Trinity in the Old Testament

Chris†opher Paul

Based on a True Story
May 8, 2002
10,531
4
49
Centreville, VA
✟17,404.00
I have been told by the Jewish and Muslims members of this forum that the references to "We" or "Us" in the Old Testament do not refer to the Trinity.  Rather, they reflect some mechanism of Hebrew similiar to the royal "We"

I asked Old Shepherd about this, since he apparently speaks a few languages, and this is what he said.

Who is right?

s0uljah asked...

I have been told by Jews and Muslims that the pluralism, ie Genesis, is not plural but an aspect of Hebrew that is some sort of Royal "We" or something like that. Any truth to that?

<B>It is supposedly the "<I>Majesticatus Pluralis</I>", the plural of majesty. Sovereigns supposedly referred to themselves in the plural, but the first recorded instance was Queen Elizabeth, 4-5 centuries ago who remarked at a something, "<I>We are not amused.</I>"

The problem with this is, it was concocted in the 18th - 19th century to explain away the plural references in the O.T. There is no recorded history of any ancient near east society Israel was in contact with ever using such a device. There was no "plural of majesty" when God dictated to Moses, among the Israelites or anyone else.

There is no mention of any plural of majesty in the early church fathers, (ECF) Justin in his Dialogue with Trypho clearly states that God was speaking to the Son. See my link to ECF on an earlier post. Open Justin's Dialogue and do a word search on "let us."</B>



&nbsp;
 

stillsmallvoice

The Narn rule!
May 8, 2002
2,053
181
60
Maaleh Adumim, Israel
Visit site
✟10,967.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Hi souljah!

Oh, it's not a question of who is right. Jews, Christians & Muslims, we will believe as we will & all of us finding our beliefs meaningful (and acknowledging that others find their beliefs as meaningful for them as ours are for us). We all have our own beliefs, live and let live. BTW, there are other traditional Jewish interprations as to the use of "Let us make man..."

Be well!

ssv :wave:
 
Upvote 0

Chris†opher Paul

Based on a True Story
May 8, 2002
10,531
4
49
Centreville, VA
✟17,404.00
". In the OT both singular and plural nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and verbs
are used for God. Many scholars have tried to say that the use of plurals
in the OT is simple the "plural of majesty." Which is the same argument that
Muslims use to answer why Allah speaks of himself as "We" in the Quran.

Unfortunately this is a fundamental error. It is an attempt to take a modern
monarchical idiosyncrasy and read it back into the ancient text. This was an
unknown idea in OT times. Richard Davies pointed this out as long ago as
1891 (Doctrine of the Trinity p.227).

See Gen 3:22 God speaking about Himself

Gen 11:7-9 where there are both plural pronouns and verbs used of God

Isa 6:3 Where Isaiah is called as a spokes man for God and God addresses himself in the plural."

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Trinity/otreason.html
 
Upvote 0

Chris†opher Paul

Based on a True Story
May 8, 2002
10,531
4
49
Centreville, VA
✟17,404.00
God identified as "the Father" in the OT

Deut 32:6 (Moses' time)
Isa 63:15; 64:8 (pre-exile)
Mal2:10 (post exile)

God identified as "the Son" in the OT

Ps. 2:12 "kiss the Son"
a. The "Anointed One" in v2 is called the "Son in v12.
b. Both Jewish and Christian scholars say this Psalm speaks of the Messiah.
c. God's works are applied to "the Son" (comp. Ps. 24:1,2; Job 34:24;
Jer 51:19-23
d. The "Son" is begotten (comp 2Sam.7:14; Acts 13:33)

Prov. 30:4 "His son's name"
a. Two separate persons are spoken of, "His name or His son's name"
b. This can not be a metaphor or impersonal force.
c. This is not Hebrew parallelism.

Isa. 9:6 "a son given"
a. "Wonderful Counselor" comp Judges 13:17,18
b. "born to us" comp Isa 7:14 - "God with us"
c. "Mighty God" comp Isa 10:21
d. "Eternal Father" better translation "Father of Eternal Life" - the one
who give eternity to others.
e. "Prince of Peace" the divine ruler. Ps 2:7-9

God the Spirit in the OT

1Sam10:10, 19:20,23
2Sam 23:1
1Kings 22:24
Neh 9:30
Ps 51:11
Isa 63:10,11
Micah 2:7
 
Upvote 0

stillsmallvoice

The Narn rule!
May 8, 2002
2,053
181
60
Maaleh Adumim, Israel
Visit site
✟10,967.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Hi souljah!

I apologize for taking this long to reply.

Now lessee...

You posted:

I am asking about a technical issue regarding the Hebrew language, not about beliefs.

OK, fair enough.

I'll make do with one sweeping statement & then two specific ones. The sweeping statement is that we (orthodox Jews) do not believe that there are any references to the Trinity and/or Jesus in the Tanakh (though, of course, we acknowledge that you believe otherwise). Suffice to say that we have our own interpretations for each & every of the verses you cited.

The two specific statements are in regard to Psalms 2:12 and the use of the plural in Genesis 1:26.
_____

The following is from a Jewish website:

Question: The respective Jewish and Christian translations of nash-ku bar
(Psalms 2:12) differ from each other. What is the proper translation?
Answer: The Jewish rendering of Psalms 2:12 states: "Do homage in purity [nash-ku bar], lest He be angry,
and you perish in the way. . . ." The Christian translation of the Hebrew phrase nash-ku bar is "kiss the son."

The Christian translation is based on a misinterpretation. The meaning of the Hebrew word bar is "pure" or
"clear." Only in Aramaic does it have the meaning of "son." However, in Aramaic, bar is used only as a
construct "son of" (Proverbs 31:2; Ezra 5:1-2, 6:14), whereas the absolute form of "son" in Aramaic (which
would have to be used in verse 12) is ber'a. Thus, according to the Christian conception, the verse should
have read nash-ku ber'a, "kiss the son," not nash-ku bar, "kiss the son of." Even though "son" could refer to
David in verse 12, it is not the proper translation.

There is no compelling reason to employ an Aramaism in view of the use of the Hebrew noun bayn, "son," in
verse 7. The phrase is best rendered as, "do homage in purity," because kissing is generally an expression of
homage, as found, for example, in 1 Samuel 10:1: "Then Samuel took the vial of oil, and poured it upon his
head, and kissed him." Bar, meaning "purity," occurs in the phrase "pure in heart" (Psalms 24:4, 73:1).

The intention implied in verse 12 is: with sincerity of heart, acknowledge me, David, as God's anointed, and
thereby avoid incurring God's anger. Thus the Hebrew phrase nash-ku bar simply means "do homage in
purity," and superimposing any other interpretation will distort the meaning of this psalm.

Link: http://jewsforjudaism.org/j4j-2000/html/reflib/virgin056.html
_____

I've seen an alternative translation that translates bar in this case as "corn" or "grain" (just like it is in Genesis 41:49 and 42:3, inter alia) and derives nashku from a root meaning, roughly, "to provide with agricultural produce" (much like the slightly archaic "to victual;" the modern Hebrew word meshek , or "farm" is a cognate of the same root). Thus, if we accept that God is referring to King David here, Psalms 2:12 would be a reference to the practice where the various tribes shared the responsibility for providing the royal household with food & provisions.

Regarding the use of the plural in Genesis 1:26.

Medieval Jewish commentators, who lived long before both Elizabeth I of England and the 17tyh & 18th centuries, refer to the so-called
Majesticatus Pluralis as one possible explanation. (The Qur'an uses the plural many, many times. It was written before that.) Thus, I'm not sure that I accept Old Shepherd's statement.

The same medieval Jewish Sages (Rashi, Nahmanides, etc.) also teach that by saying "Let us..." God was speaking to/consulting the angelic host (see I Kings 22:20-23, Isaiah 6:8 (note the use of "us"), Job 1:6-12 and Amos 3:7. God certainly does not need the angels' help or advice but he speaks to them out of courtesy and modesty. (Our Sages deduce from this that a great person should always act humbly and consult those lower than him/her.) One of our Sages says that God thus "consulted" the angels at this stage because they were jealous of man, that man and not they would be the pinnacle of creation.

These same Sages offer another explanation. They note that in 1:11, God said, "Let the earth put forth grass..." and in 1:24, He said "Let the earth bring forth the living creature..." Thus, in 1:26, our Sages suggest that God was speaking to the earth when He said, "Let us make man..." In effect, He said to the earth: Let us be partners in making man. I will provide the soul and you will provide the body. When the man dies, we will each reclaim our respective parts. (See Ecclesiastes 12:7, "And the dust returneth to the earth as it was, and the spirit returneth unto G-d who gave it.")

Be well!

ssv :wave:
 
Upvote 0

Future Man

Priest of God and the Lamb
Aug 20, 2002
245
5
✟470.00
Faith
Calvinist
Aren't the pronouns "us" and "make" in the plural? Wouldn't this indicate that the angels were included in the creation process? Especially note the plurality of the word "make".

Also:

Zech14:4..cf..Acts1:10-12

Mal3:1 'Ha' in conjunction with 'adon' ie.. THE Lord..cf..Is40:3-5

Ps110:5 "adonai"

These above titles are used exclusivlyof Y-WH. Unless you count the angels who are taking His name ;). (I believe in theophany btw)

God bless you--FM
 
Upvote 0

LightBearer

Veteran
Aug 9, 2002
1,916
48
Visit site
✟19,072.00
Faith
Jehovahs Witness
Among the Hebrew words that are translated “God” is ´El, probably meaning “Mighty One; Strong One.” (Ge 14:18) It is used with reference to Jehovah, to other gods, and to men. It is also used extensively in the makeup of proper names, such as Elisha (meaning “God Is Salvation”) and Michael (“Who Is Like God?”). In some places ´El appears with the definite article (ha·´El', literally, “the God”) with reference to Jehovah, thereby distinguishing him from other gods. Ge 46:3; 2Sa 22:31.

At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is prophetically called ´El Gib·bohr', “Mighty God” (not ´El Shad·dai' [God Almighty], which is applied to Jehovah at Genesis 17:1).

The plural form, ´e·lim', is used when referring to other gods, such as at Exodus 15:11 (“gods”). It is also used as the plural of majesty and excellence, as in Psalm 89:6: “Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God [bi·beneh' ´E·lim']?” That the plural form is used to denote a single individual here and in a number of other places is supported by the translation of ´E·lim' by the singular form The·os' in the Greek Septuagint; likewise by Deus in the Latin Vulgate.

The Hebrew word ´elo·him' (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ´Elo·him' is the plural of ´eloh'ah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ´Elo·him' is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.

When applying to Jehovah, ´Elo·him' is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: “That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [´Elo·him'] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [´Elo·him'] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God.”—The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.

The title ´Elo·him' draws attention to Jehovah’s strength as the Creator. It appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the singular number. (Ge 1:1–2:4) In him resides the sum and substance of infinite forces.
At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ´elo·him', as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called beneh' ha·´Elo·him', “sons of God” (KJ); “sons of the true God” (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: “(individual) divine beings, gods.” And page 51 says: “the (single) gods,” and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ´elo·him' is rendered “angels” (LXX); “godlike ones”.

The word ´elo·him' is also used when referring to idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply “gods.” (Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not trinities. 1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 (“goddess” Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk).

At Psalm 82:1, 6, ´elo·him' is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.—Ex 4:16, Ex 7:1.

In many places in the Scriptures ´Elo·him' is also found preceded by the definite article ha. (Ge 5:22) Concerning the use of ha·´Elo·him', F. Zorell says: “In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated by this word; . . . ‘Jahve is the [one true] God’ De 4:35; 4:39; Jos 22:34; 2Sa 7:28; 1Ki 8:60 etc.” Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome, 1984, p. 54; brackets his.
 
Upvote 0

Gerry

Jesus Paid It All
May 1, 2002
8,301
17
Visit site
✟14,307.00
This is especially sad to see this morning. To those who would twist Scripture to have it say what they want it to say and to prove a point, what have you proven? That you can cite particular Scripture to support your hypothesis? That you can omit relevant Scripture that would dispute your ideas? So what? You have done nothing that sets you apart from or higher than the average man.

The example I have seen here is at the least shameful and inaccurate. And all this non-sense about how a word is "sometimes" used is just that.
The English word "trash" is sometimes used to refer to certain human beings. So what? Does that mean that all human beings are always trash? OF course not.

So if you are going to use a term and cite Scripture to prove your point, then cite ALL the places the term is used and how and support it with Scripture. No wait....hmmm...that would DISPROVE your point, wouldn't it?
 
Upvote 0