It is the Trinity: Two Powers in Heaven (Spiritual Realm, Part 2) - Episode 005

## Introduction

- Welcome to the fifth episode of Genesis Marks the Spot!  As you might notice, I’m still getting over this silly cold; my voice isn’t quite up to par, but we’ll just plow through for now.  Anyway, my name is Carey and as I said this is my fifth episode of the podcast.  I want to highlight the episode number because this is something of a follow up to my previous episode.  If you haven’t listened to that one, I suggest you do so, though I do expect this episode is self-contained enough that that’s not an absolute requirement.  You just might enjoy listening to that one first because we talked about Gen 1:26 and how I don’t see that as being the Trinity.  Now it is time to talk about where I *do* see the Trinity in Scripture.  And just so you are aware, I’ll have at least one more follow-on episode to this series, as well, next week.
- So last episode, I told a bit of my faith journey from growing up in the LDS faith to coming to what I’d describe as a faith rooted in biblical Christianity, for lack of a better term.  I’m not part of any particular denomination and my goal is to get my theology from the Bible rather than have it filtered through historical or systematic interpretations—though those can certainly be helpful and possibly even accurate, depending on what we are talking about and how we define things.  This was my goal even before I found the work of Dr. Michael Heiser and the Naked Bible Podcast.  The name “Naked Bible,” by the way, refers to exactly what I said—looking at the Bible without denominational lenses.  Just looking at the Bible for itself.  (That doesn’t mean that we only read the Bible and that’s it—sometimes we need to go beyond the Bible in order to understand the Bible.  That’s more about the topic for next week, though.)
- As I said, historical and systematic interpretation remains helpful at times.  For instance, I do affirm the early creeds of the church like the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed.  And I affirm the doctrine of the Trinity.  I affirm all of these because I find them in the Bible.  Today we’ll go into how I do that with the Trinity, considering the word “Trinity” is nowhere to be found in the Bible’s pages and also considering how I can understand how, for some, the fact that Jesus is called the “Son of God” seems to go against the idea that he is also God.  That logic seems contradictory to us.  The thing is, in order to understand the phrase “Son of God,” we need to understand it not in the context of the plain English words, but in the context of the Bible.  What does the Bible mean when it says, “the Son of God”?
    - You know, I mentioned the Nicene Creed and the Apostle’s Creed.  Many of you are likely familiar with those, but maybe some of you aren’t, so I’m going to go ahead and read at least the Nicene Creed because it directly has to do with our discussion of the Trinity.
    - The Nicene Creed—actually there’s an earlier version that was adopted at the Council of Nicaea in 325.  And then it was modified in 381 at the Council of Constantinople.  As I mentioned in my last episode, the Council of Nicaea was to address the Arian controversy which centered over the relationship of the Son with the Father.  Arius claimed that Jesus was a created being and not God himself.  So discussions were had to figure out how to explain the nature of God.  There was, however, some confusion over some of the language in this creed so further work was done in order to describe the relationship between the members of the Trinity.
        - I’d like, also, to point out…the word “Trinity” is not mentioned in this creed any more than it is mentioned in the Bible.  The word “Trinity” was first used, as far as we know, by Theophilus of Antioch before the year 200, though he and his contemporary Tertullian, who also used the term, was using it in a particular context and he didn’t have the developed understanding that came later.
        - We get very hung up on the word “Trinity,” but the importance is not the terminology but the understanding.  **And you’ll say… “but we can’t understand it!”**  Okay, point taken.  There are certain things that can be and need to be clear, though.  And the things that are clear are the things that we get from understanding the Bible.
        - Okay, enough history and explanation…I’m going to read the Nicene Creed… oh, hang on, before I read it, I will note for those unaware that the word “catholic” here is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church; “catholic” here means “universal.”
        - All right so here is the Nicene Creed:
    - We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
    And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;
    Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
    And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.
    In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
    
    *Elliot Ritzema, “Nicene Creed,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).*
    - Now, for us today…some of that language still isn’t clear and is subject to misinterpretation.  We believe in one God, and then it talks about Jesus (the Son) and the Father, and how the Spirit proceeds from them.  (There is historical disagreement as to whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father or the Father and Son…personally I don’t think that’s a distinction that matters, though it is important enough to some that we have entire splits over the issue.  What I want to mention, too, is that this creed is not Scripture.  It is merely a helpful way to condense what Scripture says, so it is only accurate in the sense that it truly reflects what the Bible is saying.)
    - What does it mean that Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of God?  How is it possible that the Son of God can be of one substance with the Father?
        - Those are fair questions and not easily answered.  My point here isn’t to try to describe the Trinity myself…I do want to acknowledge that it’s not really an easy thing.
        - What I do want to do is try to get into the text and context of the Bible to see how it is described there.  I feel like looking at the narrative of the text is actually way more helpful than trying to articulate it in a systematic way.  Truth can’t always be put into neat little boxes that we can tie with a bow.  Sometimes truth is found in story and picture.
    - Before going on, since I read the Nicene Creed I’m going to go ahead and read the Apostle’s Creed, as well, because it’s short and sweet.
    - I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth;
    And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
    Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born from the Virgin Mary,
    suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried, descended into hell,
    on the third day rose again from the dead,
    ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty,
    thence He will come to judge the living and the dead;
    I believe in the Holy Spirit,
    the holy catholic Church,
    the communion of saints,
    the remission of sins,
    the resurrection of the flesh,
    and eternal life.
    Amen.
    
    *Elliot Ritzema and John D. Barry, “Apostles’ Creed,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).*
    - When I was younger, I didn’t know the difference between creeds and I thought that this was the Nicene Creed; they’re not the same, but they are very similar, as you can see.  But this creed is clearly not concerned with the same thing that the Nicene Creed is concerned with…the Apostle’s Creed mentions God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, but doesn’t speak to their nature or relationship with one another.
    - As an aside, I actually found it easier at first to accept the Apostle’s Creed.  This was kind of my gateway into the Nicene Creed.
- Okay, so you see I’m not *against* systematic theology or historical interpretation…but my position is that my focus is on the Bible and its claims.  Insomuch as systematic interpretations are in line with that, then I will accept them.  Where they seem to go beyond or suggest something that the Bible doesn’t really say, then I will differ.  Tradition is actually essential—we don’t get the canon of the Bible without it.  There is a body of Christ that we turn to…this is part of why interpretation can’t be and isn’t done in a vacuum.  We need each other.  When we struggle with passages and work through it together, that’s part of how truth is revealed.  So I’m not actually a hard-and-fast *sola scriptura* girl—it’s not “Scripture alone” because you *don’t* get Scripture without the body of Christ.
    - So again, systematic theologians reside in a particular time and place and they are dealing with real historical events and trying to explain the teachings of the Bible in clear terms for their people of the time.  That is laudable.
    - But the fact that they are in a particular time and place dealing with specific events and real people, this means that their interpretations are embedded into particular contexts, just like the Bible was written in particular contexts—the difference is, I hold the Bible to be inspired whereas post-biblical theology is not.  But in both, you have to use the context of the time to really understand what is going on, what is being said—and, importantly, what is being meant.  What is the actual core of the message?  And how and why did they get there?
- It took me a long time to accept the Trinity, in part because no one described it well enough to me in order for me to see it in Scripture, and in part because reading my English Bible without the context of the time was getting in the way.  That context is what I want to explore in this episode.
- Last time, we talked about Gen 1:26 and we focused on the language of how God said, “Let us make man…”  A common interpretation of this is that God is speaking to members of the Trinity.  And while this is a possible interpretation, I find it more plausible to see this as a description of God speaking to his heavenly divine council.  The council did not create mankind—only God did—but God looped the council in on this because they, too, participate in God’s image.  Eventually we will talk about the council and who they are and what it means to be the image of God.  The fact that God has heavenly imagers in no way detracts from the fact that God has earthly imagers; the Bible shows us that humanity, not angels or the heavenly host, are the pinnacle of his creation.  What this creation of dual imagers shows is that God enjoys participation from his creation.  *On earth as it is in heaven*.  This mirroring is displayed throughout Scripture and is an essential element to God’s creation and the story of redemption, which story is focused on humanity.  Christ was incarnated on earth; that is the way of salvation, the plan that was developed before the foundations of the earth.
- When we take salvation history to be the metanarrative of the Bible, and Christ at its center, this is our first step in understanding the triune nature of God.
- Christianity is unique in the world’s religions in a variety of ways.  One of these is that we see the problem of humanity’s separation from God and this is a problem that we cannot “fix” ourselves.  If we are to be rescued, if this problem is to be solved, if corruption and evil is to be dealt with, if reconciliation and justice are to occur, if death is to be overcome, and if God is to reign amongst us as sovereign King… it must be done by God coming to us, not the other way around.  Every effort of mankind is futile.  We cannot reach back up to God, we cannot find perfect solutions of interaction amongst ourselves, we cannot defeat dark spiritual forces, we cannot overcome death.
- So what does all of that have to do with the Trinity?
- I’m going to read a quote from the book *The Story of Creeds and Confessions* by Donald Fairbairn:
- From this biblical-theological logic that God had to come down to save us and that this coming down was accomplished primarily through the incarnation of the Son and the indwelling of the Spirit, two implications follow readily: 

1. The Son and the Spirit have to be just as fully and equally God as the Father is. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be God who came down to save us, and we would be left with the impossible task of saving ourselves. 

2.  The Son really had to come down through the incarnation. Otherwise, we would again be left with the impossible task of rising up to God on our own. 

As you look at these assertions, you’ll recognize that we have already seen them in the early creed-like affirmations and baptismal symbols of the second and third centuries.

*Fairbairn, Donald; Reeves, Ryan M.. The Story of Creeds and Confessions (p. 51). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.*
- We are now going to delve into the context of the Bible and see where and how the concept of the Trinity can be seen not only in the NT but also in the Old.
- The question we are going to ask is…is it possible that the OT authors had a conception of God that was in any way similar to the Trinity?….something that was like multiple persons in one being.
    - The way I put that sounds like what I’m doing is putting a later understanding on an earlier text, and that is **not** what I want to be doing for sound contextual interpretation of the earlier text.  However, this **IS** the question we are faced with, as Trinitarians, and we need to face it head on.  But we want to be cognizant of any tendency to put *back* into the OT what is found in the NT.  We want to be able to defend whatever we say strictly with the OT.  And yes, I realize that both writings are unified in the same Ultimate Author.  However, that Ultimate Author was revealing himself to people in time, and we can examine what that looked like to them.
        - This is also not to say that it is not possible for the NT to bring new revelation.  God didn’t reveal everything all at once—that means that earlier people wouldn’t have the same understanding and revelation as later people.  God revealed himself in fullness in Christ; this means that people did not have the fullness of revelation before his coming.
        - But, let us see what we can learn from the OT.

## The Shema

- First of all, doesn’t the OT say that God is one, not three?
- Yes it does.  Let’s read the *shema* from Deut 6:
- **The Shema**, Deuteronomy 6:4-9:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.

You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.

You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.

You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
- That’s the end of the *shema*.  It is called the *shema* because that’s the first word of this prayer in Hebrew.
- At the beginning it says, “The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”  If God is one, then how do we get to the Trinity which includes three?
- One way of answering that is that even though there are three persons in the Trinity, the Trinity is still one.  But let’s back up with that question and not jump feet first into the doctrine of the Trinity as it was formulated later.  As I have already shown, even the early church had some work to do in order to do this.  The concept of the Trinity was only systematized later.  Systematizing doesn’t mean making things up, okay…it means we take earlier truth and package it up into something that explains it or compiles it in a shorter description to make it easier to teach.  Proper systematizing doesn’t insert anything that wasn’t there to begin with.
- So to start at a basic level, let’s settle for seeing what we can find in the OT about any kind of plurality in the godhead at all.
- Once again, I wish that I had an overhead projector that I could write on rather than this just being audio, but we will take what we can get.

### Angel of the Lord

- Let’s turn to Genesis 48 where Jacob is blessing Joseph:
    - Genesis 48:15–16 (ESV)
    15And he blessed Joseph and said, “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day,
    16the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys; and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.”
    - Here is an important point to know about Hebrew:  it likes parallelism.  If you read the Psalms, you’ll note that many Psalms will have a type of repetition…not a repetition of sound, like much of our poetry has, but the repetition of ideas.
    - When you see something seemingly repeated, this is parallelism.  Sometimes it seems that the repetition is just…repetition.  Sometimes the point of the repetition is to further a point or to emphasize something.
    - Look again in Gen 48 if you happen to have that open.  I want to highlight a point.
    - Jacob blessed Joseph by saying “The God before whom my fathers walked…The God who has been my shepherd…the angel who has redeemed me…”
    - In our English Bibles, we have two instances of the word “God” and then we have an instance of the word “angel.”  What are these words in Hebrew?
    - The word translated as “God” is our old friend *elohim*, which we discussed in the last episode.  A quick recap:  *elohim* is incontrovertibly used to refer to God the Creator, but it is also used to refer to a whole host of other beings whose natural residence is in the spiritual realm rather than the physical realm.  So *elohim* does not necessarily mean God; we need to look at the context of the passage to determine that.
        - Jacob is obviously talking about a specific being here.  This *elohim* was the one “before whom [his] father walked,” who “has been [his] shepherd” and who “has redeemed [him].”  That last descriptor, though, that is the reference to the angel.
        - Whether it’s right or wrong, we all have some idea of what an angel is—and an angel is not someone who *redeems* anyone.  The only *elohim* that this could be referring to is God—but what’s with the angel?
        - In the back of your mind, don’t forget this concept of parallelism.  But first let’s look into what the word “angel” means.  An angel is, in fact, something more specific than a being with wings who comes down from heaven.  (Actually, an angel is less than that in a way, because an angel does not have wings.)
- Hebrew: malak elohim
- The Hebrew word translated as “angel” is *malak*.  In Greek, it is *angelos*, so this is where we get our word “angel.”  I could give you a definition of the word, but let’s look at how it is actually used.
- Genesis 16:7 is the first time we see it.  This verse is right after Sarai drove Hagar out
- Genesis 16:7-12 (ESV)
7The angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur.
8And he said, “Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?” She said, “I am fleeing from my mistress Sarai.”
9The angel of the LORD said to her, “Return to your mistress and submit to her.”
10The angel of the LORD also said to her, “I will surely multiply your offspring so that they cannot be numbered for multitude.”
11And the angel of the LORD said to her, “Behold, you are pregnant and shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, because the LORD has listened to your affliction.
12He shall be a wild donkey of a man, his hand against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen.”
- Pausing for a moment.  So the angel of the Lord came to tell Hagar to return to Sarai, and the angel gave a prophecy about her son, Ishmael.  Note what is said after this:
- Genesis 16:13-14 (ESV)
13So she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, “You are a God of seeing,” for she said, “Truly here I have seen him who looks after me.”
14Therefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi; it lies between Kadesh and Bered.
- The word “LORD” there is YHWH.  She said the LORD spoke to her, but earlier it said it was the Angel of the LORD.
- Let’s look at the next time the word *malek* or angel shows up, in Gen 19:1:
- Genesis 19:1 (ESV)
1The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth
- These are the angels in Sodom; they had just been speaking to Abraham through the negotiation of trying to save Sodom.  They are previously and also later described as “men.”  But they strike down the men of Sodom with blindness.  They warn Lot to leave; in fact, they grab Lot and his wife and daughters and force them to leave the city.  They tell Lot to escape to the hills, and Lot complains that that is too far and asks to go to a nearby city instead.  One of the angels then says:
- Genesis 19:21–22 (ESV)
21He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.
22Escape there quickly, for I can do nothing till you arrive there.” Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.
- So this angel grants Lot a favor and says he will not overthrow the city.
- Angels, including the Angel of the Lord, are mentioned more times through the text and generally act like these first two instances.  But let’s go to Gen 32:3 now.
- Genesis 32:3–5 (ESV)
3And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother in the land of Seir, the country of Edom,
4instructing them, “Thus you shall say to my lord Esau: Thus says your servant Jacob, ‘I have sojourned with Laban and stayed until now.
5I have oxen, donkeys, flocks, male servants, and female servants. I have sent to tell my lord, in order that I may find favor in your sight.’ ”
- Here we have Jacob, returning back to the land, and he sends *malak* to his brother in order to give Esau a message before they meet.  The ESV translates this as “messengers,” because it is entirely possible that these are merely humans that he is sending with a message.  I will say here, too, that it remains possible that these messengers are supernatural, because in v 1 of the same passage, Jacob meets angels of God.  So we cannot say that the messengers that Jacob sent are **not** these angels of God.
    - However, there are quite a few passages in Scripture that use malak to mean “messenger” and they are almost certainly human (see Num 20:14, Num 21:21, Deut 2:26, and so on).
- Okay, so an angel is a messenger, and can be a human or a spirit. So what about the burning bush?
- Exodus 3:1–3 (ESV)
1Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.
2And 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.
3And Moses said, “I will turn aside to see this great sight, why the bush is not burned.”
- Here the Angel of the Lord is appearing to Moses “in a flame of fire.”
- Then there’s the episode with the breeding of the goats in Gen 31.
- Genesis 31:10–13 (ESV)
10In the breeding season of the flock I lifted up my eyes and saw in a dream that the goats that mated with the flock were striped, spotted, and mottled.
11Then the angel of God said to me in the dream, ‘Jacob,’ and I said, ‘Here I am!’
12And he said, ‘Lift up your eyes and see, all the goats that mate with the flock are striped, spotted, and mottled, for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you.
13I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and made a vow to me. Now arise, go out from this land and return to the land of your kindred.’ ”
- The Angel of God says he is “the God of Bethel.”  “God” there is not *elohim*, but only *el*.  That stands out as it is not the same as the general term *elohim*.  Bethel literally means “house of God.”
- And what happened at Bethel?  Turn to Gen 28 for that story where Jacob dreams of the ladder or stairway or steps to heaven.  In this passage “the LORD stood above it.”  That’s YHWH.
- So we see here in Gen 31, in Gen 48, and many other places…there is no distinction made between the Angel of the LORD and YHWH.
- The Angel of the Lord is always a visible appearance, whether he is seemingly standing in front of a person, visible in a dream, or appearing inside a flame of fire.
- What does this mean?  How do we think about this?

## Alan Segal and the Two Powers in Heaven

- There was a book written by the late Alan Segal in 1977.  This book was called the Two Powers in Heaven.
- Segal’s book—which was his dissertation, in fact—outlines ancient Jewish teachings regarding “the two powers heresy.”
- And this “heresy” is?
    - The “two powers in heaven” was a Jewish belief that there were “two YHWHs,” one invisible and one which manifested in physical form on the earth to interact with humans.  These manifestations differ from the incarnation (whereupon Jesus took on humanity in its fullness), but a distinction between the visible and invisible YHWHs is being made…and also a conflation, as if they are the exact same being.
    - The New Testament makes it clear that we are to associate Jesus—whom we, of course, see as the second person of the Trinity—as present in the Old Testament.
    - Is it mere coincidence that Jesus is also the visible manifestation of God on earth?
    - John 8:58 (ESV)
    58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
    - This is not just talking about his preexistence, prior to his incarnation.  He is calling himself the great I AM, he is calling himself YHWH.
- Remember that, when we began, we wanted to be able to see the evidence of the Trinity in the OT or Jewish context without reading it back in from the NT.
- This idea—which so far is binitarian since we haven’t gotten yet to the third person of the Trinity—it doesn’t come from Christianity.  This was a Jewish idea that predated Christ.
- This is…as you might imagine…not a popular teaching of the Jews today.  There’s a reason that Segal, a Jew himself, called it a heresy.  Most Jews would likely prefer to sweep this concept under the table.  But Segal is not the only Jew to bring this to light.  Another book called *The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel*, written by Benjamin Sommer, outlines this idea, as well.  If you don’t want to buy and read the book, you can watch interviews with Benjamin Sommer on Youtube.  I will also place resources in the links section of my website.

### Objection:  King’s Messenger

- Of course, we want to do more than take it on anyone’s advice.  We want to think through implications and alternative explanations to see which has the most explanatory power.
- One objection to the two powers idea is that of the king’s messenger.
- In the ancient Near East, it was common for a king to send out a special messenger who was to be treated exactly as he, the king himself, might be treated.  The king and the messenger were certainly different people, but in the construct of the king’s instructions, the messenger was to be, functionally, the king.
- How do we know that this is not what is going on with passages involving the Angel of the Lord?
- I’ll read a passage addressing this from Heiser’s book *The Unseen Realm;* he is referencing Gen 22, so let’s first read that:
- Genesis 22:10–18 (ESV)
10Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son.
11But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.”
12He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”
13And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.
14So Abraham called the name of that place, “The LORD will provide”; as it is said to this day, “On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided.”
15And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven
16and said, “By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son,
17I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies,
18and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.”
- Okay, so that’s Gen 22.  Now on to the quote from *The Unseen Realm:*
- Many scholars would say that this is due to the Angel being Yahweh’s mouthpiece, standing in Yahweh’s place as it were. But that idea is conveyed only later in the passage when (v. 16) the angel prefaces his words with “declares Yahweh.” In verse 11 there is no such clarification. The wording of the text *blurs the distinction* between Yahweh and the angel by swapping the angel into the role of the person who initially demanded the sacrifice as a test—Yahweh himself (Gen 22:1–2). Consequently the biblical writer had the opportunity to make sure Yahweh and the angel were distinguished, but did not do so. This “failure” occurs in several other places in the Old Testament even more overtly. It’s not really a failure. It’s not a careless oversight. The wording is *designed* to blur the two persons.  *(italics original)*

*Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 136.*
- That, of course, might not be the most convincing argument you’ve ever heard.  Yes, the text blurs the distinction, but the distinction between king and king’s messenger was definitely blurred.  I still feel like we’ve got a pretty solid case that the Angel and the LORD are the same simply because of the amount of intermeshing we see.  They’re interchangeable.  A prophet is a mouthpiece of God, but a prophet is not said to be doing the same type of work that God does, particularly when we are talking salvation and worship and that kind of thing.  But we won’t leave it at that.

### Further Response:  Delivery from Egypt to the Promised Land

- We’re turning now to Deut 4:35-37:
- Deuteronomy 4:35–37 (ESV)
35To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him.
36Out of heaven he let you hear his voice, that he might discipline you. And on earth he let you see his great fire, and you heard his words out of the midst of the fire.
37And because he loved your fathers and chose their offspring after them and brought you out of Egypt with his own presence, by his great power,
- Stopping there, we see the people are brought out with God’s own presence.
- In Deut 7:19, it says:
- Deuteronomy 7:19 (ESV)
19the great trials that your eyes saw, the signs, the wonders, the mighty hand, and the outstretched arm, by which the LORD your God brought you out. So will the LORD your God do to all the peoples of whom you are afraid.
- Okay, again YHWH is bringing the people out with his outstretched arm.
- Now we’ll go to Judges 2:1:
- Judges 2:1 (ESV)
1Now 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 with you,
- It was the Angel who brought them up.  And it is the Angel of the Lord who says how *he* will not break *his* covenant with them.
- Okay, you might say, but still what if God bringing them out with an outstretched arm just means that YHWH showed his power and it was by this power that he means he brought the people out, but the Angel of the Lord still had a role in bringing them out, too?  I mean, I get it, it can be complicated to land on a real distinction when everything is so blurred and when God is talked about in so many ways in the OT.  But why would it say that the Angel will not break the Angel’s covenant.
- We can also ask….what about Jude 5?
- Jude 5 (ESV)
5Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
- It was Jesus who saved them out of Egypt.
- YHWH, the Angel of the Lord, and Jesus are all said to be performing the same action….not just individual tasks, but salvation.

### Does the Objection About the King’s Messenger Hold Water?

- So does the objection about the king’s messenger hold water?
- I think it could at some level if it weren’t for the fact that he is used so interchangeably with God.  Let me try to explain that.
    - We’re going to picture the king’s messenger who goes to announce a verdict to the people.  He announces it, and while he’s there the people will address him with his official title and they will treat him like he is the king…giving him honor and reverence.  Feeding him grapes and fanning him with those big feathery fans.
    - Then the king’s messenger leaves and the people talk about the king’s verdict, telling people about it.
    - Are they likely, then, to focus on the messenger?  If the messenger was such an oracle for the king that he stood literally for the king…the messenger, when out of sight, would basically become invisible.  And he would speak consistently.
    - The king’s messenger would give…. well, the king’s message, obviously.  He wouldn’t sometimes speak like he was the messenger and sometimes speak like he was the king.  He’d chose a consistent address.
    - I mean, let’s go back to Gen 16.  In v. 10, the Angel says, “I will multiply your offspring.”  In v. 11, he says “the LORD has listened to your affliction.”  In v. 13, Hagar says the Lord spoke to her.  It’s a very back and forth thing.

### Name of the Lord

- The more you read about these interchanges, the more confusing it seems to get.  We mentioned before about the exodus event and YHWH, the Angel, and Jesus all get in on the action.  In Exodus 23:20-22, it says:
- Exodus 23:20–22 (ESV)
20“Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared.
21Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him.
22“But if you carefully obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.
- God is giving some instructions here and he says that an angel will be before them, and that the angel will not pardon their transgressions.  For God’s name is in him.
- That’s a bit weird.  But maybe this is evidence that the angel is merely the king’s messenger?  The king sends the messenger in his name.
- I mean, messengers aren’t supposed to grant forgiveness, but setting that aside, what does it mean for God’s name to be in someone?
- We are going to turn to Jesus’ prayer in John 17.  This whole thing is worth reading, but let’s focus on verse 6:
- John 17:6 (ESV)
6“I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.
- Here we have Christ manifesting God’s name.
- The apostles also get in on the name action in Acts 5:41:
- Acts 5:41 (ESV)
41Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name.
- 3 John 7 says:
- 3 John 7 (ESV)
7For they have gone out for the sake of the name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles.
- We tend to read these passages and gloss over the idea of the name here because to us it’s just a word, a designation, what you call someone.  It refers to someone, and if you sully someone’s name it’s like that person is being sullied because it’s all about the reputation that comes along with the name.
- Isaiah 30:27-28 has some interesting imagery accompanying the name of the LORD:
- Isaiah 30:27–28 (ESV)
27Behold, the name of the LORD comes from afar, burning with his anger, and in thick rising smoke; his lips are full of fury, and his tongue is like a devouring fire;
28his breath is like an overflowing stream that reaches up to the neck; to sift the nations with the sieve of destruction, and to place on the jaws of the peoples a bridle that leads astray.
- I could be wrong, but I think names do not generally burn with anger or have lips?
- This isn’t just a reputation.  This seems to be God himself.
- What are the arguments against the idea that the “Name” actually functions as God’s presence rather than something like his reputation?  We have to get into the idea of what is called the Documentary Hypothesis to really counter the idea that the Name of God is the literal presence of God.
    - We don’t have time or, probably, patience to go through the entire idea of what has become known as “name theology.”  If you do go down that path, …good luck.  In the briefest summary I can produce, there is an idea that the word “name” was substituted by redactors for the idea of God’s literal presence.  “Oh, no, *silly*, of course we don’t want to say that God actually came to dwell amongst us in the tabernacle and temple…you see, those silly authors in the past said that *his glory* was here, but we editors will just switch that word out with *his name*…it’s just his *reputation or the fact that he has declared ownership* that we have here, a monument to God, not his actual presence.”
    - I hope you see how that doesn’t make any sense in light of the rest of the narrative of the OT.
    - If you really want to get in deeper to this scholarly debate, I suggest looking at the footnotes in *The Unseen Realm*, which will lead you to a trail of scholarly papers.
- To finish up with our discussion of the name, I will read some passages from the NT.
- Matthew 18:20 (ESV)
20For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
- John 3:18 (ESV)
18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
- Believing in the name is not some mental agreement that we call Jesus something specific.
- Philippians 2:9 (ESV)
9Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
- What truly matters?  That Jesus has a special name?  Is that what we trust in?  Do we trust in his reputation or some legal matter of declaration of ownership?  Or do we trust in the literal person of Jesus the Messiah?
- I want to bring up one more way in which we see Jesus in the OT, and that is with the Word of the LORD.

### Word of the Lord

- Genesis 15:1–4 (ESV)
1After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.”
2But Abram said, “O Lord GOD, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?”
3And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.”
4And behold, the word of the LORD came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.”
- Word of the Lord coming to Abram in a vision.  How does a word become visible?
- Let’s look at 1 Samuel 3:21
- 1 Samuel 3:21 (ESV)
21And the LORD appeared again at Shiloh, for the LORD revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the LORD.
- The Lord revealed to Samuel by word of the Lord (this is a vision, with the Lord standing in verse 10).
- The call of Jeremiah also has the word of the LORD using his body…he puts his hand out and touches Jeremiah.
- Jeremiah 1:4–10 (ESV)
4Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
5“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
6Then I said, “Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, I do not know how to speak, for I am only a youth.”
7But the LORD said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am only a youth’; for to all to whom I send you, you shall go, and whatever I command you, you shall speak.
8Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you to deliver you, declares the LORD.”
9Then the LORD put out his hand and touched my mouth. And the LORD said to me, “Behold, I have put my words in your mouth.
10See, I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.”
- And then, of course, we have John 1:1-3, 14
- John 1:1 (ESV)
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
- Revelation 19:13 shows the King of kings, Lord of lords (v 16) as the Word of God.
- Revelation 19:13 (ESV)
13He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.
- Some have thought that the Logos (the word) in John 1 comes from Greek philosophy, but as we can see, it most definitely has Old Testament roots.

### More About Christ

- The evidence mounts as we look closer and closer.  Where else do we Christ in the NT as YHWH of the OT?  Let’s turn to 1 Cor 10:4 for a moment:
- 1 Corinthians 10:4 (ESV)
4and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
- This is referencing the narrative in Ex 17:6 where the people were miraculously fed water from a rock.  Now, obviously, Christ is not a literal rock; he told people he was living water, but that doesn’t mean he expected them to literally drink him.  But, whatever Paul meant by calling Christ this rock, what he didn’t mean was “Christ didn’t exist before he was born here on earth.”  The only one who could give them drink in the wilderness was YHWH.

### What About Christ Being God’s Son??

- I want to address the most common objection to Jesus being God.  And that is the fact that he is known as the Son of God and calls God his Father.
- The simple answer is that it is false to read “Son of God” as meaning something in some biological sense.  It is not biology that is being emphasized here, but rather something else.  Sonship in the ANE was about an intimate relationship with authority with inheritance on the line.
- This is why Israel as a whole and King David in particular are referred to as God’s Son.  This is not the same exact and particular phrase “The Son of God,” but the same ideas are being pulled up in reference.
- Matthew 11:27 (ESV) says…
27All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
- In this verse we see the idea of inheritance as well as representation.  As I mentioned, though not directly called “The Son of God,” there is a very common image of Israel as being God’s son.
- In Ex 4:22-23, we have one of the things that Moses is to say to Pharaoh regarding the releasing of Israel from bondage:
- Exodus 4:22–23 (ESV)
22Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son,
23and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.” If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.’ ”
- In Hosea 11, we have Israel once again called God’s son.
- Hosea 11:1–2 (ESV)
1When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
2The more they were called, the more they went away; they kept sacrificing to the Baals and burning offerings to idols.
- You might recognize that passage as a prophecy for Jesus.  And yes, this passage was used in the NT to refer to Jesus.  This was not a mistake.  It does refer to Jesus, but it had an original meaning and that original meaning was in relation to the whole nation of Israel.
- So the idea that Jesus is God’s Son is related to how Israel is also God’s son.  Israel as a nation was created supernaturally, just like Jesus.  Israel was to inherit the promises of the covenant from God, just as Jesus is the ultimate inheritor of everything.  And Israel was supposed to represent God to the people around them, just as Jesus is the physical representation of God.  Remember that passage we read a moment ago from Matthew—”no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
- This reminds us of Jer 31:34:
- Jeremiah 31:34 (ESV)
34And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
- The knowledge of God is therefore not some gnostic idea or some head knowledge, but an intimate relationship.  And this knowledge is related to the relationship of the Father and the Son.  The relationship of the Son and the Father is similar to how we are meant to relate to God…not because we are literal biological children with divine DNA, but because we can know God….and isn’t it interesting how this in turn is related in Jeremiah to forgiveness?
- Looping back to Jesus as the Son of God, this designation brings us a fuller picture of who Christ is and what he does and what his purpose is.
- It relates very much to the image of God that we will need to tackle in depth at some point.  The image is not so much about a physical manifestation as it is the idea of representation and purpose.  We do have Christ as a physical manifestation, of course.  His incarnation is essential to God’s plan for creation.  But I suggest that this emphasis on “The Son of God” being some biological offspring is missing the larger point of the designation.
- Okay, so we’ve talked a lot about Christ as the second power of the godhead, the visible YHWH, the Angel of the Lord, the Word or Logos, and his incarnation, of course.
- The big question now is…where does the Spirit fit into all of this?  How is he seen as the third person of the Trinity?

## The Spirit

- The fact is, it’s not as easy to spot the Spirit as the third person of the Trinity if we are only looking at the OT.  One reason for this, in my opinion, is that the people of the OT were not given the Spirit to indwell them as the church was after Christ’s ascension.  So, the Spirit’s involvement was simply not critical information for the people at the time of the OT—and as we see the Spirit working in the NT, his wont is not to point to himself, but to point to Christ.  So it should not surprise us that he is not putting himself forward as obviously in the OT.
- However, this is not to say that he is not present in the text.
- Let’s look at Isa 63:10
- Isaiah 63:10 (ESV)
10But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit; therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them.
- Grieved his Holy Spirit.  An impersonal force does not become grieved.
- It does become a lot more obvious in the NT.
- Acts 16:6 (ESV)
6And they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia.
- The Holy Spirit forbid them.
- The Spirit is also said to belong to Christ.
- Philippians 1:19 (ESV)
19for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance
- Romans 8:9 has some nice parallelism equating the Spirit of Jesus with the Spirit of God
- Romans 8:9–10 (ESV)
9You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
10But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
- Though there are a number of other passages I could turn to, I will tack on Gal 4:6-7 here:
- Galatians 4:6–7 (ESV)
6And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
7So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.
- There we go again, connecting sonship with inheritance!
- Finally, tying together the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, with a bonus mention of the name which is associated with all three, we have the baptismal formula of Matt 28:19
- Matthew 28:19 (ESV)
19Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
- As I said, it seems clear that the Spirit’s role is to point to the work of Christ.  While he is an equal member of the Trinity, he acts in ways which point us to God and to Christ.  He is also involved with the presence of God directly in the believer’s life.
- I know that a lot of people struggle more with the idea of the Spirit as a member of the Trinity and honestly wish that there was as much clear “evidence” of this as we can see for Jesus.  I’m going to read a quote from Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible which brings out a couple of more points:
- The Spirit marks a believer as belonging to Christ, just as someone in the 1st century would use an impressed wax seal to identify a scroll or other item (v 13). The Spirit is also a guarantee (v 14, i.e., a deposit or down payment) of God’s ownership of the believer. Paul further describes the believer’s relationship to the Holy Spirit by indicating that a bad attitude toward others, expressed for example in intemperate language, brings sorrow to the Spirit (4:30). This fact is indirect evidence that the Holy Spirit is capable of what we would call feelings, thus not an impersonal being.

Perhaps the most noteworthy mention of the Spirit in Ephesians is in 5:18. Here Paul teaches that rather than losing control of one’s behavior by imbibing too much liquor, the believer should submit to the filling—that is, the control—of the Holy Spirit. Colossians has a similar statement: “Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly” (Col 3:16) instead of “be filled with the Spirit.”

*Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Ephesians, Letter to The,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 707–708.*
- The Word of Christ.  Where have we heard this language of the Word before?  Oh yes, for the second power, for Jesus himself.  If the Spirit might be equated to the Word of Jesus, just as Jesus is the Word of God, this seems to suggest a similar relationship at play.
- One more quote to round this section about the Spirit off, this time from LBD:
- Activities of God’s Spirit in the Old Testament include the following:

•      The Spirit hovered over the surface of the waters of creation (Gen 1:2).
•      The Spirit empowered leaders, judges, and prophets (e.g., Num 11:16–17, 24–25; Judg 3:10; 6:34; 1 Sam 10:6, 10; Ezek 2:1–3).
•      The Spirit rested within the nation of Israel (Isa 63:11–13; Hag 2:5).
•      The Sprit will empower Israel’s Messiah (Isa 11:2; 42:1; 61:1–2).

The Spirit is very much personally from God and described by His activity; the Old Testament does not probe the depths of the Spirit’s origination or essential unity with the one God of Israel.

*Charles Meeks, “Trinity,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).*
- Though we do not have the complete picture in the OT, it is hard to avoid once we get into the NT.

## Summary:  The Trinity in the Bible

- I hope this episode wasn’t too hard to follow along with.  I threw a lot of information at you.
- To wrap up, in the end, I think “Trinity” is a useful word to us because it describes a three-in-one reality.  But it’s difficult to convey, also, because that three-in-one isn’t like when you get three pairs of shoes for one price, or three slices of cake in one box.
    - Like I said, I’m not going to get into the mysteries of the Trinity here or the heresies that came from trying to formulate the concept.  I just want to acknowledge that it is difficult to convey in a complete picture.  If you want to simplify it down into statements and passages that come straight from the Bible rather than later church tradition, I think that might be a good course for many of us.  We affirm what the Bible says, and so it never hurts to stick with what the Bible says.  Here’s my formulation in a nutshell:
    - #1 - YHWH God created everything.  He is sovereign, he is king.  YHWH and YHWH alone deserves our worship and loyalty.
    - #2 - Jesus is divine because he is YHWH incarnate, therefore it is not contradictory to also give Jesus our sole worship and loyalty.
    - #3 - There is some sort of relationship between Jesus, who is called the Son of God, and the Father; how this works in full is, I think, a mystery like the rest of the Trinity that we can explore to some degree in Scripture, but it is not a mystery that *necessarily* has some mystical strangeness…but in part it is rooted in real human relationships and how they work.
    - Further, #4 - It is helpful to see in the Old Testament that there was both a visible and an invisible YHWH.  No one has seen the fullness of YHWH, but YHWH has been seen in his glory that filled the temple as well as in the Angel of the Lord and other visible appearances.
    - And finally we have #5 - the Spirit who acts as a person himself, so the Spirit cannot merely be a *manifestation* of the Father and/or the Son.
    - I know there are many other points I might add to complete this picture, but maybe it cannot really be complete and we only explore various facets of it in different ways.
    - I feel like we ought to get into more of the topic of the Trinity in order to explore why things like modalism are wrong.  Modalism is the idea that each of the persons of the Trinity are merely modes of God.  But we don’t have enough time in this episode to do that justice.  If you’re interested in my getting into this sooner rather than later, feel free to email me or join my fb group and ask there.

## Outro

- Let’s end on this question.  What is the earliest appearance of a recognizable manifestation of the Trinity?
    - I feel like I should have some Jeopardy music playing or something.
    - Genesis 1:1–2 (ESV)
    1In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
    2The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
    - Here we have God creating and we have the Spirit manifesting himself
    - I think the reason people really like the interpretation of Gen 1:26 as being God speaking within his Trinitarian self is because they really want to see the Trinity in the first chapter.  Fair enough, but you can see even earlier in the chapter than v 26 that we do have multiple members of the Trinity present.
    - But what about the Son?
    - John 1:1–5 (ESV)
    1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    2He was in the beginning with God.
    3All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
    4In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
    5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
    - Is that cheating?  We have to jump all the way to the NT to get this revelation?  I mean, it’s talking about what Gen 1 is talking about, so I think it’s fair.
    - But if you really want to stick with the OT, the first concrete manifestation of the visible YHWH is still quite early in Genesis.  The visible YHWH walks in the garden with Adam and Eve.  It, of course, makes perfect sense that we don’t see YHWH walking around in Gen 1 because that isn’t a boots-on-the-ground kind of narrative.  We need to wait for the discussion involving the garden to see that.
- How and why does this matter to us?
    - Why does it matter that we have God himself coming in flesh to perfect his creation through his death, resurrection, ascension, and sending out of the Spirit?  How can that not matter?  It fulfills God’s initial purposes in creation, and it does so flawlessly, perfectly.
    - I can still understand how some struggle with understanding the Trinity or seeing it in Scripture.  For this reason, I disagree with those who will make this a sticking point of the gospel, that you have to accept the Trinity as formulated in church history in order to accept Christ as Savior.  Further, what I also don’t like is preachers or others telling people that it’s too hard to see, that we can’t understand any of it, that it’s all a mystery and that’s all there is to it.  Those two things combined leave us floundering—how can people accept the nature of God if they aren’t taught about it in more than a formulaic way??  We don’t expect people to understand something simply by explaining it once or in one way.  Similarly, it is okay to talk about the Trinity in the way that the Bible itself presents it.
- So I hope this has been very helpful to you in some way.  Please join me next week as we finish up—at least for the moment—this little series on the supernatural world.  Next week we will return to what was discussed in the last episode and look more closely at God’s heavenly host.
- As always, I really appreciate you listening and would love to hear from you.  You can reach me via email at genesismarksthespot@gmail.com or you can find me on facebook.  I do have a discussion group you can join to participate in conversations and to ask questions.  If you enjoy this podcast, I’d love it if you’d subscribe and leave a review or share it with someone you know who might also enjoy it.
- Thanks again to Wintergatan for allowing me to use their Marble Machine music.