What is the Trinity?

[TrevorL]

Greetings RandyK,

So, when Moses claimed he was dealing with God at the burning bush, you insist he was self-deceived, and was instead really dealing with an angel? I'm sure you don't think this, but I didn't see you really address the question with any substance?

I appreciate your response and your strong statement, but I hold to the view that Moses was encountering the Angel of Yahweh.

Exodus 3:1–2 (KJV): 1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb. 2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

I suggest that to consider this incident properly, we would need to examine nearly every Theophany in the OT and consider the usage of the word "Elohim" in these passages. Genesis chapters 1-3 do not mention the presence of Angels, but a careful consideration shows that they were active in the Garden. I do not see the benefit of turning this thread into a Trinitarian versus Unitarian thread. As far as the NT is concerned, I could give a thorough response to three "Trinitarian favourites", John 1:1, John 8:58 and John 10:30, and these could be supposed mainstays to convince you of your position..

My own belief is that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father and that Jesus is a human, the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection.

My assessment is that most Pentecostals are strong supporters and advocates of the Trinity. I have only ever attended a Pentecostal meeting once nearly 60 years ago. I do not know what happens in your particular meeting, but there was much music, then one example of speaking in tongues, then a supposed interpretation of this item by the Pastor, and then a 10 minute talk by the Pastor, partly denouncing some of my beliefs about the promises, and then two attempts at healing which seemed to have failed. What surprised me was these Pentecostals were Oneness Pentecostals. Is the Holy Spirit active in both Oneness and normal Pentecostal meetings? This encounter convinced me against Pentecostals and their beliefs and practices. You may have a different assessment.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[JLB]

but I hold to the view that Moses was encountering the Angel of Yahweh.

The Angel of the LORD is God.

The scripture plainly says Moses was looking at God.

Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. Exodus 3:6

Not God the Father.

God the Son.

The Father says to the Son…

But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. Hebrews 1:8

 

[RandyK]

Greetings RandyK,

I appreciate your response and your strong statement, but I hold to the view that Moses was encountering the Angel of Yahweh.

Exodus 3:1–2 (KJV): 1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb. 2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

I suggest that to consider this incident properly, we would need to examine nearly every Theophany in the OT and consider the usage of the word "Elohim" in these passages. Genesis chapters 1-3 do not mention the presence of Angels, but a careful consideration shows that they were active in the Garden. I do not see the benefit of turning this thread into a Trinitarian versus Unitarian thread. As far as the NT is concerned, I could give a thorough response to three "Trinitarian favourites", John 1:1, John 8:58 and John 10:30, and these could be supposed mainstays to convince you of your position..

My own belief is that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father and that Jesus is a human, the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection.

My assessment is that most Pentecostals are strong supporters and advocates of the Trinity. I have only ever attended a Pentecostal meeting once nearly 60 years ago. I do not know what happens in your particular meeting, but there was much music, then one example of speaking in tongues, then a supposed interpretation of this item by the Pastor, and then a 10 minute talk by the Pastor, partly denouncing some of my beliefs about the promises, and then two attempts at healing which seemed to have failed. What surprised me was these Pentecostals were Oneness Pentecostals. Is the Holy Spirit active in both Oneness and normal Pentecostal meetings? This encounter convinced me against Pentecostals and their beliefs and practices. You may have a different assessment.

Kind regards
Trevor

I was raised a Lutheran and became a Charismatic, and ultimately a Pentecostal. This was not really a theological move for me, but rather, a revivalistic move. I discovered that my own Lutheran Church was spiritually dead, and that the Pentecostal/Charismatics seemed to have more of a "revival fire" in them.

I disagree with a lot of Pentecostal beliefs and practices, but enjoy their emphasis on the Holy Spirit, because a living God is where it's at for me, regardless of some of the doctrinal issues and problems. But this thread is not about that.

Probably my favorite "idol" was Watchman Nee, a Chinese mystic who was very oriented towards the "Cross," meaning that he advocated for a complete commitment to Christ. Like the Pentecostals he had a very personal view of Christ, though his emphasis was more on the living Christ than on the Holy Spirit and His gifts.

I got into what I later found was a cult that sold Watchman Nee books along with its apostle Witness Lee's books. Lee seemed to have had a modalistic view of the Trinity, which got me into studies on the Trinity. I discovered that as unsatisfying as Trinitarianism may be, the Creeds that were worked out in the early centuries of the Church best captured the essence of what the Bible said about the 3 Persons, while avoiding the excesses and errors.

So I hold to the orthodox definition of the Trinity while at the same time trying to satisfy my own need to actually understand what is being said. Over the years the best way I've been able to state it is that the one God exists in a "before Creation" infinite realm that we can understand only as He extends Himself into our world.

To do this, the infinite "other-worldly" one God has to remain "other worldly" and distinct from Creation while appearing as other Persons that are viewed within Creation in our world. The effect is one God that can only be known as the Trinity, or even as more Persons than the Trinity.

God can show Himself in the created environment in various places as the Holy Spirit, as the Son of God, or as theophanies, which are sometimes called the "Angel of the Lord," or appearances of men who represented God's Person in those forms.

I understand that you can't accept that. And that's certainly your prerogative. I just think you're missing out if you fail to have personal connection with God, as the infinite Deity comes into your world and seeks to communicate with you--primarily through the conscience, but also in many other ways. Have a nice day.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again JLB and RandyK,

The scripture plainly says Moses was looking at God.

Yes, the Angel of Yahweh, Yahweh revealed through the Angel, the Messenger of Yahweh, Hebrew Elohim, not God the Son. The word Elohim includes the One God Yahweh Himself AND the Angels and Judges AND our Lord Jesus Christ after his birth as the Son of God.

I understand that you can't accept that. And that's certainly your prerogative. I just think you're missing out if you fail to have personal connection with God, as the infinite Deity comes into your world and seeks to communicate with you--primarily through the conscience, but also in many other ways. Have a nice day.

I appreciate your narrative concerning your convictions and spiritual development and status. I am not sure that I am missing out on much. My assessment of what happens and what has happened at a local Pentecostal Church is not very good. Some depictions on you-tube seem very strange, where a large captive audience seem to enthusiastically endorse what I consider to be very wide of the sanctity and reasonable religious proceedings. I am very satisfied with my doctrinal position and my involvement in my immediate and wider fellowship. I am the senior librarian at our meeting and love Biblical resources and have a very wide personal collection. I still see the need to grow and come to a greater appreciation and practice of the way of life in Christ.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[JLB]

Greetings again JLB and RandyK,

Yes, the Angel of Yahweh, Yahweh revealed through the Angel, the Messenger of Yahweh, Hebrew Elohim, not God the Son. The word Elohim includes the One God Yahweh Himself AND the Angels and Judges AND our Lord Jesus Christ after his birth as the Son of God.

I appreciate your narrative concerning your convictions and spiritual development and status. I am not sure that I am missing out on much. My assessment of what happens and what has happened at a local Pentecostal Church is not very good. Some depictions on you-tube seem very strange, where a large captive audience seem to enthusiastically endorse what I consider to be very wide of the sanctity and reasonable religious proceedings. I am very satisfied with my doctrinal position and my involvement in my immediate and wider fellowship. I am the senior librarian at our meeting and love Biblical resources and have a very wide personal collection. I still see the need to grow and come to a greater appreciation and practice of the way of life in Christ.

Kind regards
Trevor

Trevor,

Please acknowledge that you see these words of scripture.

• for he was afraid to look upon God.

Moses was looking at the Angel of the LORD.


The scripture plainly says Moses was looking at God.

Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. Exodus 3:6

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again JLB,

Please acknowledge that you see these words of scripture.

• for he was afraid to look upon God.

Moses was looking at the Angel of the LORD.
The scripture plainly says Moses was looking at God.

Yes, but our English word "God" does not cover the meaning and application of the Hebrew word "Elohim" as I have explained in my previous Post. Also consider Jesus' exposition and reference to this in John 10:30-36 when speaking about the corrupt Judges.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[RandyK]

Greetings again JLB and RandyK,

Yes, the Angel of Yahweh, Yahweh revealed through the Angel, the Messenger of Yahweh, Hebrew Elohim, not God the Son. The word Elohim includes the One God Yahweh Himself AND the Angels and Judges AND our Lord Jesus Christ after his birth as the Son of God.

I appreciate your narrative concerning your convictions and spiritual development and status. I am not sure that I am missing out on much. My assessment of what happens and what has happened at a local Pentecostal Church is not very good. Some depictions on you-tube seem very strange, where a large captive audience seem to enthusiastically endorse what I consider to be very wide of the sanctity and reasonable religious proceedings. I am very satisfied with my doctrinal position and my involvement in my immediate and wider fellowship. I am the senior librarian at our meeting and love Biblical resources and have a very wide personal collection. I still see the need to grow and come to a greater appreciation and practice of the way of life in Christ.

Kind regards
Trevor

Yes. However, I would remind you that I didn't recommend Pentecostalism to you, though you act as if I had done that. On the contrary, I informed you that despite the one thing I really liked about Pentecostalism there were *lots of things* I disagree with. So I'm not necessarily recommending Pentecostalism--I'm just recommending a focus on the Holy Spirit as the source of personal communication with God.

I do understand that you view Elohim as an all-encompassing term, in which God can be combined with angels and judges in reference to one who claims to have seen "Elohim." This doesn't make sense to me, but it fits your particular perspective, or what you need to have it mean.

I can't for example say, logically, that I've seen God, but what I've really seen are angels, or a combination of God, angels, and judges. But I do understand that you're defining Elohim in a plurality different to how Trinitarians may define Him.

I also define Elohim as a Divine plurality, but in my definition I see all of the Persons representing God actually *being God.* Angels are not divine, nor are human judges.

I'm glad you have peace where you are. I would only recommend looking further if you felt unfulfilled or troubled. I can't understand it, but you say you are. I have my own troubles and issues, but I find my consolation in my own sense of a divine Christ--one whose work and Person is access through the Holy Spirit.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again RandyK,

Yes. However, I would remind you that I didn't recommend Pentecostalism to you, though you act as if I had done that.

I was basing my comments on my general assessment and experience. Even in my own immediate fellowship of 8 meetings I feel more comfortable in my present fairly conservative meeting which I joined over 40 years ago after growing up in Sydney. For starters I like the old fashioned hymns, say 4 stanzas with 4 lines, rather than modern music with repetitious words and music.

So I'm not necessarily recommending Pentecostalism--I'm just recommending a focus on the Holy Spirit as the source of personal communication with God.

This is most probably a major difference as we rely on reading and meditating on the Word of God. This difference was highlighted by the divide between Muntzer and Luther on the subject of the Holy Spirit.

I can't for example say, logically, that I've seen God, but what I've really seen are angels, or a combination of God, angels, and judges. But I do understand that you're defining Elohim in a plurality different to how Trinitarians may define Him.

Possibly a few examples may help, and these need to be carefully understood in their respective contexts:
Exodus 21:6 (KJV): Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Exodus 21:6 (NASB95): then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.

Exodus 21:6 (ESV): then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

Psalm 8:5 (KJV): For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Psalm 8:5 (NASB95): Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!

I'm glad you have peace where you are. I would only recommend looking further if you felt unfulfilled or troubled. I can't understand it, but you say you are.

Yes, I have found a deeply satisfying faith and environment. The last direction I would look would be Pentecostalism or Evangelicalism, especially the volatile ones.

I find my consolation in my own sense of a divine Christ--one whose work and Person is access through the Holy Spirit.

Again our sharp divide. I like Psalm 1 and have a thread on this.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[RandyK]

Greetings again RandyK,

I was basing my comments on my general assessment and experience. Even in my own immediate fellowship of 8 meetings I feel more comfortable in my present fairly conservative meeting which I joined over 40 years ago after growing up in Sydney. For starters I like the old fashioned hymns, say 4 stanzas with 4 lines, rather than modern music with repetitious words and music.

This is most probably a major difference as we rely on reading and meditating on the Word of God. This difference was highlighted by the divide between Muntzer and Luther on the subject of the Holy Spirit.

Possibly a few examples may help, and these need to be carefully understood in their respective contexts:
Exodus 21:6 (KJV): Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Exodus 21:6 (NASB95): then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.

Exodus 21:6 (ESV): then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

Psalm 8:5 (KJV): For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Psalm 8:5 (NASB95): Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!

Yes, I have found a deeply satisfying faith and environment. The last direction I would look would be Pentecostalism or Evangelicalism, especially the volatile ones.

Again our sharp divide. I like Psalm 1 and have a thread on this.

Kind regards
Trevor

Understood. I'm not sure that was the primary divide between Luther and Muntzer. Both believed in the Holy Spirit. Luther did not seem to believe in revolution--just reformation. Muntzer seemed to advocate for an overthrow of the political and religious order.

Muntzer seemed to view the Holy Spirit as a form of subjective guidance distinct from the truths of Scripture. Advocating for revolution against the political and religious order would not conform to the spirit of Scripture.

But there are similarities, I think, between this disagreement between Luther and Muntzer and the current beliefs of both Pentecostals and Baptists. The latter are at heart separatists who wish to impose a Congregational approach as opposed to any sense of a State Church, ie a separation of Church and State.

Your definition of Elohim confuses the different applications of the word. And it is context that determines how it is being used. We cannot, for example, say that because Elohim is used for judges in one instance that it also refers to God at the same time.

In reality, in one context Elohim may mean strictly God, and on another occasion the reference may be to holy administrators of God's work. For example, to bring people before anointed political or religious leaders would be in effect bringing them before God. But this should not confuse the definition of Elohim as meaning, in all occasions, the inclusion of judges with God.

No, Elohim in certain contexts refers only to God and not His judges, while in other contexts the word may be used in reference only to holy judges. This would be like confusing definition #1 of "elohim" with definition #2 or #3.

"Elohim" in itself, when applying to God alone, suggests He is a plurality of sorts, even if undefined. It is being stated up against the common sense in paganism where "God" is believed to include many gods.

Only, in the Bible, God is not many gods, which suggests that His plurality is in how He manifests Himself in our experience, whether as a theophany, as the Spirit in various places, or as Christ himself.

The fact people can be brought before "elohim" when in that context the reference is only to human judges indicates that the word "elohim" is being used in a different definition. Or, to say that people are being brought before God when being brought before holy judges is not to conflate God and His judges. My opinion only...

 

[JLB]

Greetings again JLB,

Yes, but our English word "God" does not cover the meaning and application of the Hebrew word "Elohim" as I have explained in my previous Post. Also consider Jesus' exposition and reference to this in John 10:30-36 when speaking about the corrupt Judges.

Kind regards
Trevor

Moses was looking at God.

Moses was not looking at God the Father.

No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. John 1:18

 

[JLB]

My assessment of what happens and what has happened at a local Pentecostal Church is not very good.

I don’t attend a “Pentecostal” church.

I don’t see what this has to do with the subject.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again JLB and RandyK,

Moses was looking at God. Moses was not looking at God the Father.

Good logic but I consider that this does not explain the details. I am not sure if you are KJV only, but the KJV translates three Hebrew words El, Eloahh and Elohim by the English word God. Each has a different range of meaning.

I don’t attend a “Pentecostal” church. I don’t see what this has to do with the subject.

Yes, it is off topic, but I am interested in discussing this briefly with RandyK.

I'm not sure that was the primary divide between Luther and Muntzer. Both believed in the Holy Spirit.
Muntzer seemed to view the Holy Spirit as a form of subjective guidance distinct from the truths of Scripture.

I read a book called "Here I Stand - A Life of Martin Luther" and I was interested in his comments in the following:
"The real menace of Muntzer in Luther's eyes was that he destroyed the uniqueness of Christian revelation in the past by his elevation of revelation in the present. Luther for himself had had absolutely no experience of any contemporary revelation, and in times of despondency the advice to rely upon the spirit was for him a counsel of despair, since within he could only find blackness. In such moments he must have assurance in tangible form in a written record of the stupendous act of God in Christ. .... At this point lies much of the difference not only between Muntzer and Luther, but between modern liberal Protestantism and the religion of the founders."

I consider the difference between one of my meetings where a simple, clear exposition of the Word is central, and a Pentecostal meeting is where it is considered that the Holy Spirit is very active, especially tongues and healing. This comparison is also probable between our individual lives. My mention of Psalm 1 is that we need to quietly meditate on the Word, not waiting for Holy Spirit direction, and maybe not relying on an active voice within.

In reality, in one context Elohim may mean strictly God, and on another occasion the reference may be to holy administrators of God's work. For example, to bring people before anointed political or religious leaders would be in effect bringing them before God. But this should not confuse the definition of Elohim as meaning, in all occasions, the inclusion of judges with God.
No, Elohim in certain contexts refers only to God and not His judges, while in other contexts the word may be used in reference only to holy judges. This would be like confusing definition #1 of "elohim" with definition #2 or #3.

As stated above there are three related words, El (Strength, Might or Power), Eloahh (Mighty One), Elohim (Mighty Ones). My assessment of the word Elohim, is that it represents the One God, Yahweh who delights to share his purpose and work with others, including Angels, Judges and especially our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The fact people can be brought before "elohim" when in that context the reference is only to human judges indicates that the word "elohim" is being used in a different definition. Or, to say that people are being brought before God when being brought before holy judges is not to conflate God and His judges. My opinion only..

I do consider that that Elohim as applied to the Judges is NOT a separate definition, but intimately connected. The two following references help in this aspect:

Deuteronomy 1:16–17 (KJV): 16 And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. 17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.

2 Chronicles 19:5–7 (KJV): 5 And he set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, 6 And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment. 7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.

Kind regards
Trevor


"

 

[JLB]

Greetings again JLB and RandyK,

Good logic but I consider that this does not explain the details. I am not sure if you are KJV only, but the KJV translates three Hebrew words El, Eloahh and Elohim by the English word God. Each has a different range of meaning.

Yes, it is off topic, but I am interested in discussing this briefly with RandyK.

I read a book called "Here I Stand - A Life of Martin Luther" and I was interested in his comments in the following:
"The real menace of Muntzer in Luther's eyes was that he destroyed the uniqueness of Christian revelation in the past by his elevation of revelation in the present. Luther for himself had had absolutely no experience of any contemporary revelation, and in times of despondency the advice to rely upon the spirit was for him a counsel of despair, since within he could only find blackness. In such moments he must have assurance in tangible form in a written record of the stupendous act of God in Christ. .... At this point lies much of the difference not only between Muntzer and Luther, but between modern liberal Protestantism and the religion of the founders."

I consider the difference between one of my meetings where a simple, clear exposition of the Word is central, and a Pentecostal meeting is where it is considered that the Holy Spirit is very active, especially tongues and healing. This comparison is also probable between our individual lives. My mention of Psalm 1 is that we need to quietly meditate on the Word, not waiting for Holy Spirit direction, and maybe not relying on an active voice within.

As stated above there are three related words, El (Strength, Might or Power), Eloahh (Mighty One), Elohim (Mighty Ones). My assessment of the word Elohim, is that it represents the One God, Yahweh who delights to share his purpose and work with others, including Angels, Judges and especially our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

I do consider that that Elohim as applied to the Judges is NOT a separate definition, but intimately connected. The two following references help in this aspect:

Deuteronomy 1:16–17 (KJV): 16 And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. 17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.

2 Chronicles 19:5–7 (KJV): 5 And he set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, 6 And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment. 7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.

Kind regards
Trevor


"

Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. Exodus 3:6


Nothing in your post addresses the fact that the Angel of the LORD is God.

Nothing in your post addresses the truth that the Father refers to the Son as God; the Creator of heaven and earth.

But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
And: “You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands. Hebrews 1:8-10


The Father calls the Son, YHWH, as the One who created the heavens and the earth.

The Son certainly pre-existed as God
(the Son) before He became flesh.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:16


Please consider these scriptures.

 

[RandyK]

Greetings again JLB and RandyK,

Good logic but I consider that this does not explain the details. I am not sure if you are KJV only, but the KJV translates three Hebrew words El, Eloahh and Elohim by the English word God. Each has a different range of meaning.

Yes, it is off topic, but I am interested in discussing this briefly with RandyK.

I read a book called "Here I Stand - A Life of Martin Luther" and I was interested in his comments in the following:
"The real menace of Muntzer in Luther's eyes was that he destroyed the uniqueness of Christian revelation in the past by his elevation of revelation in the present. Luther for himself had had absolutely no experience of any contemporary revelation, and in times of despondency the advice to rely upon the spirit was for him a counsel of despair, since within he could only find blackness. In such moments he must have assurance in tangible form in a written record of the stupendous act of God in Christ. .... At this point lies much of the difference not only between Muntzer and Luther, but between modern liberal Protestantism and the religion of the founders."

I consider the difference between one of my meetings where a simple, clear exposition of the Word is central, and a Pentecostal meeting is where it is considered that the Holy Spirit is very active, especially tongues and healing. This comparison is also probable between our individual lives. My mention of Psalm 1 is that we need to quietly meditate on the Word, not waiting for Holy Spirit direction, and maybe not relying on an active voice within.

As stated above there are three related words, El (Strength, Might or Power), Eloahh (Mighty One), Elohim (Mighty Ones). My assessment of the word Elohim, is that it represents the One God, Yahweh who delights to share his purpose and work with others, including Angels, Judges and especially our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

I do consider that that Elohim as applied to the Judges is NOT a separate definition, but intimately connected. The two following references help in this aspect:

Deuteronomy 1:16–17 (KJV): 16 And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. 17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.

2 Chronicles 19:5–7 (KJV): 5 And he set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, 6 And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment. 7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.

I understand your points. They are reasonable, even though I don't agree with them.

There is a close connection between delegated judges and God Himself. In my view, the word "Elohim" applies to the one God in definition #1 and to judges in definition #2, since judges are delegates of God or ambassadors for God. It would be like saying that when a person addresses political representatives of the President that he is indirectly addressing the President himself.

When people address judges appointed on behalf of God it is viewed that they are actually addressing God, whose representatives they are addressing. This sort of ties in to what you were saying about Luther and Muntzer/Pentecostals. Is revelation from God active and living, or is it embedded rationally in Scriptures, to be divined via the conscience and through the rational processes of verification?

Luther erred on the side of rationality, trusting not blindly in the Scriptures but looking to the Scriptures to verify the common element that is universally linked to divine revelation based on universal Christian standards. Muntzer was interested in the mystical side of this.

We can even see this carried on here in the US in the historic Jesus Generation, where Chuck Smith and his Calvary Chapel network chose to focus primarily on Scriptural commentary whereas John Wimber and the Vineyard movement chose to include focus on personal revelation, miracles, and supernatural guidance.

This has long been an issue in the Christian Church, and I'm sort of caught in the middle, having been raised a Lutheran and now having spent decades in the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement. I've become very separated from my current church standing because I turned to apologetics in order to avoid the errors attending subjective guidance.

Again, I think it is a profound error to give up on subjective guidance simply due to the problems associated with it. God is by definition a personal experience, and voiding this leads to an empty "churchianity" very similar to a fraternal organization.

Truth held to be Scriptural is also subject to subjectivity and private interpretation. Holding strictly to tradition falls into what I believe is the Catholic error of turning tradition into a kind of "idol," dogmatically imposed in the interest not of the individual but of the group.

Back to the Trinity thing, I think the plural form of "Elohim" should not confuse us into thinking that God must include, in His definition, an association of delegated authorities or representatives, nor should "God" necessarily be viewed as a Trinity of Persons (by definition alone).

We would address God the Father as a single Person, even if in our definition of "God" there is an inherent transcendence beyond a single Personality. The term "Elohim" is plural because the word for God in ancient pagan culture referred to a plurality of "gods." This term was applied by the Hebrews to a single God. Hence, God is the true "plurality of gods," namely a single God.

The fact he is depicted as plural may not just be given to counteract the inferred plurality of gods in ancient culture, but also to show His transcendence of a single Person, as we understand it. As a transcendent Being He has showed HImself as more than a single Person, even though we often address Him as such. He can appear in theophanies, in local expressions of HIs Spirit, and in His only Son, Jesus.

I understand that for most of us, this conversation may appear somewhat "opaque." But we do our best?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again RandyK,

The term "Elohim" is plural because the word for God in ancient pagan culture referred to a plurality of "gods." This term was applied by the Hebrews to a single God. Hence, God is the true "plurality of gods," namely a single God.

I appreciate many of your comments. I disagree that Elohim is in any way derived from the pagan religions. God's revelation is pure and complete from Genesis to Revelation, and many themes started in the early chapters of Genesis are completed in the Book of Revelation. For example The Cherubim, and this is another interesting subject, in some way associated with God and his dealings with mankind.

We are introduced to the word Elohim in the very first verse, and we are immediately faced with an anomaly in that the word Elohim is plural, while the verb is singular.
Genesis 1:1 (KJV): In the beginning God (Elohim - plural = Mighty Ones) created (singular =the One Deity, Yahweh. God the Father) the heaven and the earth.
We seem to have a different perspective on what this represents. Your comment also seems to have a hint at the concept of the Documentary Hypothesis, but this is not as popular today as it was 100 years ago.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[RandyK]

Greetings again RandyK,

I appreciate many of your comments. I disagree that Elohim is in any way derived from the pagan religions. God's revelation is pure and complete from Genesis to Revelation, and many themes started in the early chapters of Genesis are completed in the Book of Revelation. For example The Cherubim, and this is another interesting subject, in some way associated with God and his dealings with mankind.

We are introduced to the word Elohim in the very first verse, and we are immediately faced with an anomaly in that the word Elohim is plural, while the verb is singular.
Genesis 1:1 (KJV): In the beginning God (Elohim - plural = Mighty Ones) created (singular =the One Deity, Yahweh. God the Father) the heaven and the earth.
We seem to have a different perspective on what this represents. Your comment also seems to have a hint at the concept of the Documentary Hypothesis, but this is not as popular today as it was 100 years ago.

Liberal Theologians have long questioned the validity of the Scriptures, and have seen it as worthy of criticism. But my point was lingual, and not questioning the reliability of the Scriptures and questioning their authorship.

The word "Elohim" had an origin in a culture that we know was pagan and polytheistic. The Hebrews lived within the Egyptian culture before they came out of Egypt, and that culture was pagan and polytheistic.

Therefore, the word for God that they used reflected the polytheistic character that the Egyptians had, which Moses then began to use for their monotheistic Deity. Same word in the form that applies to multiple deities is now used to apply to a single Deity.

How do I know this? I don't in the absolute sense. But the fact the Hebrews used a plural word indicating many gods is now used with singular verbs to express a single God indicates this to me. It is what I choose to believe at present because it is most logical to me.

The idea that the etymology of the word was designed to express the Hebrew Deity in concert with angels and judges seems ludicrous to me. It seems just as ludicrous to say the word was designed to express the Trinity, even if the word "God" can encompass a Trinity.

It may be an accident of the word, being plural, that it later came to represent the plurality in the Trinity? Or, the word may have been designed to show that a single God can match polytheism for the many expressions of Persons God can take?

Thanks for sharing what you believe.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again RandyK,

Therefore, the word for God that they used reflected the polytheistic character that the Egyptians had, which Moses then began to use for their monotheistic Deity.

I do not accept this. I consider the word Elohim started in the Garden and continued through Noah and his faithful descendants. Paganism was a corruption of Biblical truth.

The idea that the etymology of the word was designed to express the Hebrew Deity in concert with angels and judges seems ludicrous to me.

I consider that the Angels were participants in the Creation, and this is the meaning of the word Elohim in Genesis 1:1, Genesis 1:26-27 and Psalm 8:5 which is David's interpretation and commentary on these events. Your assessment of "ludicrous", but my strong conviction.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[RandyK]

Greetings again RandyK,

I do not accept this. I consider the word Elohim started in the Garden and continued through Noah and his faithful descendants. Paganism was a corruption of Biblical truth.

So, you think that a language was developed by Adam and Eve, which then continued as the same language until the time of Moses and the Hebrew People? And all other languages, including that of the Egyptians, was a divergence from this "Adamic" language or an abuse of such Hebrew terms as "Elohim?"

And you believe that the Hebrews didn't borrow any words from other languages, but other languages simply diverged from a pure Hebrew language which remained "uncontaminated" by other languages? And your evidence for this is what?

I consider that the Angels were participants in the Creation, and this is the meaning of the word Elohim in Genesis 1:1, Genesis 1:26-27 and Psalm 8:5 which is David's interpretation and commentary on these events. Your assessment of "ludicrous", but my strong conviction.

Where in the Bible does it say that the angels participated in Creation? If your only basis for thinking this is your unique view of the word "Elohim," your view is incredibly sketchy.

It would be a form of circular logic. The proof that "Elohim" included the angels is the assumption that "Elohim" includes the angels by definition. Poor evidence in my book!

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again RandyK,

So, you think that a language was developed by Adam and Eve, which then continued as the same language until the time of Moses and the Hebrew People?

I consider that Angels were present in the Garden and communicated with Adam and Eve. They did not invent their own language. Whether this language changed over the years does not matter, but what we have today in the Hebrew would under inspiration at least, reflect accurately what was spoken in the Garden and immediately afterwards. If Hebrew is like a translation of a different language, then the Mosaic version is completely inspired when he wrote the Pentateuch, and ALL aspects would be accurately conveyed in the Pentateuch. As I stated, I reject the Documentary Hypothesis which is now usually moved from two sources, then four and some "experts" additional sources.

Deuteronomy 1:1 (KJV): These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain over against the Red sea, between Paran, and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Dizahab.

Deuteronomy 31:22 (KJV): Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel.

Where in the Bible does it say that the angels participated in Creation? If your only basis for thinking this is your unique view of the word "Elohim," your view is incredibly sketchy.

Genesis 1:26–27 (KJV): 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I consider that the "us", "our" and "our" is the One God, Yahweh, God the Father inviting the Angels to participate in the creation of man. The Angels were the only Beings present apart from the One God, Yahweh. Many appearances of Angels were at first mistaken as men.

I consider that David is affirming this in
Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels (Hebrew: Elohim), and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
If man was made in the image and likeness of the Angels, than of necessity Adam was made "a little lower" than the Angels, as is also evident by the events of Genesis 3.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[RandyK]

Greetings again RandyK,

I consider that Angels were present in the Garden and communicated with Adam and Eve. They did not invent their own language. Whether this language changed over the years does not matter, but what we have today in the Hebrew would under inspiration at least, reflect accurately what was spoken in the Garden and immediately afterwards. If Hebrew is like a translation of a different language, then the Mosaic version is completely inspired when he wrote the Pentateuch, and ALL aspects would be accurately conveyed in the Pentateuch. As I stated, I reject the Documentary Hypothesis which is now usually moved from two sources, then four and some "experts" additional sources.

Deuteronomy 1:1 (KJV): These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain over against the Red sea, between Paran, and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Dizahab.

Deuteronomy 31:22 (KJV): Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel.

Genesis 1:26–27 (KJV): 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I consider that the "us", "our" and "our" is the One God, Yahweh, God the Father inviting the Angels to participate in the creation of man. The Angels were the only Beings present apart from the One God, Yahweh. Many appearances of Angels were at first mistaken as men.

I consider that David is affirming this in
Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels (Hebrew: Elohim), and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
If man was made in the image and likeness of the Angels, than of necessity Adam was made "a little lower" than the Angels, as is also evident by the events of Genesis 3.

Kind regards
Trevor

I understand, but in all honesty, your argument sounds "contrived" and artificial, designed simply to prove a point of view you wish to believe. I say this because it is all based on assumptions, that the angels were there from the beginning, involved in Creation, and that language was not "borrowed" from pagan cultures by the biblical authors, etc.

You are therefore assuming that "Elohim," being plural, and including the plural pronouns, must indicate angels are included. Again, the argument and the conclusion are largely built on assumptions, which is very hard for anybody to hang their beliefs on.

As for my hypothesis, at least I admit that my assumption, that "Elohim" is used to counter pagan polytheism, is a sketchy argument. However, I could add to that examples of other places in Moses' Law, where pagan practices are forbidden while other practices appear to be substituted for them.

Why, for example, would Moses be given all of the requirements of the Law that are not essential today, after Christ's redemption? Pagan practices were forbidden, and various requirements of the Law were given as a substitute for specific examples of pagan worship.

This is a good example of building a theology on the sketchiest of biblical words and statements, instead of trusting that the Holy Spirit will make the most important truths clear and repeated. Why include angels if the Bible does not explicitly define "Elohim" as including them?