failed at Steelmanning and Tovia failed anticipating Trinitarian rebuttals.
Exodus 3:2 And the ANGEL of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed.
A plausible case could be made that the Angel of the LORD is worshipped there. Again, see Rogers' videos for more details.
- At 0:29:40 into the video they address Gen. 1:26. The answers they give don't anticipate or overcome Rogers' arguments in this video Here:
The Trinity in Genesis? Two Objections (The Trinity in Jewish and Christian Scriptures, Part 2)
https://youtu.be/6Yf2t3TnTRg
- At 1:11:25 Sam, and then at 1:13:12 Tovia, address the issue of whether God can be seen or not. Sam mentioned the apparent contradiction of Ex. 33:11 and 19 [same chapter!]. Tovia gives his answer, but Sam again didn't play the Trinitarian's Advocate well by failing to connect it with Num. 12:16.
Exo 33:11 Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses turned again into the camp, his assistant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.
COMPARE WITH THE SEEMING OPPOSITE
Exo 33:19 And he said, "I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name 'The LORD.' And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.
20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live."
Sam should have brought up, and Tovia should have addressed, this passage:
Num.12:6 And he said, "Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream.
7 Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house.
8 With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and HE BEHOLDS THE FORM OF THE LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?"
Or passages like:
Exodus 24:10 ESV [10] and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.
Trinitarianism can easily explain the apparent contradiction. When God was seen in the Old Testament, they only saw the pre-incarnate Son. But never the Father. That's how God was both seen and never seen in the Old Testament.
Somewhere in the video they mention Jacob's encounter wrestling an angel. Then Tovia says that Hos. 12 makes it clear it's only a mere angel. But he doesn't address, nor does Sam [playing Trinitarian] mention how and why that passage seems to teach the opposite in the opinion of many Trinitarians. Tovia is probably referring to Hos. 12:4, but the very next verse seems to give further clarification that implies it was YHWH Himself. Which fits perfectly well with versions of Trinitarianism that identify the Angel of the LORD/Yahweh as the pre-incarnate Jesus.
Hosea 12:4-5 ESV
[4] He strove with the angel and prevailed; he wept and sought his favor. He met God at Bethel, and there God spoke with us— [5] the LORD, the God of hosts, the LORD is his memorial name:
- At 1:24:42 Sam brought up John 20:28 where Thomas said, "My Lord and my God." Again Sam doesn't play the Trinitarian Advocate very well. He should have given pushback to Tovia by pointing out the text says Thomas "said TO HIM" [i.e. said TO Jesus]. See also Andrew Schumacher's opening statement in his debate with Sean Griffin Here: https://youtu.be/ljaGlmu4XZU. It starts at 9:23, but the relevant part is at 13:15 where Andrew starts talking about the Jewish use of the possessive "our" or "my" with respect to God and its significance in the New Testament in calling Jesus OUR Lord [as well as here in John 20:28 "MY Lord and MY God.]. Andrew makes an interesting case that the possessive was reserved for Yahweh alone. In which case, this suggests or is at least very consistent with Jesus' full and proper Deity.
- At 1:45:13 Sam says Jesus in Hebrews worships God. That's consistent with ALL [AFAIK] models of the Trinity without detriment to Christ's true and proper Deity. Then Sam says at 1:35:37 that Jesus is not worshipped anywhere in the New Testament. But Heb. 1:6 [in the very book under discussion!] commands Jesus is to be worshipped by the angels. As many [most?] scholars point out, based on the Greek of Heb. 1:6, that the author of Hebrews in this verse is clearly alluding to two places in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Old Testament [viz. Deut. 32:43 & Ps. 97:7]. Places where the angels and/or the members of the Divine Council are commanded to worship Yahweh. What can this be but an Old Testament command for the most exalted created creatures to give full-orbed WORSHIP [in the FULLEST sense] to Yahweh. That these passages are applied to Jesus would be bewildering if Unitarianism were true and Jesus weren't proper/full Deity. It would be blasphemous. But the author of Hebrews doesn't even flinch or show any scruples in making such a connection and application. No hesitation, no reservation and no moral unease despite possible perceived IDOLATRY in the minds of his audience. The author(s) of Hebrews was likely a Second Temple Jew who wished to avoid any semblance of idolatry. And, as I understand it, while 2nd Temple Jews sometimes had exalted creatures as mediators [Metatron, Enoch, et al.], they almost never [or absolutely never] made the idolatrous mistake of directing worship to their mediators.
This fact, that the worship of Yahweh in Ps. 97:7 and Deut. 32:43 in the LXX is applied to Jesus, along with the Hebrews author in verses 10-12 applying Ps. 102 [which was originally about Yahweh] to Jesus ought to be near definitive proof of Jesus' proper/full Deity. The author not only seems to predicate Jesus as Yahweh, but also applies to Jesus the divine attributes of Yahweh described in Ps. 102 [immutability, eternality, Creatorship, & perpetual unfading ever "youthful" LIFE]. The common Unitarian rebuttal that it refers to the New Creation rather than the Original Creation seems to me patently Ad Hoc/contrived.
BTW, Sam is mostly correct about church history and Trinitarian history IN THIS VIDEO (not necessarily in other videos), but with his own bias. But he was fairly objective. Some Trinitarians are more biased on these subjects of history by comparison. I recommend reading Daniel Waterland's defenses of the Trinity. I've read most of what he's written on the subject of the Trinity and I HIGHLY RECOMMEND them. I've linked to his works on this Blog Here:
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/daniel-waterland-on-christs-divinity.html
A lot of people criticize Waterland for a number of things. But he's more reliable than his opponents claim. Don't just take someone's word against him.
