Trinities episode 132:10 Apologists’ Mistakes about the Trinity – Part 2

This week I have responded to Dale Tuggy's podcast regarding apologist's mistakes arguing for the Triune God. It's a good episode and very clearly organised as usual, although I think points 1 and 4 could have possibly been combined.

If you are interested (and to make the most sense of my questions to Dale), please check out the episode here :)

Mistake 5. New fangled slogans and grandiose claims

"Gospel and Trinity inseparable". For small-t trinitarians could this not actually be the case? I think it is my case.

4. Dubious proofs of the Trinity from reason
Fallacy: God is perfectly loving only if God is perfectly loving? Is it not rather the fallacy that "God is perfectly loving only if He can be seen to be perfectly loving, i.e. love has to be worked out? I think it is to assume that he has an opportunity to express that love. Is the fallacy not then that this is to presume that God requires the same opportunities to validate that loving characteristic. I cannot really know if I am loving if I do not see it working in my life because I am developmental. God surely is not developmental, right? Also, a ("previously") timeless God still knew that in time he would fully demonstrate his immeasurable love perfectly. That perfect foreknowledge was with Him, correct?

Honesty on a desert island example. Is he compassionate? He might be. Is **might** be enough? Might he also NOT be? Not being God, how can he (or any secret observer) even know? It is not at all obvious to me that he can be said to *be* honest, except perhaps with respect to self-honesty, or honesty within himself (i.e. between his conscious and unconscious).

I think I am "yes" for the fallacy, and "no" for the desert island. :)

3. Speculation about atonement. Agreed.

2. Confusing Trinity with the deity (or even full deity) of Christ. Logos theories were saying this. Is this not also when Docetism hit, which is often confused with God Almighty coming as visible Spirit but not as flesh?

You say: "Originally the Psalm was addressed to a King". Here you were referring to the Psalm referenced in Hebrews 1:8, Psalm 45. Who would have thought those psalm introductory notes would have had an effect on Christology!? But I think they do. So the question I am wrestling with and I ask you if you have had any insight, is could there be confusion (prior 1st century) regarding the addressee of Psalm 45? In several non-Psalter contexts, the words translated "of David" are "to David". But in quite a few places in the Psalms it does seem correctly rendered "of David". If it is correctly David writing, then how natural was it for Israelite kings to address other humans, even their sons, as their Lords? Are there other possibilities, e.g. re-ordering and compiling the psalter resulting in confused introductory comments? This theory has problems because of how Jesus interpreted it - that David is indeed the speaker, even though he definitely doesn't sound like it to me. I'd be really interested to hear your views on this!

1. Linguistic sophistry, echad and Elohim. I actually think this point is quite similar to 4. Is the Schema not more appropriately understood as "YHWH alone"? Why on Earth would it say "YHWH is One"? There are some very obvious reasons for declaring within the Israelites community that there is no space for more than one god.

Out of respect for the Divine name, YHWH is not transliterated but they just replaced it with The Lord. Hurtado blogged about this, citing especially John William Wevers' research into Kyrios in the LXX: "confirming that YHWH is overwhelmingly rendered by forms of kyrios without the definite article (“anarthrous” forms).  In contrast, forms of the word with the definite article (“articular”) are preferred to translate references to other figures who hold a lordly position in the narratives.  As one example, check out Genesis 39:2-3, where the LXX has κυριος (without article) for YHWH consistently, and articular forms of κυριος to translate references to the human/Egyptian “master” in the narrative." (https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/08/22/yhwh-in-the-septuagint/)

So regarding the Rule of thumb (unless NT is quoting the OT, the Lord is referring to the Lord Jesus), I wonder if there might be an extra tweak (or simply confirmation) available there to us through the anarthrous kurios data.

Explicit statements continued: Hebrews 1:8, assumptions

Hey, this is the fifth post in a thread about explicit New Testament statements pertaining to Christ's divinity. The thread has been spread across other posts, so if you need to see the progression of thought, then please recap first here (introduction) and then here (Thomas' declaration to Jesus), then here ("He says: Your throne O God", part 1), then here ("Your throne O God", part 2, "Elohim options"). This constitutes a new "sub-chapter" I am adding to my paper, Trinitarian Interpretations, which I initially published last August. So let's buckle up and conclude.

Back to Hebrews: necessary assumptions in both camps

Returning to Hebrews 1 now, we really want to establish what the necessary and speculative interpretations are, in light of the explicitly set goal within the passage (to demonstrate Christ’s superiority over the angels) and of the Old Testament options available with regard to Elohim. Having covered some important Old Testament ground on this second point, we can understand that in applying Psalm 45:6-7 to Christ, the Hebrews author would not be overstepping Old Testament Israelite-Jewish boundaries in speaking of divine rule in relation to humans. So what are the assumptions necessary to both blue (Triune-God suggestive) and green (Triune-God dissuasive) camps?

Blue assumptions: That author is selecting the ultimate Elohim available to illustrate Christ's greatness with respect to angels, and not one of the others (i.e. not other divine council members, sometimes referred to as sons of God, not great human bearers of Elohim responsibilities, etc.), that Hebrews 1:8 provides an essential “upgrade” from the initial Elohim understanding of Psalm 45:6, that this upgrade supersedes the “son of God” status of the other divine council “sons” (likely, given that the other sons had not received “the name which is above all other names”), that it would be legitimate and normal for members within a triune Godhead to refer to one another as “their God”, and in a sense that is quite different to how first-century Jews spoke of X or Y being “their God”, and that this idea of a top-level Trinity, or at least one-being-multiple-persons deity was already existent albeit in embryonic form at the end of the first century.

Green assumptions: That the author and his recipients are aware of the other Elohim possibilities available to them (likely, given Hebrews 1:9), that the author does not upgrade the Elohim identity of Psalm 45:6 to that of Yahweh (or the Elohim of Psalm 45:7) and that there is no major shift in nuance between the Hebrew form “elohim” and the Greek translation “theos”.

From my perspective, it actually seems like the assumptions stack up greater on the blue side, although I am open to correction here. It is startling that Jesus is referred to as God, but it is clear to me that a decent part of that impact was due to my ignorance of the function of Elohim and a disregard for other dissuasive parts of the pericope.

Explicit statements continued: Hebrews 1:8, Elohim possibilities

This is the fourth post in a thread about explicit New Testament statements pertaining to Christ's divinity. The thread has been spread across other posts, so if you need to see the progression of thought, then please recap first here (introduction) and then here (Thomas' declaration to Jesus), then here ("He says: Your throne O God", part 1). This constitutes a new "sub-chapter" I am adding to my paper, Trinitarian Interpretations, which I initially published August 2015. So let's buckle up and look at the Hebrews 1 passage over the remaining two posts...

Elohim possibilities

We are assuming that “God” in Hebrews 1:8 (Psalm 45:5), is not the same one referred to as “God” in Hebrews 1:9 (Psalm 45:7), but how does that work if Christians and Jews are all monotheists? There surely can’t possibly be more than one Elohim, Theos, God, or whatever language you want to use! This modern way of looking at ancient perceptions of the supernatural realm is disintegrating in theological circles (see also chapter 2, monotheism), in favour of a more hierarchical perspective. There is only one supreme God – for the Israelites, this is Yahweh: He created everything and no-one can be compared to him. He is an Elohim. And there are other Elohim. Michael Heiser sets out Elohim into 6 types:

1.      Yahweh, the God of Israel (thousands of times—e.g., Genesis 2:4–5; Deuteronomy  4:35)

2.      The members of Yahweh’s council (Psalms 82:1,6)

3.      Gods and goddesses of other nations (Judges 8:33[1], 11:24; 1 Kings 11:33)

4.      Demons (Hebrew: shedim—Deuteronomy 32:17)

5.      The deceased Samuel (1 Samuel 28:13)

6.      Angels or the Angel of Yahweh (Genesis 35:7)

This list is initially quite striking, but hard-core monotheists confronted with such strong textual evidence might still want to emphasise that there is a difference between Elohim referring to gods (plural) and Elohim referring to the singular God, synonymous with Yahweh (e.g. Psalms 82:1,6). I too was struck by that possibility, but that was still the influence of my modern evangelical world-view (and English translation[2]) skewing my interpretation.

Even in its plural form applied to a singular being, Elohim can be applied descriptively to another singular being. Judges 8:33-34 is a clear example of this: the people replace their God (Elohim), Yahweh, making Baal-Berith their God (Elohim). The Israelites also re-assign the works and status of Elohim Yahweh to the Elohim of the golden calf (see Exodus 32). These biblical cases inform us that within a hierarchical system, the one at the top qualifies for plural status.

Thus far we have established that options for understanding Elohim can be plural OR singular, and can refer to Yahweh or NOT to Yahweh. That is significant. But what of human kings – can a human king be referred to as Elohim? But regarding human bearers of the title, we need to refer back at this point to scholars on the Hebrew of Psalm 45 at this point.

Donald Hagner, commenting Hebrews 1, states: “The king originally in view was an Israelite monarch, but so glorious are the words spoken to him that their ultimate fulfilment can only be in the messianic king, the son of David … [there is] a difficulty of understanding the original historical context wherein a king of Israel is addressed as God. The latter difficulty can be explained as hyperbole for the king who functions as God’s representative in his office.”[3]

Constable, for whom Christ just is God in Hebrews 1:8, agrees with this exegetical option for the Psalm used by the Hebrews writer: “the writer addressed his human king as “God” (Elohim). He did not mean that the king was God but that he stood in the place of God and represented Him”.[4]

Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch also agree: “The king was not regarded as the incarnation of deity. Rather, he was “Yahweh’s anointed and served as the Lord’s deputy on Earth”.[5]

I don’t know how you read Hagner, but he does not appear totally coherent to me. On the one hand we have glorious hyperbole denoting God’s representative, while on the other it could not be making sense without a future fulfilment necessary. Views about Old Testament prophecy vary. Mine is very basic: it made sense[6]. However it was reinterpreted later (by the Hebrews writer for instance), it already made sense then. Furthermore, whatever that sense was must not be presumed absent from the later, first century, author’s mind either. But is this the only instance of Elohim applied to humans? Heiser also reminds us that the revived spirit of Samuel was Elohim too, but he takes it no further, despite the fact that one of his foundational understandings of the Biblical picture of humanity is that of being “imagers” of God. So human imagers of God in this Elohim puzzle has to be developed – we can’t stop at a strange, murky corner of the canon on Samuel’s spirit.

1.      Exodus 4:16: He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God (Elohim) to him. The speaker is Yahweh, the “he” is Aaron, Moses’ brother, and the “you” is Moses, needing a lot of reassurance about confronting the Egyptian authorities. Notice this “as if you were God”. Exodus 4:16 gives us concrete scope that when addressing a later leader of Israel, the Psalmist of Psalm 45 could certainly have the same idea. 

2.      Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9: We will not lose time quoting these passages, but you can check the context – here the Elohim are almost certainly human judges, not God or gods, but exercising a task with delegated authority from the divine realm, and ultimately from Yahweh Himself.

3.      Deuteronomy 3:24: Sovereign LORD, you have begun to show to your servant your greatness and your strong hand. For what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do the deeds and mighty works you do? Throughout the Bible, we have these two great realms represented – the spiritual unseen realm and the Earth realm, both of which are populated and organised. That is why Jesus teaches his disciples to pray to the Father, saying: May your will be done here on Earth as it is in Heaven. The other Elohim in Heaven and the Elohim on Earth are not comparable in greatness or love to Yahweh; but it pre-supposes their existence: they are impressive, authoritative and noticeable authorities in both spheres.

4.  Psalm 45:2,6-7: You are the most excellent of men […] Your throne [O] God will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom […] God your God has set you above your companions[7]. Assuming that this Psalm is not saying “Your throne is God”, this key passage for Hebrews 1 interpretation is also a key component to understanding the biblical picture of how humans can be bearers of the Elohim image.

Please click here to see my take on the Hebrews 1:8 assumptions. Thank you.

---

[1] Judges 8:33-34 is my addition to the sample references provided by Heiser, I think even more striking than Judges 11:24. Here I believe NIV make a mistake in applying the lower-case “g”. It should read: They set up Baal-Berith as their God, that is to say that, within a henotheistic framework, Baal-Berith is set up as occupying the place of God (of gods) that is actually Yahweh’s by right.

[2] The fact that a translation of the plural form of Elohim as singular God, god, spirit when not referring to Yahweh is not criticised – I simply note it to as a contributing factor to my uninformed view.

[3] Hagner, p. 34

[4] Thomas L. Constable, Notes on Psalms, 2016 Edition, p. 233, available in PDF form and updated at www.soniclight.com. These notes are those adjoining the NET Bible study notes.

[5] Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible, p. 270-271, Intervarsity Press, Illinois, 2009.

[6] Assuming no textual corruptions.

[7] The use of capitals here is to simulate the Hebrew and remove interpretative bias through capitalisation (or non-capitalisation) of certain Gs.

Explicit statements continued: Hebrews 1:8

This is the third post in a thread about explicit New Testament statements pertaining to Christ's divinity. The thread has been spread across other posts, so if you need to see the progression of thought, then please recap first here (introduction) and then here (Thomas' declaration to Jesus). This is a new "sub-chapter" I am adding to my paper, Trinitarian Interpretations, which I initially published last August. So let's buckle up and look at the Hebrews 1 passage over the next three posts...

Hebrews 1:8-9 – About the Son: “Your throne, O God…”

The only text that remains to be treated in this sub-chapter is perhaps the strongest of all: Hebrews 1:8-9. The great late Catholic theologian Raymond Brown classified it as one of the three texts explicitly asserting the divinity of Christ (the other two being the previous passage of Thomas’ declaration of faith and John’s prologue). We shall see that translation is a key component in understanding and interpreting these two verses. In the popular NIV translation, we read:

But about the Son he says, ‘your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a sceptre of justice will be the sceptre of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.

There can be virtually no doubt about it. Not only does this text seem to describe Jesus as “God”, which is of course highly compatible with a triune-God view, but it seems to have the Father addressing his Son as “God”. Let us not content ourselves with a purely superficial reading, however; let us strive for a fuller understanding about what the author of Hebrews – and the author of the quoted Psalm – meant here. This would be a good practice regardless, but it is even more worthwhile as the passage is located in a context that has some components pretty dissuasive of a triune-God view (see development below[1]).

So let us attempt the following: firstly, to identify the key speakers and addressees in Psalm 45, then to ensure we have a biblical understanding of Elohim, the Hebrew word used here for “God”, and then to use this and our knowledge of the Hebrews passage to understand the assumptions underpinning two alternative interpretations.

Hebrews 1:8-9 Who’s doing the talking and who is/are the God(s)?

---

In order to achieve the first objective and reduce confusion about speakers and addressees, we must turn a spotlight onto the translators’ “helping hands”. To continue with the colour theme of this paper, words in blue are suggestive. This time, however, they are added or interpretative words, not necessarily original in the Greek manuscripts. Please read carefully, as it is such a small thing, and could be deemed not significant. Yet we all know that a tiny word can radically change the whole meaning of a sentence, right? Well, there is precisely one of those tiny words hiding in there in verse 6. Here is the passage in its context with emphasis placed on the key speaker words:

⁵ For to which of the angels did [God] ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”? 

⁶ And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.”

⁷ In speaking of the angels he says, “He makes his angels spirits, and his servants flames of fire.” 

⁸ But about the Son [he says], “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a sceptre of justice will be the sceptre of your kingdom. ⁹ You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” 

¹⁰ [He also says], “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands….

¹³ To which of the angels did God ever say, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

The way translations like the NIV set up the speaker here is downright confusing! It really does not need to be, but the way God is made to be the active speaker throughout indicates to me possible theological bias. We want to allow verse 8 to imply “God the Father addressing God the Son”. That would be so neat, placing the writer hundreds of years ahead of the pack, theologically. The word for “he said”, legei is quite frequently used in the New Testament to introduce an Old Testament quotation, and does not require a personal “he”. We should not ignore this possibility here. In verse 6, I am therefore suggesting, that we should allow interpretative space for one of the following more meaningful renderings:

• And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, it says [legei], “Let all God's angels worship him”
• And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, God says through the Scriptures [legei], “Let all God's angels worship him”.

This “it” would be comparable to “Scripture says”, such as we see as the more likely (and favoured translation in most modern translations) in Acts 13:34-35[2], Galatians 3:16[3], Ephesians 4:8[4] and 5:14[5]. The second option for legei is more of a compromise between the simple “it” or “he” dichotomy, and can be favoured based on Hebrews 4:7[6]. Donald Hagner, NIBC commentary contributor, does not consider these options, even leaping onto another possible reference to the deity of the Son as early as early as verse 6, containing our first legei: “What is remarkable in this passage […] is that the one who is worshipped is the Lord, or Yahweh […] and thus the Son is identified with Yahweh of the OT.”[7] However, this commentator’s enthusiasm does not develop the grammatical gymnastics required by making God the unique active speaker throughout, or at least some thought given to the imprecise ways in which the author would need to be using legei.

So if we can agree that it is at least possible and meaningful that legei here might be reserved for the God-inspired Scriptures (“it says”) as the active speaker, then verse 8 “pros de ton huion” (concerning the Son), could most naturally be understood: “About the Son, it says: “Your throne O God…”. This appears viable. Note, of course, that the addressee is still “God”, and that when the Hebrews author specifies that he is talking about the Son here, he is using Old Testament Scripture to show that Jesus can be called “God” in some way. All we have simply attempted to clarify is that it would be clearer as a quote from the God-inspired Scriptures rather than as a quotation of God calling his own Son, “God”. This distinct possibility gains momentum when we read Psalm 45, where the Psalmist is addressing the current King of Israel throughout[8].

Theologians have also pondered a lot over the following verse (Hebrews 1:9), where you get a curious repetition: “ho theos ho theos sou”, translated “God, your God”. Here, this time with a wider consensus, we can postulate that the Psalmist’s repetition in verse 9 (Psalm 45:7) serves to clarify that we are not talking about the same theos (or Elohim) as in the previous verse. Without the repetition and clarification, the two “ho theos” of Psalm 45:6 and 45:7 would have been otherwise confusing.

Please click here to see the Elohim options. Thank you.

[1] 7.4 Jesus implied to have had a beginning, or a time when he was adopted OR non-Christological NT precedent for “pre-existence” as conceptual / in God’s mind, p. 81.

[2] Acts 13:34-35: God raised him from the dead so that he will never be subject to decay. As God has said, “I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.” So it is also stated elsewhere “You will not let your holy one see decay” (NIV). The “it” translations of the speaker in Acts 13:35 include NIV, NLT, Aramaic Bible in Plain English, GWT.

[3] Galatians 3:16: The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. (NIV). There is no “Scripture” in the Greek here, just just “ou legei” – he/it does not say. “It” or “Scripture” translations of the speaker in Galatians 3:16 include

[4] Ephesians 4:8: This is why it says: ‘When he ascended on high, he took many captives and gave gifts to his people’ (NIV). “It” or “Scripture” translations of the speaker in Ephesians 4:8 include NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, HCSB, NET, Aramaic Bible in Plain English, GWT, Weymouth New Testament.

[5] Ephesians 5:14: This is why it is said: ‘Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you’ (NIV). “It” or “Scripture” translations of the speaker in Ephesians 5:15 include NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, HCSB, ISV, NET, Aramaic Bible in Plain English, GWT, Weymouth New Testament.

[6] Hebrews 4:7: God again set a certain day, calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke through David, as in the passage already quoted: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”

[7] D. Hagner, New International Biblical Commentary: Hebrews, p. 33, Paternoster, Carlisle, 1995. Hereafter, Hagner.

[8] The Psalmist sets it up without ambiguity in the opening verse: My heart is stirred by a beautiful song. I say, “I have composed this special song for the king; my tongue is as skilled as the stylus of an experienced scribe.” (NET)

Don't be fooled by speculative explanations of "echad" (Hebrew for "one")

Anthony Buzzard does not always inspire me, but here I found his article on "Echad" very clear about what we should and should not consider reasonable teaching about this word.

If you have heard this taught in defence of the Trinity, then I would recommend reading it in order to keep your reading balanced and your own interpretation as free from bias as possible.
http://www.21stcr.org/multimedia-2011/1-articles/ab-echad.html 

Trinitarians in examining the hebrew word for "one", will tend to infuse it with plural connotations based on usages in the Old Testament where it modifies a compound noun, approaches the task in a way that is misleading, in the same way that it can in presenting a one-sided view of the debates around "Elohim" (i.e. simply ignoring the pertinence of key Elohim passages like Psalm 82). The key and simple point that Buzzard powerfully demonstrates is that the word "echad" itself remains stable, whether referring to compound nouns (such as bagpipes) or simple nouns (such as bag or pipe).

Trinitarians really need to be more careful in arguing their case and transparent about their limitations.

Unitarians need to be careful about championing falsehood of Trinitarian claims based on single refutations such as this.