THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
Judaism does not believe in the nature of God being “Trinity.” This is a pagan concept.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
This is quite a serious charge as it deals with the very nature of God. It is a profound subject and one that must be dealt with thoroughly.
The anti-missionary indicates that the concept of the Trinity is a pagan concept. However, the rabbis express two views of the Trinity. The anti-missionary has presented one point of view. However, not all in the Jewish community share this view. For example, Rabbi Alfred J. Kolatch, from his book The Second Jewish Book of Why, asks the question, "Why does Jewish law not consider the Christian belief in the Trinity to be idolatrous?" He then states that there are two ways to view the Trinity in the Jewish community. One view is the view of Maimonides, which the anti-missionary subscribes to, that the Trinity is an idolatrous concept. However, there is also a second view:
Scholars such as the French-born Rabbenu Tam (1100-1171), the grandson of Rashi who spent his life in Christian Europe, accepted the view of Christian theologians, who explained that the Trinity is consistent with the concept of one God. To these theologians the three personages are part of the one God; they are not individual gods. Just as spokes of a wheel are not in themselves wheels but components that are integral to the actual wheel, so the three personages are not gods but together they comprise the one God.1
Under a different question, we find this related comment by Rabbi Kolatch:
This view of Maimonides (that the Trinity is idolatrous) does not appear in our editions of the Mishneh Torah and was never accepted by normative Judaism. Beginning with Rabbenu Tam, a contemporary of Maimonides, almost all authorities agree that despite their belief in a Trinity Christians are monotheists. Rabbenu Tam notes in his commentary that despite outer appearances Christians truly believe in one God, as do Jews.2
In the footnote to the comment above, we find these words:
Bechorot 2b. This opinion has prevailed over the centuries. The great German rabbinic scholar Jacob Israel Emden (1697-1776) expressed the attitude of most scholars when he wrote that Christians cannot be considered idol worshippers and that it's incumbent upon every Jew to befriend Christians in their hour of need, as was taught by the Sages of the Talmud (Gittin 61a).3
This position is echoed by the National Jewish Scholars Project. They issued a document entitled A Jewish Statement on Christians and Christianity. In that document, we find this assessment:
Jews and Christians worship the same God. Before the rise of Christianity, Jews were the only worshippers of the God of Israel. But Christians also worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; creator of heaven and earth. While Christian worship is not a viable religious choice for Jews, (please realize that HaDavar does not accept that statement) as Jewish theologians we rejoice that, through Christianity, hundreds of millions of people have entered into relationship with the God of Israel.4
The preceding statement is rife with implications, one of which deals with the nature of God. If we are dealing with the same God, then what is He like? Another implication of that statement affects the idea of idolatry and polytheism. If we are dealing with the same God, then we are not dealing with paganism. The Trinity is not a pagan concept.
In contrast, there is solid evidence in the Jewish community to the contrary. The concept of the Trinity is not rejected outright, and we must look at what the Bible has to say in as neutral a manner as possible. We believe that the concept of the Trinity is defensible from the Biblical data.
Now for one final comment before we actually get into the biblical text about the relationship between paganism and the Trinity. The Trinity is biblical truth that has become distorted by people who do not have access to or interest in God's revelation. The Bible is the only source of accurate revelation about God found in this world. However, as mankind scattered over the face of the earth (Gen. 11:8), the knowledge of God became distorted and forgotten. That revelation was eventually entrusted to the care and keeping of the Jewish people (Gen. 12, Rom. 3:2) where it has been safeguarded ever since.
The Brit Chadashah (New Testament) puts it this way:
And in the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways; and yet He did not leave Himself without witness ... 5
In Acts 4, Rabbi Shaul, the Apostle Paul, is speaking to a Gentile crowd in the city of Lystra in Asia Minor. His comment indicates that as the nations went their own way, they strayed from the knowledge of the truth. Truth degenerated into partial truth, partial truth disintegrated into untruth. The correct understanding of the one true and living God degenerated into polytheism and idolatry. Polytheism is simply a horribly distorted and barely recognizable perversion of biblical truth.
All men once knew that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was a complex or compound unity. The Bible, which we, the Jewish people, have faithfully safeguarded for millennia, contains the true and accurate revelation about God, His program for humanity, and the Messiah. We should examine that data objectively and thoroughly.
Another biblical principle to keep in mind is that God's revelation is "progressive." We learn more and more about God and His plan for the Jewish people and humanity as God unfolds history and His revelation to us. For example: no one who lived previous to Isaiah would know that the Messiah would die as a guilt offering. No one knew until that fact was revealed to Isaiah in Isaiah 53:10. My point in saying this is to acknowledge that the complex, indivisible unity of God is not clearly revealed in Tanakh (Old Testament). However, the complex, indivisible unity of God is fully revealed in the New Testament. The revelation in the Brit Chadashah is not contradictory to the revelation found in Tanakh. If it were contradictory, we would not accept it. This is why we do not accept other claims such as Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. Their writings contain material contradictory to Tanakh. The concept of the Trinity is defensible from Tanakh due to a number of lines of evidence. Here are some of them.
1 Kolatch, Alfred J., The Second Jewish Book of Why (New York: Jonathan David Publishers, Inc., 1985), p.77
2 Ibid, p. 92
3 Ibid, p. 92
4 http://www.icjs.org/programs/ongoing/njsp/dabruemet.php
5 New American Standard Bible, Acts 14:16-17 (LaHabra, CA., The Lockman Foundation, 1995)
Philosophically, the idea of a complex, indivisible unity is not foreign to the Bible. The nation of Israel is a complex, indivisible unity-one nation made up of 12 tribes, the Law of Moses is a complex, indivisible unity-one law made up of 613 commandments, and marriage is a complex, indivisible unity-a one flesh relationship consisting of man and woman. Is it inconsistent if the God of the Universe is a complex, indivisible unity as well?
There is a book written by Dr. J. David Bleich entitled With Perfect Faith-The Foundations of Jewish Belief. In this book Dr. Bleich develops Jewish thought around Maimonides' Thirteen Principles of Faith. He introduces the Thirteen Principles in the first chapter and then develops each principle in the succeeding chapters. In his overview of principle number two which is unity, he makes these comments:
Saadya (HaGaon) is willing to attribute to God the attributes of Life, Power, and Wisdom.1
Bahya ibn Pakuda distinguishes between what he terms 'essential' and 'active' attributes. The first are three in number: Existing, One, and Eternal.2
(Judah) HaLevi regards divine attributes as being divisible into three classes: actional, relative, and negative. 3
Is it not interesting how the number three keeps popping up in relation to the unity of God? In his footnote to Saadya's thought, Dr. Bleich makes these remarks:
God in whom no change takes place is living, wise and powerful by virtue of His essence. In other words, these three attributes are identical with His essence(emphasis mine). Saadya stresses this point in his treatment of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which, in his opinion interpreted the three attributes of Existence, Wisdom and Life in the sense of the three separate persons of Father, Son (Logos) and Holy Spirit … the three attributes of Life, Wisdom and Power are identical with the essence of God.4
Dr. Bleich's footnote reveals an error in Saadya's understanding of the Christian/biblical doctrine of the Trinity. The Christian/biblical doctrine of the Trinity does not teach that the Father, Son (Logos) and Holy Spirit are three separate persons. The misunderstanding is revealed in the presence of the word "separate." There are two observations that are more accurate.
First, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches about the essence of God in personal terms. God is a "person," and it is accurate to describe Him in personal terms. God is not simply an attribute or a force. Second, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are identical with the essence of God, not three "separate persons." The three are more accurately described as the same in essence but distinguishable.
Saadya's understanding needs to be refined by borrowing the terminology employed by Dr. Bleich. These three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are identical with His essence. If three attributes can be distinguishable yet identical with God's essence, why is it so radical if three persons are distinguishable yet identical with God's essence? In both cases we are talking about three-in-one-one God who is a complex, indivisible unity. Finally, one of our rabbinic traditions is that fact that God has made and arranged everything in a Trinitarian way.
Let me quote Midrash Tanchuma on Exodus 19.
Exodus 19 starts with the words, "In the third month." This is explained by the words of Proverbs 22:20, "Have I not written to thee excellent (Hebrew, threefold) things in counsels and knowledge." On this, Rabbi Joshua bar Nehemiah said that this is the Torah who's letters are threefold, alf, bet, g(i)mel, and everything is a trinity. The Torah is trinitarian, for it is composed of the Torah, the Prophets, and Writings. The Mishna (talmudical learning) is a trinity composed of talmud (learning), halakhot (daily Jewish laws), and haggadot (historical items). The mediator consisted of a trinity of Miriam, Moses, and Aaron. Prayers are a trinity of morning, afternoon, and evening prayers. Israel is a trinity consisting of Priests, Levites, and Israelites. The name Moses, in Hebrew, consists of three letters. He is of the tribe of Levi, which is in the Hebrew, three letters, from the seed of the Patriarchs who are a trinity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; in the third month, which is Sivan, after Nisan and Iyar, on Mount Sin, whose letters are three, as it is written, "And they rested in the wilderness of Sin."
Midrash Tanchuma clearly sees a Divine pattern of "threes." The pattern is that of a complex, trinitarian, indivisible unity. If this pattern and understanding is part and parcel of the Jewish community, is it inconsistent, non-biblical, and un-Jewish to hold that God Himself is a complex, trinitarian, indivisible unity? There is clear evidence of complex, indivisible unity in the thinking of the Jewish community regarding the nature of God. It is, ironically, denied and argued against by the very people who write about it, but it is still there. God is a complex, indivisible being, and this is reflected in the biblical data as well.
1 Bleich, Dr. J. David, With Perfect Faith-The Foundations of Jewish Belief (New York, Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1983), p. 108
2 Ibid
3 Ibid, p. 109
4 Ibid, p. 117
The most often used word for "God" is the term Elohim. It is used of the true God (Gen. 1:1) and of false "gods" (Ex. 20:3). When used of the true God, it is translated in the singular. When used of false "gods," it is translated in the plural. The fact that a plural noun is used of the one true God opens the door to the concept of complex, indivisible unity in the Godhead. This fact is not a proof of complex, indivisible unity because there is a usage of plural nouns in Hebrew known as the "plural of majesty," but it is consistent with and opens the door to the idea.
Normally, when Elohim is used in reference to the one true God, the verb modifying the noun is singular. This is contrary to normal, Hebrew, grammatical rules which state that the verb should agree with the noun in gender and number. Normally, we would expect a plural verb to be used with the plural noun Elohim. When using Elohim of false "gods," this is what we find. Most of the time when we encounter the plural noun Elohim, it is modified by a singular verb which shows that there is only one true God. However, there are exceptions.
These exceptions keep the door open for a discussion of complex, indivisible unity in the Godhead. Some examples are found in Genesis 20:13, 35:7; 2 Samuel 7:23; and Psalm 58:11. Let us use the 2nd Samuel verse for further clarification:
And who is like Your people Israel, a unique nation on earth, whom God went and redeemed as His people, winning renown for Himself and doing great and marvelous deeds for them [and] for Your land-[driving out] nations and their gods before Your people, whom You redeemed for Yourself from Egypt.1
The noun/verb sequence that we are focusing on is "God went." The literal Hebrew reads "they went, Gods did." We are talking of the one true God here, and He is referred to in plural terms-plural noun and plural verb agreement. The door is open to considering the concept of complex, indivisible unity in the Godhead.
1 Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: A new translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the traditional Hebrew text (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1997, c1985), 2 Samuel 7:23
The plural noun Elohim is also seen to include two different personalities in the same passage. There is one example found in Hosea 1:7:
But I will accept the House of Judah. And I will give them victory through the LORD their God; I will not give them victory with bow and sword and battle, by horses and riders.1
In verses 4-6 God is speaking. He is still speaking in verse 7. In this passage, the speaker is Elohim who says He will extend compassion and deliverance by the instrumentality of the LORD their Elohim. Elohim #1 will deliver Israel by means of Elohim #2.
1 Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: A new translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the traditional Hebrew text (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1997, c1985), Hosea 1:7
If we look at Zechariah 2:12-13 (Hebrew) 2:8-9 (English), we will encounter additional support for understanding the nature of our God as that of a complex, indivisible unity.
For thus said the LORD of Hosts-He who sent me after glory-concerning the nations that have taken you as spoil: "Whoever touches you touches the pupil of his own (My) eye. For I will lift My hand against them, and they shall be spoil for those they enslaved." Then you shall know that I was sent by the LORD of Hosts.1
In verse 12 of Tanakh (verse 8 in English), YHVH #1 is the speaker. He speaks about the value of Israel using the word picture of the pupil of the eye. Israel is personal and valuable and protected by God as the eye of a man is personal, valuable, and protected by him. He is extremely personal here using the term "My eye." Then in verse 13 (9), YHVH #1 says that He is being sent to accomplish a task by YHVH #2. One YHVH is sending another YHVH to perform a specific task. "Hold on," you say. "You have mistranslated the verse. Verse 12 reads 'His own eye,' showing that this is not a reference to God." Are you sure of that?
Let us look at the Soncino Books of the Bible referring to that verse:
According to Jewish tradition, the original reading in this verse was "the apple of My eye." It was corrected by the Scribes so as to remove the daring anthropomorphism implied.2
The original reading supports the position that the LORD of Hosts #1 is speaking and that He is being sent by the LORD of Hosts #2. The word "corrected" is probably not the best word to use to describe the change introduced into the text by the Scribes. Why does the commentator say that the anthropomorphism is "daring"? Anthropomorphisms are frequent in the Bible. What is so daring about God saying "My eye" and "The LORD is in His holy palace"? For example what do we find in Psalm 11:4, but this quote:
the LORD-His throne is in heaven;
His eyes behold, His gaze searches mankind?3
Or "You whose eyes are too pure to look upon evil?" (Hab. 1:13)4
An anthropomorphism seems to be a poor reason to correct the text. The word "correction" was not due to anthropomorphism but rather because God is speaking, and He uses His personal name. The commentator admits that the Scribes wanted to tone down the impact of the verse. As a result they changed the verse to blunt its impact. This correction also raises the question of authorization. What authority did the Scribes have to change the inspired Word of God? They do not possess the authority to change the Holy Scriptures just because they don't like the implications of a verse. If God is speaking, and He is, then God has sent God to perform a specific task. The debate about complex, indivisible unity in the Godhead is still open.
1 Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: A new translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the traditional Hebrew text (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1997, c1985), Zechariah 2:12-13
2 Cohen, Rev. Dr. A (Ed.), Soncino Books of the Bible, The Minor Prophets (New York: The Soncino Press, 1985), p. 278
3 Tanakh: The Holy Scripture, Psalm 11:4
4 Ibid, Habakkuk 1:13
Plural Noun Adonai
According to Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Director of Ariel Ministries:
Whenever that word (Adonai) is used of God, it's always found in the plural. The singular form is never used of God.1
The pattern is consistent and the door remains open for the idea that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a complex, indivisible unity.
Plural Pronouns
Plural pronouns are also used of God. For example, Genesis 1:26 says:
And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.2
The plural pronouns us, our, and our in the above quote refer to God. The use of the plural in Genesis 1:26 is noted by Jewish commentators. Various explanations have been suggested by them such as:
Angels (Rashi, Midrash), God and the earth (Rambam), all of creation (Vilna Gaon), plural of majesty (many), the souls of the righteous unborn (Genesis Rabbah), plural of deliberation (Genesis Rabbah), different aspects within God's being (Zohar), the Word of God (Targumim).3
The use of the plural is noted because it "obviously presents a great difficulty, considering the 'oneness' and 'unity' of the Almighty."4
The lack of consistency and the variety of explanations indicates uncertainty and lack of consensus regarding the answer to this "great difficulty." However, there is no great difficulty if the oneness and unity of the Almighty is a complex, indivisible unity. Other examples include Genesis 3:22, 11:7; and Isaiah 6:8.
Plural Participles
Another line of evidence is the fact that God is also described by plural participles. For example, Isaiah 54:5 says:
For He who made you will espouse you-His name is "LORD of Hosts." The Holy One of Israel will redeem you-He is called "God of all the Earth."5
The term "made you" and "espouse you" are plurals in the Hebrew text and literally read "your makers" and "your husbands." The reference is to God. Then the verse switches back to the singular "His Name." The verse switches back to the plural -the word "God" in the final line. Finally, it ends with the singular "He is called." The interplay between the singular and the plural would be appropriate if the nature of God is a complex, indivisible unity.
Dr. Michael Brown shares two thoughts on the Bible's description of God in plural terms:
So, while these references to God or LORD in the plural don't in any way prove Trinitarian beliefs, they are certainly in perfect harmony with everything we're trying to say here, namely that in some way the LORD's unity is complex.
…these verses most definitely don't exclude such beliefs.6
1 Fruchtenbaum, A.G., The Trinity Radio Manuscript #50 (Tustin, CA., Ariel Ministries, 1983), p. 5
2 Tanakh: The Holy Scripture, Genesis 1:26
3 Harvey, Richard, Issues (Perlman, Susan, ed.), "A Look at the Trinity From a Messianic Jewish Perspective"(San Francisco, CA), vol. 10.8, pp. 5-8
4 Pelcovitz, Rabbi Raphael, Sforno, A Commentary on the Torah (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 1987),vol. 1, p. 17
5 Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, Isaiah 54:5
6 Brown, Dr. Michael, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), p. 10
The concept of the Son of God is brought out in Proverbs 30. The author is a humble man who has embarked on a long, zealous, but fruitless search for the knowledge of the Holy One (plural adjective), Proverb 30:1-3. He then poses six questions.
The first four are rhetorical because the answer is obvious:
Who has ascended heaven and come down?
Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hand?
Who has wrapped the waters in his garment?
Who has established all the extremities of the earth?1
The obvious answer to these questions is God, God, God, and God. The creator and sustainer of this world is God. Now we have the fifth question.
What is his name...2
In Jewish and biblical thinking the "name" of someone or something can be a term describing the character of that object or person. The author is asking here either, "What is God's personal name?" or "What is God's character like?" The answer to the fifth question would be either YHVH or other terms describing the character of God. There is a choice presented but the answer is straightforward.
However, the sixth question is not so straightforward.
For his son's name, if you know it?3
It appears that God has a son, although his name or characteristics have not yet been revealed. Remember, God's revelation is progressive. It is disclosed step-by-step, over time, as the Bible unfolds. The full revelation about the Son of God will come through the prophets and culminate in the Brit Chadashah. Complex, indivisible unity in the Godhead remains a live option.
1 Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, Proverb 30:4
2 Ibid
3 Ibid
The Hebrew Scriptures also teach the concept of a God-Man. Not man making himself God, but God appearing on earth as a man. One example is Zechariah 13:7a which states in the first part of the verse:
Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, And against the man, My Associate,(NASB)1
The key word in the sentence is the word translated "My Associate." That word is translated "who is close to me" by the NIV.
Dr. Fruchtenbaum evaluates the word as meaning "my equal" and comments:
This man is God's equal and God's equal must be God Himself. On one hand, His humanity is stressed: ...the man; and then His deity is stressed: that is my equal.2
The Bible Knowledge Commentary concurs in their comments using the NIV rendering:
The LORD added that this Shepherd is the Man who is close to Me. The Hebrew word translated "who is close to me" is found elsewhere only in Leviticus (6:2, 18:20, etc) where it refers to a "near relative"... In Zechariah 13:7, the LORD is claiming identity of nature or unity in essence with His Shepherd, thus strongly affirming the Messiah's deity.3
In contrast to the NASB and NIV is the Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh version of 1997:
O sword! Rouse yourself against My shepherd,
The man i-in charge of My flock-i 4
As you can see the rendering of the key Hebrew word is very different from the NASB or the NIV. Why is their rendering so different? A reason is given in a footnote. IN the electronic version I own, that phrase is bracketed by two superscripted "i's." The explanation given in the footnote is "meaning of Hebrew uncertain." This is quite an amazing position to take. No one else seem to have a problem wiht the word, including the Jewish Publication Society (JPS). In the JPS produced "The Holy Scriptures" (1917, 1945, 1955), the word is rendered "the man that is near to me." Likewise:
Soncino Books of the Bible (text rendering): the man that is near unto me
Soncino Books of the Bible (commentary rendering): the man that is my fellow
Septuagint: citizen, freeman, fellow citizen
American Standard Version: my fellow
Revised Standard Version: the man who stands next to me
New Living Translation: my partner
The Contemporary English Version: friend
King James: my fellow
New American Standard: my associate
New International Version: The man who is close to me
The New King James Version: my companion
Brown Driver and Brigs Lexicon: associate, fellow, relation
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: associate, fellow, relation
New American Standard Hebrew-American and Greek Dictionaries: associate, fellow, relation
Enhanced Strong's Lexicon: relation, neighbor, associate, fellow
These other works have no trouble understanding this word. The 1997 Tanakh does not seem to be able to face the impact and meaning of the text. They almost seem to want to obscure it. However, the God-Man concept is there and supports the idea of complex, indivisible unity in the Godhead. The God-Man concept is also found in Micah 5:2, Zechariah 12:10, Psalm 80:17, and Psalm 110:1. Micah 5:2 states that the Messiah has existed from eternity past, indicating that He is God, as well as being born in Bethlehem which indicates that He is also a man. In Zechariah 12:10, Israel will look to God, whom they pierced. In Psalm 80:17 and Psalm 110:1, the Messiah will be seated at the place of honor and equality, God's right hand.
Here is one final thought that is helpful from Rabbi Albo. In J. David Bleich's book, With Perfect Faith, he quotes Rabbi Albo explaining his understanding of how the prophets receive their revelation. Albo uses Bereshit Rabbah:
A Cuthean asked Rabbi Meir, is it possible that God, of whom It's written, 'Don't I fill heaven and earth?' should have spoken to Moses from between the staves of the ark? Said Rabbi Meir, bring me large mirrors. When he brought them, R. Meir said to him, look at your reflection. He looked, and he saw they were large. Then he said, bring me small mirrors. He looked and he saw they were small. Then R. Meir said, If you, a man of flesh and blood can change yourself into many shapes at your pleasure, surely God who created the world can do so.
As in the mirrors a thing appears different in form, large or small, straight or crooked, bright or obscure, according to the nature of the mirrors through which the thing is seen, i.e. according as the mirrors are large or small, straight or crooked, clear or obscure, though the thing itself does not change, so God appears to the prophets under many and various forms according to the brightness and purity of the media, though God Himself does not multiply or change. The change and multiplicity come from the media, as in the illustration of the mirrors.5
The connection here is that fact that Albo has nicely stated that God has revealed Himself to man through a variety of media, a cloud, a fire, etc. The media He chose to use in the case of the Messiah is a human body. God did not multiply Himself or change. He simply used a particular medium of expression. The God-Man concept is not contrary to Scripture and it maintains the evidence for complex, indivisible unity.
1 New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. 1995 (Zec. 13:7). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation
2 Fruchtenbaum, p. 11
3 Walvoord, Electronic edition.
i- Meaning of Heb. uncertain
-i Meaning of Heb. uncertain
4 Jewish Publication Society. (1997, c1985). Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: A new translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the traditional Hebrew text. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
5 Bleich, pp. 334-335
Dr. Fruchtenbaum, from his manuscript on "The Trinity," says:
The Holy Spirit's sometimes seen as God and sometimes He is seen as one person within the Godhead. His many appearances in the Old Testament are also evidence...1
Of a number of examples, let us choose Isaiah 11:2 that reads:
The spirit of the LORD shall alight upon him: a spirit of wisdom and insight, a spirit of counsel and valor, a spirit of devotion and reverence for the LORD.2
In Isaiah 11:2, the Spirit is called YHVH and then described in personal terms. A force or power does not possess insight, wisdom, reverence, etc. The Holy Spirit is an indivisible, but distinguishable person in the Godhead. A comment in the Midrash Rabbah refers to Isaiah 11:2 and appears to make this connection as well.
Midrash Rabbah, Genesis II, 4.
... AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD HOVERED: this alludes to the spirit of Messiah, as you read, And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him (Isa. XI, 2).3
In this midrash the Spirit of God and the spirit of the Messiah are identical. The implication would be that the Messiah is a Divine Person, equal to God yet distinguishable from God. This is proved by the fact that the Spirit is equal yet distinguishable.
1 Fruchtenbaum, p. 11
2 Tanahkh: The Holy Scriptures, Isaiah 11:2
3 Huckel, T. (1998). The Rabbinic Messiah (Is. 11:3). Philadelphia: Hananeel House
Related to the Son of God and God-Man concepts is the concept of the visible manifestation of God's glory. In the Bible, we encounter such expressions as:
Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and 70 elders of Israel ascended; and they saw the God of Israel: under His feet there was the likeness of a pavement of sapphire, like the very sky for purity.1
Now the Presence of the LORD appeared in the sight of the Israelites as a consuming fire on the top of the mountain.2
In the year that King Uzziah died, I beheld my LORD seated on a high and lofty throne; and the skirts of His robe filled the Temple. Seraphs stood in attendance on Him. Each of them had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his legs, and with two he would fly. And one would call to the other, "Holy, holy, holy! The LORD of Hosts! His presence fills all the earth!"3
In these examples God visibly reveals Himself to mankind. As mentioned earlier, Bleich's book is discussing thirteen principles that are foundational to Jewish beliefs. The third principle is incorporeality. Incorporeality means the state or quality of being bodiless or immaterial. As Rabbi Albo discusses this topic, we read these comments:
The revelation of God's glory takes place by means of a body that is visible to the senses, like a fire or a pillar of cloud... devouring fire... cloud... the angel of the LORD... flame of fire... the glory of the LORD which appeared to the prophets emanated from God's own essence...4
In other words, God can appear to mankind. He does so by utilizing a body of His own choice. The amazing thing about the comments above lies in the fact that they sound exactly like the Brit Chadashah.
In John 1:14, John says that the Word of God literally "Shekinahed" (dwelt) among us. John is claiming, in that verse, that Yeshua is a form of the Shekinah Glory of God. He claims that the Shekinah is manifested in this manner in order to "explain" God the Father to us. To use Rabbi Albo's wording:
The revelation of God's glory takes place by means of a body that is visible to the senses,... the glory of the LORD which appeared to the prophets emanated from God's own essence...5
This is exactly what the Brit Chadashah teaches in John, chapter 1 and in the account of the transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-6; Mk. 9:1-8). The evidence for complex, indivisible unity is still present. God can reveal Himself to man in any way He sees fit, be it a fire, a cloud, or a human body.
1 Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, Exodus 24:9-10
2 Ibid, Exodus 24:17
3 Ibid, Isaiah 6:1-3
4 Bleich, p.198
5 Ibid
While the Tanakh provides evidence of the complex, indivisible unity of God, it never teaches polytheism - a number of gods. However, the fact that this unity is complex and indivisible is apparent, even in statements that stress that there is only one God, such as the Shema. Here is Deuteronomy 6:4 as rendered by the Tanakh version:
Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.1
The Jewish Publication Society Tanakh translation includes a footnote to Deuteronomy 6:4 that is important to notice. The footnote reads:
Cf. Rashbam and Ibn Ezra. See Zech. 14:9 others The LORD our God the LORD is one.2
"The LORD our GOD the LORD is one" is the classic translation of the verse. That rendering stresses God's unity, and takes the literal meaning of the word "one" which has a numerical meaning. The numerical meaning designated the quantity. As Encyclopedia Judaica (EJ) says:
The Shema is in Jewish thought the supreme affirmation of the unity of God and is frequently called 'the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven.' The original meaning of the first verse may have been that, unlike the pagan gods who have different guises and localities, God is one. At first the main emphasis in the Shema was seen to be in opposition to polytheism; there is only one God, not many gods.3
The verse appears to argue against the complex, indivisible unity of God. However, the verse actually supports the concept in a number of ways. First, the English translation "The LORD out God" appears in the singular. However, the literal form of the word God is plural, "The LORD our Gods..." Second, the most significant word to look at is the final word translated "one" (literally) or "alone" (as above). The word is echad. The range of meaning found in echad contains a clear and unmistakable sense of complex unity.
One example is found in Genesis 2:24. There, when two persons (a man and a woman) marry, they become "one flesh" (basar echad). In addition to the excerpt above, the Encyclopedia Judaica goes on to cite additional interpretations of this verse. The most interesting is the mention of the Rabbinic work called the Zohar:
Very curious are the references in the Zohar to the three divine names in the first verse of the Shema. These represent the unity of three powers in the Godhead, that is the Sefirot of Lovingkindness, Judgment, and Beauty (Hesed, Gevurah, Tiferet), symbolized by the colors white, red, and green, or the Sefirot of Wisdom, Understanding, and Beauty (Hokhmah, Binah, Tiferet; Zohar 1:18b, 3:263a). The Zohar is strongly anti-Christian in intent and repeatedly stresses that all the Ten Sefirot are a unity with Ein Sof.4
Three powers, three colors, three Sefirot - more "trinities." Amazing! Then the Encyclopedia Judaica goes on to say that the Zohar takes pains to "repeatedly stress(es) that all the Ten Sefirot are a unity with Ein Sof. The Zohar seems to think that God can be complex, indivisible unity with ten identifiable Sefirot.
Here are three more quick examples:
On the word (Elohim) Simeon Ben Joachi says: 'Come and see the mystery of the word (Elohim) there are three degrees, and each degree is by itself alone, and yet they are all one, and joined together in one, and are not divided from each other.5
...the union is expressed in the sentence: 'Hear O Israel, TETRAGRAMMATON Elohenu TETRAGRAMMATON is one.' These three are one...6
Even so it's with the mystery of the threefold Divine manifestations designated by TETRAGRAMMATON Elohenu TETRAGRAMMATON three modes yet they form one unity.7
Is the concept of the Trinity a pagan concept? We think not. Is evidence for complex, indivisible unity in the Godhead present in Scripture? The writer of the Zohar seemed to think so. The statements in the Zohar sound like they come right out of the Brit Chadashah. If the Zohar is "strongly anti-Christian in intent," it is speaking against a misunderstanding of what the Brit Chadashah actually teaches. We run into this misunderstanding repeatedly. The misunderstanding is most often seen in the use of the word "separate." The Brit Chadashah does not teach that there are three, separate, divine entities - three gods (as Saadya's misunderstanding stated above). The New Testament teaches that there is one God. The one God is a complex, indivisible unity of three distinguishable persons.
1 Ibid, Deuteronomy 6:4
2 Ibid
3 Encyclopedia Judaica, CD ROM Edition (Jerusalem, Israel: Keter Publishing House Jerusalem Ltd., 1972)
4 Ibid
5 The Treasure of Scripture Knowledge: Five Hundred Thousand Scripture References and Parallel Passages, Introduction by R. A. Torrey (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995), Electronic edition
6 Soncino Zohar, CD ROM Edition (Shemoth, Raya Mehemna), p. 43b
7 Ibid
Throughout the Tanakh, this figure appears now and then. In context, when he appears, strange and mysterious statements are made. For example, he is called the angel of the LORD in one spot and then in another spot in the context, he is called God himself. In addition, this angel speaks as if he was God himself and, finally, it is stated that God's presence is in him. Consistently, the context makes it apparent that this is no ordinary angel. Instead, he is a unique being who is a visible manifestation of God Himself. These phenomena are consistent with the Biblical data describing God's nature. They are understandable wonders when we realize that God is a complex, indivisible unity. Examples of this phenomenon are contained in Genesis 16:7-13, 21:17-18, 22:11-12, and 31:11-13. Let us begin the discussion with Genesis 16:7-9.
At the beginning of the encounter, verse 7 clearly states it is the angel of the LORD speaking to Hagar:
An angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the road to Shur, and said, 'Hagar, slave of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?' And she said, 'I am running away from my mistress Sarai.' And the angel of the LORD said to her, 'Go back to your mistress, and submit to her harsh treatment.'1
All that the angel has spoken up to this point is quite proper for a messenger of God to state. However, in the next sentence the angel says something that goes beyond what is proper for a created being. Verse 10 says:
And the angel of the LORD said to her, 'I will greatly increase your offspring, And they shall be too many to count.'2
Giving children is God's work. Yet the angel of the LORD did not say "The LORD will greatly increase your offspring." Instead, the angel of the LORD said, "I will greatly increase your offspring." Why does he feel he can speak in the first person regarding an activity that is God's business?
The conversation ends with verses 10-12 giving a prediction regarding the characteristics of Hagar's firstborn son:
The angel of the LORD said to her further, 'Behold, you are with child and shall bear a son; You shall call him Ishmael, for the LORD has paid heed to your suffering. He shall be a wild ass of a man; His hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him; He shall dwell alongside of all his kinsmen.'3
The record of the account ends with an astounding statement by Hagar. The angel of the LORD had spoken to her, yet she identifies the speaker using different terms:
And she called the LORD who spoke to her, 'You Are El-roi,' by which she meant, 'Have I not gone on seeing after He saw me!'4
Hagar does not indicate that the being who spoke to her was simply a messenger from God, simply a run-of-the-mill-angel. She clearly identifies the one who spoke to her as God himself.
She is also amazed that she is still alive. Apparently, she understood the principle that no man can look upon God and live (Ex. 33:20). Had this visitor been simply an angel, Hagar would not have feared death. This angel is clearly identified with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in 16:13. The angel of the LORD is God Himself appearing in visible, angelic form.
The same phenomenon occurs in Genesis 22:11-12 when Abraham is about to sacrifice his son Isaac. Please remember, in the context of Genesis 22, God is commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham is not offering the sacrifice of his son to an angel. This is crystal clear from Genesis 22:1-2:
Some time afterward, God put Abraham to the test. He said to him, 'Abraham,' and he answered, 'Here I am.' And He said, 'Take your son, your favored one, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the heights that I will point out to you.'5
In obedience to God, not an angel, Abraham goes out to the land of Moriah. Then we come to verses 11 and 12:
Then an angel of the LORD called to him from heaven: 'Abraham! Abraham!' And he answered, 'Here I am.' And he said, 'Don't raise your hand against the boy, or do anything to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your favored one, from Me.'6
Please note that the angel of the LORD did not say, in verse 12, "you have not withheld your son from God." Instead, the angel of the LORD said, "you have not withheld your son, your favored one, from Me." Once again, the angel of the LORD is identified as God himself. Then the strange marvel occurs again in verses 15-18:
The angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, 'By Myself I swear,' the LORD declares: 'Because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your favored one, I will bestow My blessing upon you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven and the sands on the seashore; and your descendants shall seize the gates of their foes. All the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your descendants, because you have obeyed My command.'7
The angel of the LORD who was previously identified as God Himself is now seen to be distinct from God. He speaks on behalf of God stating, "the LORD declares." Who is this? Is this God or is this an angel? The interplay back and forth leaves us astounded and at a loss to explain. The answer to the mystery becomes clear when it is understood that the Bible describes God as a complex, indivisible unity.
The same marvel occurs in Genesis 31:11-13, 48:15-16, and Judges 13:22-23. The Angel of the LORD is the same as God and yet the angel is distinct from God. Again, this is all quite consistent if the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a complex, indivisible unity. The angel of the LORD speaks as God, but the Holy Scriptures also teaches that God's presence is in him.
Exodus 23:20-22 states:
I am sending an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have made ready. Pay heed to him and obey him. Don't defy him, for he will not pardon your offenses, since My Name is in him; but if you obey him and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and a foe to your foes.8
Before going any further, an explanation of the biblical and Jewish concept of a name needs to be stated. In the Bible, names can simply be identifiers (as they tend to be in our culture). However, in the Bible a name usually has much more significance. The Jewish people understand there is to be an essential connection between the name and the person it identified. A name of a person represented the nature of that person.
With that thought in mind, God says, "My Name is in him." In other words, this angel represents God's very nature. The angel of the LORD is seen here as separate from God and yet God's name is associated with him. Later in Exodus 33:14, God says that his presence will go with Israel. Centuries after this time, Isaiah looks back on God's faithfulness and states in Isaiah 63:9:
In all their troubles He was troubled, And the angel of His Presence delivered them. In His love and pity, He Himself redeemed them, raised them, and exalted them all the days of old.9
Somehow, the very presence of God is associated with this angel. Before summarizing this section, our attention needs to be drawn to one final passage, Genesis 32:30. In context, our patriarch, Jacob, has spent all night wrestling with a "man" (vs. 25). Then, in verse 31, Jacob states:
So Jacob named the place Peniel, meaning, 'I have seen a divine being face to face, yet my life has been preserved.'10
Unfortunately, the Tanakh translation, above, has obscured the point of this verse. The weak parts of the translation are the words "divine being." The translation implies that Jacob's opponent was a run-of-the-mill-angel, someone less than God. The Hebrew word underlying the translation is the word Elohim - God. A better translation would be "I have seen God face to face." This rendering is supported by the context. In the next phrase, Jacob states that in spite of seeing this being face to face, his life has been spared. Jacob, like Hagar, knew that no man can see God and live. If he had been wrestling with a created being such as an angel or a man-someone less than God, he would not have feared for his life. Jacob had seen angels and men before without expressing this concern. He realized that he had been struggling with someone grander than that. He realized that he had been struggling with God Himself. That is why he marvels at the fact that he is still alive.
The translation, "I have seen God face to face," is also the rendering used by the classic Jewish commentary, The Soncino Books of the Bible. The Artscroll Tenach commentary renders the phrase, "For I have seen the Divine face to face." Finally, the name Jacob chooses is Peniel which literally means "Face of God" or "Facing God" or "My Face Toward God" or even "Turn to God." No one argues that the name refers to God and not to a man or an angel. Jacob wrestled with God Himself, and the name Jacob chose for the place clearly reflects his conviction. At this point we need to ask some questions. Can man wrestle with God? Can man see God face to face? Yes, if God's nature is that of a complex, indivisible unity.
Let me bring to mind a quote I referred to earlier. Back in the section dealing with the Shekinah, I quoted Rabbi Albo. Let me quote him again. This time please note what Rabbi Albo says about the Angel of the LORD:
The revelation of God's glory takes place by means of a body that is visible to the senses, like a fire or a pillar of cloud…devouring fire…cloud…the angel of the LORD …flame of fire…the glory of the LORD which appeared to the prophets emanated from God's own essence…11
In other words, Rabbi Albo also understands the Angel of the Lord to be the visible manifestation of God's presence.
After reviewing the evidence, we see that the Tanakh progressively reveals that our God is a complex, indivisible unity of three persons. There is only one God. He is a magnificent, righteous, loving person who is far above us in splendor and glory. That revelation, begun and developed step-by-step in the Tanakh, reaches its climax in the Brit Chadashah with the Good News about Yeshua our Messiah. The concept of the Trinity is not a pagan concept as claimed by the anti-missionary. It is a Jewish concept solidly rooted in the text of sacred Scripture, Jewish culture, and the writings of the rabbis.
1 Tanakh, Genesis 16:7
2 Ibid, Genesis 16:10
3 Ibid, Genesis 16:10-12
4 Ibid, Genesis 16:13
5 Ibid, Genesis 22:1-2
6 Ibid, Genesis 22:11-12
7 Ibid, Genesis 22:15-18
8 Ibid, Exodus 23:20-22
9 Ibid, Isaiah 63:9
10 Ibid, Genesis 32:31
11 Bleich, p. 198