Yesterday I wrote a response to a Oneness Pentecostal theologian who placed emphasis on the lack of “Father-Son terminology” in the OT (see here). After I posted my thoughts I begin to ponder the hermeneutical approach to the OT exemplified both by the NT authors as well as the early church fathers. Here are some of the ideas that crossed my mind that I would like to place here in order to hear responses from others:
(1) The ‘Son of God’ terminology in the OT referred primarily to a human. It was usually used of the Davidic king, but it could also be used of Israel in general. Yet Christianity, especially Johannine Christianity, placed special emphasis on ‘Son of God’ as a category of deity rather than mere humanity. Did the NT authors and the early church fathers abuse the original terminology to prove their a priori conclusions or did they recognize the sensus plenior of this statement thereby recognizing that the true ‘Son of God’ must be deity?
(2) If we allow for the NT authors and the church fathers to read back into the OT using a Christocentric hermeneutic why can we not allow for this same approach when we reinterpret the OT in regards to the Trinity? For instance, in the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Colossians it is obvious that there is a sense in which Genesis 1:1-3 has been reread through Christology. In John 1:1-3 the “Word” which was with God as well as being God is clearly derived from Genesis 1:3 where God speaks creation into existence. Furthermore, in Colossians 1:16-17 we see the transference of the wisdom of God–which Jewish literature depicts as God’s creative agent–to Christ. If Christ is the agent of creation he is understood to be the Word/Wisdom of God that was from the beginning.
(3) Equally, the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:1-28 us depicted as the agent of new creation. The Holy Spirit is redeeming the “sons of God”. In vv. 19-25 it becomes obvious that part of the Holy Spirit’s creative activity is new creation, or recreating. The whole cosmos groan and patiently wait for the children of God to be redeemed. Inherent in this text is the idea of resurrection. Christ is the “firstborn” from the dead; those who rise again to glorification are his siblings. The whole creation awaits this latter half because at that time it will be released from its own current bondage (hence, newly created itself).
It appears pretty obvious to me that the Apostle Paul understands the Holy Spirit as having a role in recreation. It is likely that the Holy Spirit as creator derives from Genesis 1:2 (at least). There the Spirit hovers over the face of the waters.
(4) If we maintain the hermeneutical approach of Oneness Pentecostalism regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, thereby closing off the OT to any discussion regarding the Triune nature of God, we cut off a hermeneutical approach shared by the NT authors as well as the early church fathers. If these people could see God as Creator, Word, and Spirit in Genesis 1:1-3 and then apply these attributes to the personified expressions Father, Son/Word, and Holy Spirit, why can’t we do the same?
(5) Although it is true that the NT writers never used the word “Trinity” it is not true that the concept was not there. It is admitted by Oneness Pentecostals that there is some “personal” distinction between the Father and Son. The Father is understood to be God-transcendent; the Son as God-incarnate. But the Spirit is equally personified by Paul in Romans 8:26-28. The Spirit intercedes for us. Oneness theologians often used the incarnation to explain the prayers of Jesus (which is partially true since prayer was needed because of his incarnate state), thereby making the body/flesh pray to the transcendent Deity (often falling into Nestorianism). But what do we do of the Spirit’s intercession on behalf of Christians to the Father because the Spirit knows the will of the Father?
Usually Oneness theologians do a bit of exegetical gymnastics here. I have heard “The Spirit knows the will of the Father because the Spirit is the Father”. Ok, why didn’t Paul just say that? It would have cleared up a lot of confusion!
(5) Finally, I want to throw this out there although it is somewhat unrelated. Why do Oneness Pentecostals argue that the Trinity is an “extra-biblical development” (as if all theology isn’t?) yet affirm the Protestant canon? Let us be clear about this: the canon is equally a later development as the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostals rightly affirm that the Scriptures that became canon where already canonical but had to be recognized. Yes, and I say the Trinity was proto-orthodox, it just had to be clarified.
Anyways, those are my five thesis. I am not Martin Luther. But I hope for some feedback if anyone has any thoughts on these matters.
the archives near Emmaus 
The Old Testament is full of references about the Trinity. But most of the theologians refuse to accept it.
Here is a list of books devoted to Old and New Testament Trinitarian proofs. May be you know these books already.
1. The Great Mystery: or, How can Three be One? by Christian William Henry Pauli. Published by William Macintosh, 1863. Can be downloaded for free from Google books.
Pauli (1800 – 1877) or Hirsch Prinz (his original Jewish name), was a presbyter of the Church of England. He also worked as a lecturer in Hebrew at Oxford University, Cambridge. The Great mystery; or, How can Three be One? was reprinted around 1970 and is being sold by messianic literature book stores under the title “The Great Mystery or how can three be one,” by Rabbi Tzvi Nassi. It’s unclear whether Rabbi Tzvi Nassi is CWH Pauli. This book draws its conclusions from the Old Testament and the writings of Jewish Mystics. Source: Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (John McClintock, p765, 1889)
2. The Mystery of the Holy Trinity in Oldest Judaism. By Dr. Frank McGloin. Published by McVey, 1916. Can be downloaded for free from Google books.
3. The Jewish Trinity: When Rabbis Believed in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit: by Yoel Natan. Published by Yoel Natan, 2003. Full preview available in Google books.
Yoel Natan is author of the books The Jewish Trinity, The Jewish Trinity Sourcebook and Moon-o-theism, a book that shows Allah was a pre-Islamic South Arabian war-god and moon-god. The Jewish Trinity formed the basis for this blog, and the amount of evidence this book presents is just impressive.
4. The Trinity As Revealed in the Old Testament by Ford Wilson (Paperback – Mar 13, 2007). Limited preview available in Google books.
5. The Trinity: In the Light of the Old Testament and Rabbinical Literature By Elias Newman (Paperback – 1922).
Great list! Thank you for posting this.
Brian,
I think this is exactly right. It should also be noted, though you know doubt know already, that the term “oneness” isn’t in the bible either.
Also, the Christological hermenutic I think puts Christ in the right place, at the center. Christology and hermenutics intersect socu that the one selects for a specific Christology and vice versa.
The Oneness interpretive grid ends up cutting off the OT and verges on a more Manichean approach.
Well, I don’t know what the Manichean approach is, but I’ve never once cut off the OT to affirm the Oneness of God.
Hi Brad, the issue isn’t the “Oneness” of God in the OT, but the idea of the Trinity in the OT.
UPDATE: Sorry, it wasn’t clear to me that you were replying to a comment and not to the post itself.
You don’t see the irony in this statement: “Usually Oneness theologians do a bit of exegetical gymnastics here.”
I’m not a oneness advocate or a theologian, but there is no more convoluted idea in the history of the world than the trinity. No idea that has generated more mental gymnastics or forced the creation of whole genres of “hermaeutics” than the trinity. Even Greek myths had more logic than the trinity.
To believe the trinity and the accuracy of the bible one has to create distinctions between the “essences” of God, while maintaining that one can be begotton and eternal. One has to believe that a divine being can split himself apart, talk to himself and even die.
You don’t see the irony in your statement? The bible was written by simple people with simple ideas. The God of Israel is the chief God. Obey him and prosper. Disobey him and suffer. The Messiah will rule and put Israel’s enemies under his feet. Justice and righteousness will reign.
Yet Christians have taken those simple ideas and created a set of beliefs that only a ph.D in ridiculous silly talk can explain. Not one person in 100 in the pews can actually explain what he or she believes that everyone must believe in order to “go to heaven,” and maybe one in 1000 has any idea how those views developed.
Your argument about the OT in NT times seems to be that because people made shit up about the OT in the early common era, then it is OK for us to do the same today. Sorry, there is no explicit mention of the trinity in the Hebrew bible because nobody had conceived of an idea so ridiculous.
So you believe the trinity is in the Hebrew writings in some kind of code that was not known to the authors, and then accuse others of having complicated ideas? Up is down, I guess.
Bonds,
First, there is a difference between exegetical gymnastics and logical gymnastics. You attack the Trinity on the basis of what you understand the be logical inconsistencies. You do little to even try to comprehend how biblical theology works. If I ever write a post on how the Trinity make mathematical or philosophical sense I would really appreciate your response. It is not likely I will ever write such a post. So it is unlikely I will ever appreciate your comments.
Second, the concept of the Trinity unfolds from the Old Testament on the basis of the Christ-event. It has nothing to do with “Bible codes”. Go do some reading, learn how to discuss such matters, and then come back (or don’t).
Bonds,
I think I’ll take some of your remarks under the heading hyperbole. For my part, Trinitarianism is far more coherent than the Greek pantheon. Most of your other remarks constitutes nothing more than bald assertions which only require a denial as an adequate refutation.
Part of the problem you have it seems is that your rejection of essential and hypostatic distinctions is that for you there really isn’t any difference between the nature of a thing, what it is and personhood. That seems sub-biblical and quite Hellenistic, since the Greek philosophers didn’t have a concept of person distinct from that of an individual object, a hold over from the days of Greek animism.
Trinitarianism may entail that we make such distinctions between person and nature, but that of itself doesn’t imply that such distinctions are incoherent or do no explanatory work.
And your remarks about God “splitting himself” show that you haven’t grasped the distinctions in question since you are thinking of it in terms of a division and a division of nature at that. The same goes for the idea that Trinitarianism posits that God talks to himself. It does no such thing.
Perhaps it does take a PhD to explain them, but it also takes a PhD to explain how your eye ball works too. I suppose by such reasoning we should pluck out our eyes and stop driving cars too. If things are complicated, complaining about it won’t change it. And frankly, after having read Sabin, Bernard and such, Oneness theology isn’t a “See Jesus Run” booklet either.
There is no explicit mention of Oneness view in the OT either so I guess people just “made shit up” there too.
Most Jews rejected the idea that a crucified Messiah was latent in the OT too and that Christians just “made shit up.” So I suppose we should follow your reading and dispense with the idea of some kind of “code” for a crucified Messiah and all be Jewish.
bonds,
You said:
To believe the trinity and the accuracy of the bible one has to create distinctions between the “essences” of God, while maintaining that one can be begotton and eternal. One has to believe that a divine being can split himself apart, talk to himself and even die.
I can already tell you have no idea what the doctrine of the Trinity actually states. The doctrine of the Trinity doesn’t create “distinctions between the ‘essences’ of God.” A popular – and correct – phrase is: one essence, three persons.
You also said:
Sorry, there is no explicit mention of the trinity in the Hebrew bible because nobody had conceived of an idea so ridiculous.
Most Trinitarians are comfortable with the apparent silence of the Trinity in the Hebrew scriptures. Brian’s point is that the New Testament sheds light on the concept of the Trinity in the Hebrew scriptures. Your statement presupposes that God is under some kind of obligation to reveal himself fully and completely as Trinity in the Old Testament. You take that presupposition and read it into the Hebrew bible, and voila, circular reasoning. Not only that, but you’ve made an argument from silence, which really isn’t evidence of no Trinity in the OT.
I appreciate your critiques, but polemics against the Trinity isn’t addressing the points raised in the post.
ottblogger refers to Yoel Natan books on the Trinity and Islam. One of the Trinity books of his in in the Western Sem library:
http://www.yoel.info/seminary_rank.htm
See the Western Sem library catalog:
http://opall.mtangel.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First
Eh?
Brian LePort said “Eh?” for some reason. Yoel Natan was mentioned in the comments, and Brian LePort attends Western Seminary, so why not point out Yoel Natan’s book in Western Seminary’s library:
http://opall.mtangel.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First
Natan, Yoel,
Title: The Jewish trinity : when rabbis believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
Primary Material: Book
Publisher: Chula Vista, CA : Aventine Press, c2003.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references (p. [341]-356) and index.
Linked Resources: Table of contents only
Location: Western Seminary – Main Stacks
Call Number: 231.044 N272j
Number of Items: 1
Status: Available
———————
Main Author: Natan, Yoel,
Title: The Jewish trinity : when rabbis believed in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit /
Primary Material: Book
Publisher: [S. I.] : CreateSpace.com, c2003.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references (p. [341]-356) and index.
Location: Multnomah University – Stacks
Call Number: BT112 .N38 2003b
Number of Items: 1
Status: Available
Ah, I see. It was one of the first comments so I wasn’t sure about the context of the book reference. It makes sense now!
I was simply reading my devotional for the morning and got catapulted into some serious discussions on the evidences of the Trinity in the Old Testament. Whoa! As a layman-teacher of a Sunday School class for adults, I appreciate the posts that give further thought and substance to my studies of the Word. Thank you all.