One God and Father of all: How the scriptural revelation of the one true God contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity (Part Five)

For part one of this study, click here: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/01/one-god-and-father-of-all-how.html

Part Five: Confirmation from the Hebrew Scriptures

If, as I’ve argued in parts two through four of this study, the one true God is the Father alone, then we would expect the Hebrew Scriptures to reflect and confirm this truth. That is, we would expect the one true God to be depicted in such a way that we would have good reason to believe that he is a single person or self, rather than a multi-personal being consisting of three distinct persons or selves. And, I submit, that’s just what we find.

In Exodus 20:1-3, God is recorded as declaring the following words to his covenant people, Israel: “I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.” Although there are a number of verses in Scripture that affirm Israel’s obligation to worship one God only (i.e., Yahweh), the importance of these verses can’t be understated.  The commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me” is, of course, the very first of the “Ten Commandments,” and makes clear that the God who brought Israel out of the land of Egypt must be the exclusive object and focus of Israel’s worship.

I think Trinitarians would agree that the First Commandment clearly affirms Israel’s covenantal obligation to be a monotheistic nation, worshipping and obeying one God only. However, what I think Trinitarians fail to appreciate is that, in these verses, it’s no less clearly affirmed that the one God before whom Israel was commanded to have no other gods is a single divine person or self. Here, again, is Exodus 20:2-3 (notice the words placed in bold and underlined): “I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.” Understood in a natural and straight-forward way, God’s use of the singular personal pronouns “I” and “me” imply that the same God who spoke the words recorded above is a single divine person or self. The God of Israel - Yahweh - is, in other words, the Father alone.

In regard to God’s use of singular personal pronouns when referring to himself, Exodus 20:1-3 is by no means the exception to the rule. All throughout Scripture we find God repeatedly referring to himself (or being referred to by others) with the use of singular personal pronouns and verbs. The reader is free to locate and examine all 20,000+ instances of this at his or her leisure, but the following examples should suffice for the purpose of this study:

Numbers 3:11-13

Then Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying: “Now behold, I myself have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the children of Israel. Therefore the Levites shall be mine, because all the firstborn are mine. On the day that I struck all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I sanctified to myself all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast. They shall be mine: I am Yahweh.”

Isaiah 45:22-23

Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.”

Hosea 11:8-9
How can I give you up Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I treat you like Admah? How can I make you like Zeboiim? My heart is changed within me; all my compassion is aroused. I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. For I am God, and not man – the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath.

The only exceptions to God’s use of singular personal pronouns in the entirety of Scripture are found in Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8. But rather than implying a multi-personal God, the plural pronouns in the early chapters of Genesis should, instead, be understood as implying (and, in the case, of Genesis, as first revealing) the existence of non-human, intelligent beings who, with God, populate the heavenly realm, and constitute the “hosts of heaven” (see, for example, Job 1:6-12; Job 38:4, 7; Deut 33:2; Josh 5:13-15; 2 Sam 5:24; 1 Kings 22:19-23; 2 Kings 6:8-17; Psalm 82; 148:1-5; Jer. 23:18; Dan 7:10; Neh. 9:6).

That God was speaking to (and on behalf of) these heavenly beings by his use of the words “us” and “our” is the view found in the NIV Study Bible as well as in the NET Bible[1] (neither of which can be accused of being biased against the doctrine of the Trinity). In the NET Bible notes under Genesis 1:26 we read,

“In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isaiah 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isaiah 6:1-8). If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.”

Significantly, in Job 38:4-7, we find that the same celestial beings referred to in the first two chapters of Job (i.e., the “sons of God”) were present at the beginning of creation as well: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”

In fact, in the immediate context of one of the four verses in which we find God using the plural pronoun “us,” we find certain members of God’s heavenly hosts prominently in view. In Isaiah 6:1-8, we read: In the year that King Uzziah died I saw Yahweh sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple.  Above him stood the Seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.  And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is Yahweh of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”  And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke.  And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, Yahweh of hosts!” Then one of the Seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.” And I heard the voice of Yahweh saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.”

To whom was Yahweh referring when he said, “Whom shall I send…?” Answer: he was referring to himself. But then Yahweh includes (and speaks on behalf of) the Seraphim, who are described as standing above him and praising him: “…and who will go for us?” And insofar as this is the case, it’s reasonable to understand God to have been speaking to, and on behalf of, these (and perhaps other) created, intelligent beings in the opening chapters of Genesis as well (i.e., the “sons of God” referred to in Job). It’s also reasonable to believe that this was how Moses and the original readers of Genesis would’ve understood God’s use of the plural “us” and “our.”[2]

Moreover, assuming (as is reasonable) that Isaiah already believed that Yahweh was a single divine person (rather than multiple persons, as Trinitarians believe), would his vision of Yahweh in the temple have further confirmed him in his belief that God was a single person? Or, would it have led him to doubt this belief, and to entertain the idea that perhaps God was really a multi-personal being? Obviously, the former is the case. Isaiah’s vision would’ve only served to confirm his belief that God is a single person. Or, if for whatever reason Isaiah had been unsure as to “how many persons God is,” this vision would’ve removed any uncertainty. The enthroned being whom Isaiah would’ve understood to be a depiction of Yahweh, the God of Israel, did not manifest himself to Isaiah as two or three persons, but rather as a single person sitting on a single throne.

Some Trinitarians have claimed that the person seen by Isaiah should be understood as Jesus Christ in a “pre-existent state,” rather than as a depiction of the Father. However, that the enthroned person seen by Isaiah is meant to be understood as a depiction of the Father is evident from what we find described in two subsequent visions involving this same enthroned person.

In Daniel 7:9-10, 13-14 we read the following:

I perceived until thrones were situated, and the Transferrer of Days sat down. His clothing was pale as snow, and the hair of His head was like immaculate wool; His throne was flares of flame and its rolling wheels a flashing flame. A stream of flame was flowing and issuing from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him, and ten thousand ten thousands stood before Him…I was perceiving in the visions of the night, and behold, with the clouds of the heavens One like a son of a mortal was arriving; He came unto the Transferrer of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. To Him was granted jurisdiction and esteem and a kingdom, that all the peoples and leagues and language-groups shall serve Him; His jurisdiction is an eonian jurisdiction that shall not pass away, and His kingdom shall not be confined.

There can be no doubt that the enthroned person referred to as “the Transferrer of Days” (or “Ancient of Days”) is meant to be understood as Yahweh, the one God of Daniel and his people (Dan 9:4, 9, 13). It’s also evident that the person who is described as “One like a son of a mortal” (or “One like a son of mankind”) is the Messiah. He is, in other words, the Lord Jesus Christ, and is clearly distinguished from Yahweh (before whom he is presented, and from whom he receives his jurisdiction, esteem and kingdom).

Similarly, in John’s vision of the heavenly throne room (as found in Revelation 4-5), we read that he saw a single person sitting on a throne:

After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, ‘Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.’ At once I was in the spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne. And he who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian, and around the throne was a rainbow that had the appearance of an emerald. 

As in Isaiah’s vision, this enthroned person is surrounded by winged, flying beings who are described as offering continual praise to the one who is enthroned: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!” Other celestial beings (the twenty-four elders) refer to the one on the throne as their “Lord and God,” who is said to have created all things, and by whose will everything was and is created (4:8, 11).

We read that the one on the throne has a sealed scroll, and when no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth is found worthy to open the scroll and break its seven seals, Jesus Christ appears (who is seen as a seven-horned, seven-eyed Lamb appearing as if it had been slain). We then read that the celestial beings referred to earlier sing the following song to Jesus Christ:

“Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”

In both Daniel’s and John’s vision, the enthroned person that is seen cannot be understood as a depiction of anyone other than the Father. We can therefore reasonably conclude that the enthroned person seen by Isaiah in the vision described in Isaiah 6 is also a depiction of the Father.[3]

In response to what has been said so far, the Trinitarian may attempt to argue that God’s use of singular personal pronouns means that only one of the persons of the Trinity is speaking, and that the use of singular pronouns shouldn’t be seen as precluding the existence of two other divine persons as well. Well, let’s apply this theory to Isaiah 44:24 and 45:5-6, 21. In these verses we read the following: “Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am Yahweh, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself…I am Yahweh, and there is no other, besides me there is no God…there is no one apart from Me; I am Yahweh, and there is no other…there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.”

Now, I think that Trinitarians will agree that, among the persons whom they believe to constitute the one God, the Father is the most likely person whom we are to understand as having spoken the above words. And if the Father indeed was the person speaking and referring to himself by the use of the words “I” and “myself,” then we should be able to convert the above statements that were declared by the Father into truth statements about the Father. Consider the following:

1. “I am Yahweh, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself…”

The Father made all things; he alone stretched out the heavens, and spread out the earth by himself.

2. “…besides me there is no God…there is no one apart from Me; I am Yahweh, and there is no other…”

Besides the Father there is no God. The Father is Yahweh, and there is no other.

3. “…there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.”

There is no other god besides the Father, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides him.

Moreover, replacing “the Father” with another member of the Trinity wouldn’t help the Trinitarian’s position, since it would still lead to a conclusion that the Trinitarian could not accept (i.e., that there is only one divine person who made all things, and that, besides this one divine person, there is no God).

Some have attempted to argue for a multi-personal God by appealing to the use of the Hebrew term translated “God” in these verses (Elohim), which is plural. However, in the Hebrew Scriptures, the plural form of a noun can be used in two different ways: (1) It can denote numerical plurality (“numerical plurals”) or (2) it can be used for the purpose of emphasis, intensity and amplification (“intensive plurals”). Here are just a few examples of the use of the plural for emphasis and intensity: Gen 4:10 (“bloods”); Gen 19:11 (“blindnesses”); Gen 27:46 (“lives”) Psalm 45:15 (“gladnesses”); Ez. 25:15, 17 (“vengeances”), etc. Again, the plurality of the word simply intensifies it.

In the NET Bible notes for Genesis 1:1, we read the following remarks concerning the use of the plural noun Elohim (emphasis mine): “This frequently used Hebrew name for God (אֱלֹהִים,’elohim ) is a plural form. When it refers to the one true God, the singular verb is normally used, as here. The plural form indicates majesty; the name stresses God’s sovereignty and incomparability – he is the “God of gods.”[4]

Similarly, the NIV Study Bible has the following (emphasis mine): “The Hebrew noun Elohim is plural but the verb is singular, a normal usage in the OT when the reference is to the one true God. This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality.” It should be noted that both the NET Bible and NIV Study Bible could be considered “mainstream” (and “pro-Trinitarian”) in regard to the doctrinal views they support in their notes. Given their clear support for the doctrine of the Trinity elsewhere, it’s significant that these Bibles do not attempt to argue that the use of the plural term elohim supports this doctrine.

The common characteristic of intensive plurals is that they have a plural suffix while denoting singular objects, and thus receive singular adjectives and verbs. These characteristics indicate that the plural form of the noun is not being used as a numerical plural. In contrast, a plural verb (as well as a plural suffix and plural adjective) is used to denote something that is numerically plural. The use of singular verbs and adjectives with the plural noun Elohim is exactly what we would expect if the term were being used as an intensive plural and not a numerical plural. It indicates that the term Elohim – when used as a title for Yahweh, the one true God - should be understood as an intensive plural rather than as a numerical plural (which, again, is for amplification and intensification). For more examples of the intensive plural being used in reference to the one God, see Job 35:10; Psalm 149:2; Is 54:5 (literally, “Makers”) and Eccl 12:1 (“Creators”).[5]

On the other hand, when the plural elohim is being used as a numerical plural, it refers to multiple gods (and is translated to reflect this fact). Thus, if we were to understand elohim as a numerical plural in Genesis 1:1 (despite the use of the singular verb) it would mean that multiple gods created the heavens and the earth, and would therefore prove too much for the Trinitarian (who doesn’t believe that Yahweh is actually multiple “gods”). But the fact that, when referring to the one God of Israel, the term elohim is consistently translated “God” (rather than “gods”) means that the translator correctly understood that it was being used as an intensive plural rather than a numerical plural.

It should also be noted that, in Psalm 45:6-7 (which is a Messianic prophecy), we find two distinct persons – i.e., Jesus Christ and his God and Father – both being referred to as “Elohim”: “Your throne, O Elohim, is for the eon and further; a sceptre of equity is the sceptre of Your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore Elohim Your Elohim has anointed You with the oil of elation beyond Your partners.”

If the title Elohim is to be understood as denoting a “multi-personal being” when used in reference to Yahweh, the one true God, then we would have to conclude that Jesus Christ and the Father are both distinct, multi-personal beings. But that, of course, is absurd. Neither Jesus Christ nor his God and Father are multiple persons.

Another related point is that, in the Greek scriptures (including in the quotation of Psalm 46:6-7 that we find in Hebrews 1:8-9), the inspired equivalent for “Elohim” is the singular term for “God” (i.e., Θεοῦ, or “Theou”). In contrast, whenever multiple “gods” are in view, the plural form is used (i.e., θεοὺς or “theous”; for some examples of the plural form, see John 10:34-35; Acts 7:40; 14:11; 19:26; 28:11). Since the singular rather than the plural term for “God” is used as the equivalent for “Elohim” in Hebrews 1:8-9 and elsewhere, it’s clear that, when referring to Yahweh, the term Elohim is to be understood as an intensive plural rather than a numerical plural.

---

[1] http://bible.org/netbible/

[2] In Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, we read: “The Old Testament can scarcely be used as authority for the existence of distinctions within the Godhead. The use of ‘us’ by the divine speaker (Gen. 1:26, 3:32, 11:7) is strange, but it is perhaps due to His consciousness of being surrounded by other beings of a loftier order than men (Isa. 6:8)” (A.B. Davidson, "God," Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II, p. 205).

Similarly, Gordon Wehham’s Word Commentary on Genesis (p. 27) remarks as follows: “From Philo onward, Jewish commentators have generally held that the plural is used because God is addressing his heavenly court, i.e., the angels (cf. Isa. 6:8). From the Epistle of Barnabas and Justin Martyr, who saw the plural as a reference to Christ, Christians have traditionally seen this verse as foreshadowing the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author.”

[3] Based on what we read in John 12:37-41, some have argued that Isaiah must’ve seen Jesus Christ in a “pre-existent state.” Here’s the passage as found in the CLNT: Yet, after His having done so many signs in front of them, they believed not in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet, which he said, may be being fulfilled, “Lord, who believes our tidings? And the arm of the Lord, to whom was it revealed?” Therefore they could not believe, seeing that Isaiah said again that He has blinded their eyes and callouses their heart, lest they may be perceiving with their eyes, and should be apprehending with their heart, and may be turning about, and I shall be healing them. These things Isaiah said, seeing that he perceived His glory, and speaks concerning Him.

In the first verse that John quotes (i.e., Isaiah 53:1), the “Lord” being referred to is clearly Yahweh (whose name actually appears in the original verse John was quoting). And the second verses quoted by John (Isaiah 6:9-10) are a quotation of the words of Yahweh himself, who spoke to Isaiah during the vision described in Isaiah 6 (which involved seeing Yahweh sitting on a throne in the temple). Thus, the person whose glory we’re told Isaiah saw, and the person concerning whom Isaiah spoke, would’ve undoubtedly been understood by Isaiah to have been Yahweh.

That the person being referred to as “His” and “Him” in verse 41 is Yahweh, the God of Israel, is confirmed from the fact that the same person who’s referred to as “Him” in v. 41 is also in view in v. 40: “…Isaiah said again that He has blinded their eyes and callouses their heart, lest they may be perceiving with their eyes, and should be apprehending with their heart, and may be turning about, and I shall be healing them.” Who was John referring to as “He” in this verse? Answer: John would’ve believed that Yahweh himself was ultimately responsible for the circumstances being described in this verse.

That God is ultimately the one responsible for the blinding and callousing of unbelieving Israel is further confirmed from Romans 11:8, where Paul wrote concerning unbelieving Israel, “Now the rest were calloused, even as it is written, God gives them a spirit of stupor, eyes not to be observing, and ears not to be hearing, till this very day.” Had Paul believed that Jesus was the one who was callousing Israel, he would’ve said so. But Paul said it was “God” who was doing this. And the only person whom Paul referred to as “God” in his letters – and repeatedly distinguished from the Lord Jesus Christ - is the Father. Thus, we can understand the one whose glory Isaiah perceived to be a depiction of the Father.

[4] http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=1

[5] In addition to being used for titles applied to the one God of Israel, the intensive plural was used for the titles of individual humans as well. For example, in Genesis 42:30, Joseph is spoken of as the adhoneh (literally, “lords”) of Egypt. Though the word adhoneh is plural, this title does not make Joseph a multi-personal being. In Isa 19:4, we read, “I will imprison the Egyptians in the hand of a harsh master; and a fierce king shall rule over them.” In this verse the fierce king that will enslave Egypt is described as “a hard (singular) master (plural).” The plural suffix attached to the word “master” does not make it a numerical plural (“masters”) but instead intensifies the meaning (i.e., “great” master”). Because the word “master” is here an intensive plural and not a numerical plural, it receives the singular adjective (“hard”) and not the plural adjective that would be required for a numerical plural.

Similarly, in Exodus 21:28-32 the owner of the “goring ox” is repeatedly referred to with the plural suffix even though the ox is only owned by one person. In this case, the plural suffix intensifies the noun, imbuing it with a connotation of “absolute owner” or “complete master.” Because “owner” is an intensive plural, it gets a singular verb. Thus we read concerning the negligent owner whose ox has killed someone, “the ox shall be stoned and the owner (he) will be put to death” (Ex 21:29). The verb “he will be put to death” is in the singular even though the word for “owner” has the plural suffix. And in Mal 1:6, God says, “A son honours his father, and a servant his master (“masters”). If then I am a father, where is my honour? And if I am a master (“masters” again), where is my fear?” In both cases the word is not a numerical plural, but an intensive plural (i.e., “great master”). What’s interesting is that Yahweh is clearly taking human titles that have nothing inherently or necessarily to do with Deity and applying them to himself to make his point.

In Judges 19:26 we read, “And as morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her master (adoneyah, “lords/masters”) was, till it was light.” Here the concubine's master is referred to by the intensive plural for “lord.” It’s clear from the context (where the referent of the plural noun is a single individual) that the plural emphasizes the Levite’s absolute authority over the woman. In Gen. 24:9-10 we read, “So the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master and swore to him concerning this matter. Then the servant took ten of his master’s camels and departed, taking all sorts of choice gifts from his master; and he arose and went to Mesopotamia to the city of Nahor.” In all three cases, “master” is plural. But since Abraham is a singular being, the plural is to be understood as an intensive plural, not a numerical plural. In Gen 40:1 we read, “Sometime after this, the cupbearer of the king of Egypt and his baker committed an offense against their lord (“lords”) the king of Egypt.” Again, same thing here; the plural is clearly intensive, not numerical.

There are other examples of the intensive plural being used, but I think the above are sufficient to show that, while certainly not as common as when God is being referred to (for obvious reasons, since God is the main character of Scripture), the intensive plural was an idiom not used exclusively or reservedly for God. The Jews were thoroughly familiar with the idioms of their own language, and have consequently never understood the use of the plural elohim to indicate a plurality of persons within the one God.