Tag: trinity

            Where was Jesus before the incarnation? For many this is an unpopular question to ask even in light of contemporary viewpoints on the Trinity. Typically, Christians believe that Jesus suddenly sprang into action in the Fall of 5BC when he was born in a manger and became Immanuel (God with us) and was called Jesus (YHWH saves). However, a grander look at the Old Testament presents to us a different view of what we would call the second member of the Trinity. Not as one waiting in line to be incarnated but rather as an active and integral part of God’s interactions with His covenant people and creation in general.

            My goal today is to demonstrate how Michael Heiser and others with a similar viewpoint understand Jesus as the culmination of the now heretical (in Jewish theology) view of the second YHWH, who interacted physically with God’s chosen people in the centuries prior to the incarnation in a way which preserves the Jewish Shema, the Christian concept of the Trinity and larger Ancient Near East religious narratives.

The Revealing of a Second YHWH

            In the beginning we encounter in the garden of Eden not an ethereal deity floating amidst the garden in the “cool of the day,” but one who walked beside His creation. From this point on we have many instances of the supreme, omniscient, omnipotent God and creator interacting with His creation. How God goes about this however is a matter of debate, do we see God as all places at all times or do we see Him as a singularity at limited places at limited times, or in the language of the Trinity is it somehow both?

            If we are to follow Trinitarian language, we would ascribe the first member of the Trinity (the Father) as the one being all places at all times in the fullness of eternity. We then could see the second member of the Trinity (the Son in New Testament language) as being a limited corporeal (viewable by natural eyes) version or expression of God which is able to coexist and interact with creation while maintaining the fullness of His divinity without unleashing His full presence and glory. It is still God yet a distinct person who takes on the role of a physical mediator or point of contact between the heavenly realm and the natural realm and is distinct from the Holy Spirit who is a spiritual/ethereal point of contact between the two realms.

The concept of an intermediary figure is not a new one as Jewish scholarship has shed light on this concept through the lens of,

various intermediary figures, such as angels and personified divine attributes, and the exalted role attributed to human figures such as Enoch, Moses, and Abel. It is thus quite possible that early Christianity’s view of Jesus, even the more developed Christology of John’s Gospel and later theologians, may owe more to Christianity’s Jewish roots.[1]  

Furthermore, Benjamin Sommer states,

No Jew sensitive to Judaism’s own classical sources, however, can fault the theological model Christianity employs when it avows belief in a God who has an earthly body as well as a Holy Spirit and a heavenly manifestation, for that model, we have seen, is a perfectly Jewish one.[2]

            This proposed understanding can remain valid through a Christian theological worldview as this intermediary is presented not as a created being assuming the attributes of God but rather we see according to Heiser, “God understood that only he could be trusted with perfectly accomplishing his own will.”^[3] Thus the necessity of God utilizing Himself in the form of a second YWHW or though the Christian understanding of the Trinity becomes paramount. This is especially true for Heiser who seeks to reintroduce the Jewish supernatural worldview which includes a divine council of elohims[4] to modern theology, with Christ now being the head of this council.

The Second YHWH “heresy” in Judaism

            While it may be tempting to contain this argument within Christian theology there is a need to delve into the Rabbinic arguments which surround this concept of a second more corporeal YHWH who was present in the Old Testament. The best modern source of this debate comes from Alan Segal and his work The Two Powers in Heaven, there Segal states, “It became clear that ‘two powers in heaven’ was a very early category of heresy, earlier than Jesus.”[5] This shows in part that the theological foundation stones used by the church were not spontaneous but came from an older tradition which was hotly contested by intertestamental Rabbis. Research shows us that “there is significant evidence (uncovered in large part by Segal) that in the first century many— perhaps most— Jews held a binitarian doctrine of God,”[6] one in which Christians were able to understand through the doctrine of the Trinity and the incarnation.

            Heiser points out that “In regard to the rabbinic material, Segal took note that the rabbinic justification for a second power, a second YHWH figure, was linked to passages such as Exodus 15:3 and Daniel 7:13. The former text portrayed YHWH, the God of Israel, as “a man of war.” The latter identified a second figure in the throne room of Israel’s God (the “Ancient of Days”) as a “human one” who bore the epithet of the cloud rider, elsewhere used only of YHWH in the Hebrew Bible.”[7]

            Originally for some Rabbinic scholars the original issue was that the visible YHWH began to be ascribed to the likes of David and other “exalted” patriarchs, biblical angelic beings such as Michael and even extra-biblical beings such as Metatron and the fear was that these created beings would be elevated to the level of YHWH and in effect to either usurp or falsely claim YHWH’s power and position in heaven. It is no wonder then that following the resurrection this debate was sparked among Rabbis once again to discredit the Christian teaching that Christ was now equal with YHWH through this exalted status as the one seated at His right hand.

            The matter is not that God became corporeal as it was generally accepted by Rabbis in the intertestamental era as “For the Tanakh… God has always been a corporeal being. For Christianity, in contrast, God deigned to take on a body at a particular moment in time; existence in a body was not part of the eternal essence of divinity. In short: Christians believe in incarnation, whereas the Tanakh simply believes in embodiment.”[8]

Ugaritic Roots of Second YHWH

            While the controversy about this expression of God was expounded following the resurrection the debate goes back far further into the history of Israel. There is debate that this bitrintarin or co-regency model may have been inspired or reflected in the Ugaritic religious belief which permeated the Levant before and after Israel came out of Egypt. In the Ugaritic model Heiser points to how there is a divine council which “featured a co-regency involving a high sovereign deity (El) who ruled heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed co-regent deity (Ba’al). The co-regent Ba’al, referred to as “king of the gods” outranked the other deities in council, including the “sons of El” and divine messengers.”[9] From this revelation we can make several arguments, either the biblical account was inspired by the Ugaritic account, the biblical account was catered to counter or supersede the Ugaritic account or finally it may be a matter of a shared cultural starting point such as the tower of Babel incident.

            No matter which hypothesis is correct the “end result was a binitarian or ditheistic portrayal of YHWHas both high sovereign (the “El role”) and the co-regent (the “Ba’al role”).[10] However, it is presented in the Old Testament as having YHWHoccupying both roles. It is no wonder why later on “Christ followers from within Judaism perceived in this co-regency structure a biblical precedent for the belief in Jesus as YHWHincarnate that maintained loyal monotheism to the God of Israel.” [11]

Jesus Before the Incarnation and the Angel of the LORD

            With the Christian, Jewish and Ugaritic foundations laid out we can now begin to see how God through the second member of the Trinity which is equated with the preincarnate Christ interacted with creation at critical points in the development of the “redemption narrative.” Since God in this case could trust no one but Himself to accomplish the task through the guise of the word of the LORD, the Angel of the Lord or even the name of the LORD. In the case of Abraham in Genesis 22 we encounter a blurring of the lines between YHWH and His messenger. “The Angel speaks to Abraham in verse 11, and so is distinguished from God. But immediately after doing so, he commends Abraham for not withholding Isaac “from me.” There is a switch to the first person which, given that God himself had told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22:1–2), seems to require seeing YHWH as the speaker.^[12] For Heiser his view on the preexistence of the Trinity begins to be displayed in these earlier Genesis stories. He advocates strongly in favor that many (not all) instances of the angel of YHWH point towards the visible second member of the Trinity who became Jesus of Nazareth.

            Going forward in the narrative the blurring of the lines between the angel and YHWH become even more complicated throughout the life of Jacob; both during the wrestling narrative and in his blessing of Joseph’s children. Heiser in a detailed study of the concept of Elohim highlights what transpires in Genesis 32:20 as Jacob speaks of seeing God (Elohim) face to face and his later comments in Genesis 48:15-16 how the angel (malak) is responsible for his deliverance and goes on to link those statements with Hosea 12:4-5 where “Hosea quite clearly refers to this particular malek as elohim… One must either interpret Gen 48.15-16 as an identification of the God of Israel as malek or grant that a particular malek is here considered a deity and identified with the God of Israel.”[13]

            “By the time readers reached the exodus deliverance, YHWH and His angel had been closely identified with each other”[14] thanks to the language demonstrated throughout Genesis. When we come to the encounter between Moses and YHWH in Exodus 3 there is enough of a theological precedent to show the seriousness of the encounter. In this encounter we see interchangeable language used between YHWH and the angel and the possibility that it was more than a flame in the bush but the physical appearance of the Angel of the LORD who was in this instance the second member of the Trinity. Since Moses was commanded to remove his sandals due to the holiness of the encounter, something not seen with Gabriel appearing to Mary or Elizabeth.

            Later in Exodus 23:20-22 the same angel reappears again but once again it seems to be no common angel as “this angel has the authority to pardon sins or not, a status that belongs to God. More specifically, God tells Moses that the reason this angel has this authority is “my name is in him” (v. 21).”^[15] Even at a surface glance this language is also clearly attributed to Jesus as being the one able to pardon sins, judge the people and having God’s name upon Him. We also cannot forget that the meaning of the name chosen by God and communicated through Gabriel for the incarnation of the second member of the Trinity was YHWH delivers (Joshua/Jesus).

Early Window into the Trinity

            With everything we have witnessed about the Angel of YHWH and these interactions between the divine and His creation one begins to question the adherence of Israelites to their monotheism. The use of elohim and the appearance of a being who seems to share YHWH’s attributes may spark some theological confusion. Heiser comments, “one would assume in the context of a zealous monotheistic revolution that a term like elohim (‘gods’) would be used with great care after the biblical period so as to avoid any hint of earlier, subsequently offensive, polytheism. But this is precisely what does not happen.”[16] Instead we see that this kind of language, interpretation and expansions by the prophets continues unaltered, either in the language of the Angel of YHWH, theophanies and even in divine council language.

            Among Old Testament Israelites we witness a “kind of practical monotheism, requiring a whole pattern of daily life and cultic worship formed by exclusive allegiance to the one God, presupposes a god who is in some way significantly identifiable.[17] While the Israelites (usually) remained devout to the idea of a single supreme deity and expression of Him thereof “it appears that the only real exception to this rule is found in some traditions involving the Son of Man…the Son of Man is said to exercise judgment on God’s behalf, having been placed on God’s throne… One could argue that this theology is actually generated directly from the implications of Dan. 7:13–14.”^[18]

            The Ancient of Days language along with the claim of being the cloud rider is what drove the Pharisees over the edge in their illegal trail against Jesus. As Jesus called Himself equal with God and being the one who was coming on the clouds and having the right to sit at YHWH’s right hand. This is language familiar to the Pharisees on two fronts: as God’s promise of His coming Messianic reign, and as the superseding of Canaanite/Ugaritic language of Ba’al being the great warrior and cloud rider.

Unlike Canaanite/Ugaritic belief what is being advanced in this theology is God once again entrusting Himself through the person of the second member of the Trinity later incarnated into Jesus as being the one who had the right to rule and reign in His power. The Trinity then becomes the focus as God is not exalting a natural created being or a divine council member.^[19] While “in the Old Testament we do find, however, the provision of a functioning network and community for Yahweh in the divine council. He stands alone, but he does not work alone (i.e., no pantheon, but a functioning council).”[20] Instead we witness YHWH injecting Himself into creation so that the relationship and lines of communication can be restored through the culmination of the resurrection.

The Man, The Name, The Logos

            In many instances of in the Old Testament such as Psalm 20 the use of the word “Name is clearly cast as an entity, as Yahweh himself, In other passages, “the Name” functions as a substitute word for Yahweh.”^[21] In John 5:43 Jesus speaks of coming in His Father’s name and later in John 10:25 Jesus speaks of how He does His mighty works through His Father’s name. When we go beyond the Western idea of a name as being an identifying mark and move to an Ancient Near Eastern view of a name giving function, identity, purpose and authority our understanding begins to change. Jesus is not just saying a magic formula but instead is the embodiment of the fullness of YHWH and by speaking of His name He is speaking of His essence. It is no wonder why the patriarchs would “call on the name of the LORD” (Gen 26:25). They were not invoking a recollection of a deity’s identity but calling for manifestation and presence of YHWH, or at the very least commemorating where that name appeared to them.

            In Exodus 34:5 YHWH came down from the cloud and proclaimed His name, that is His presence, to them but in the Gospels we see Jesus and the presence of God moving about because it is the same person in Exodus 34 and in John 1. What all of this points to is that Jesus is YHWH and has manifested Himself to creation even before the incarnation. It shows us that “Jesus is no mere servant of God but participates in the unique divine sovereignty and is, therefore, intrinsic to the unique divine identity, he must be so eternally… for Jewish monotheists, no room even for servants of God to carry out his work at his command.”[22] Larry Hurtado confirms these assumptions by Bauchkam and Heiser by demonstrating:

 (1) Jesus is exalted to a particular position, second only to the one God. (2) In this position, he acts by divinely granted authority and as God’s principal agent in the execution of God’s will. (3) He is directly associated with the one God and likened to him in certain ways (e.g., he is given the “name above every name”).[23]

            Even the Apostle Paul realizes the implications of this, and it has been argued[24] that 1 Corinthians 8:6 was his reformation of the Shema to demonstrate Christ’s divinity. There “he is arguing that the early Jewish definition of God could include the person of the Son without a violation of monotheism.”^[25]

Conclusion

            What we have witnessed from Michael Heiser and others is how if Jesus is divine and eternal then His role in the history of creation did not begin in 5BC. Rather we can argue that Jesus the second member of the Trinity has always been the point of contact between YHWH and creation at key moments in history. Appearing either as embodied YHWH, the Angel of YHWH (at times) the name of the YHWH, or even the Word of YHWH (1 Samuel 3).

            Through the Rabbinic history and even the Ugaritic material we see the foundations of a co-regency model and type of bitrintarian fluidity which the early Christians recognized and used as proof of Jesus’s claims of divinity. Heiser through his attention to the Intertestamental theological records and Ancient Near Eastern studies provides a compelling framework to recognize the Trinity in a greater way in the Old Testament without sacrificing monotheism. Instead Heiser  has returned our attention to YHWH as the one seeking to reconnect with humanity through the person of the second member of the Trinity.

---

[1]James F. McGrath, The Only True God : Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context (Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2009), 9, ProQuest Ebook Central.

[2] Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) 135. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=286479&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

^[3] Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 240.

[4] Non-fallen created spiritual beings of a lower rank than YWHW

[5] Daniel, Boyarin,“Two Powers in Heaven; or, The Making of a Heresy,” pages 331-370 in The idea of biblical interpretation : Essays in honor of James L. Kugel, edited by H. Najman, et al., (BRILL, 2003), 333,  ProQuest Ebook Central

[6] Boyarin, 334.

[7] Michael S. Heiser. “Co-Regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 26, no. 2 (2016): 196.

[8] Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) 135. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=286479&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

[9] Michael S. Heiser. “Co-Regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 26, no. 2 (2016): 197.

[10] Heiser, 198.

[11] Heiser, 225.

^[12] Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 136.

[13] Michael Heiser, “Should אלה ים (ʾĕlōhîm) with plural predication be translated “gods”?” The Bible Translator vol. 61, no. 3 (July 2010): 127.

[14] Michael S. Heiser. “Co-Regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 26, no. 2 (2016): 218.

^[15] Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 143.

[16] Michael S. Heiser, “Monotheism and the Language of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Tyndale Bulletin 65.1 (2014): 90.

[17] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel : God Crucified and Other Essays on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Authentic Media, 2008), 6, ProQuest Ebook Central.

^[18] Ben Witherington III and Laura M. Ice, The Shadow of the Almighty: Father, Son, and Spirit in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 69.

^[19] Theodore Hiebert, “Theophany in the OT,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 510–511.

[20] John H.Walton, Old Testament Theology for Christians : From Ancient Context to Enduring Belief (InterVarsity Press, 2017), 38, ProQuest Ebook Central,

^[21] Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, First Edition. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 144.

[22] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Essays on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Authentic Media, 2008), 26, ProQuest Ebook Central.

[23] Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. Vol. Third edition (T&T Clark Cornerstones. London, UK: T&T Clark, 2015), 103, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=1030749&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

[24] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Essays on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Authentic Media, 2008), 213, ProQuest Ebook Central.

^[25] Ben Witherington III and Laura M. Ice, The Shadow of the Almighty: Father, Son, and Spirit in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 67–68.

 

What was the Role of Jesus before the IncarnationCameron Conway is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.