“And Yahweh appeared unto him among the oaks of Mamre,—as, he, was
sitting at the opening of the tent in the heat of the day.” (Gen. 18:1)
“Then said Yahweh unto Moses—See! I have appointed thee to be God unto Pharaoh,—and, Aaron thy brother, shall be thy prophet!” (Exodus 7:1)
“Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to
bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 21
Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your
transgressions: for my name is in him.” (Exodus 23:20-21)
In
this second installment of my series on scripturally putting the Doctrine of
the Trinity to the test, we will look at the concept of Agency and how an Agent
may be directly referred to as the Principal.
But, before going through this particular study, I would highly
encourage you to read the first article in this series, subtitled, “The Title,”God”, if you have not done so
already. It is the necessary foundation
to this article.
Just
as I referenced in Part 1, when studying the scriptures, it is imperative to
have an understanding of how the writers (nearly all of whom were Hebrews)
understood the nature of God, His relationship to man, the concept of agency,
and how they used terms and figures of speech in writing the scriptures. For the serious student of scripture, I
highly recommend the reference book, “Figures
of Speech in the Bible” by E.W. Bullinger.
First,
it might be helpful to use a modern example that is very relatable to
demonstrate how we can encounter and understand the Agent/Principal
relationship that we are considering in this article.
Imagine
that the President of the United States has endorsed and plans to implement a
trade embargo against China. Rather than
directly calling China’s Premier, he sends an ambassador. The ambassador meets with the Premier of
China and explains that a heavy trade sanction will be imposed on China, to
which the Premier says, “I want to hear that from the President.” The ambassador could say, “If you have heard
me, you have heard the President.”
Is
that any different than the following exchange between our Lord, Jesus Christ
and Philip in John 14:8-9?
“Philip saith unto him—Lord! show us the
Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto
him—So long a time as this, have I been, with you,—and thou hast not come to
know me, Philip? He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father. How art, thou,
saying, Show us the Father?”
This
passage of scripture will be analyzed more deeply in a future installment in
this series, but Christ Jesus wasn’t telling Philip that He is, literally, the
Father. He perfectly represents the Father.
He speaks on behalf of the Father. He is not numerically or ontologically “One”
with the Father; but with the Father.
An
agent, when acting on behalf of his principal, does not speak or act on behalf
of himself, but rather, speaks and acts in the stead of the principal. The agent steps into the shoes of his
principle. That is why Jesus Christ made
the following statement in John 12:49:
“Because, I, out of myself, spake not, but, the Father who sent me,
hath, himself, given me commandment, what I should say, and what I should
speak”
This
is Christ, the Son of God, explaining that He is the Father’s Agent and He so
precisely made the Father known, that the apostle John even states that the
word of God became flesh, when speaking of God’s Son. Christ can rightfully be called and is called
“The Word of God”.
Here
is an example of this same concept from one of the most famous novels ever
written. In The Lord of the Rings series, and specifically in The Return of the King, the forces of
Middle Earth, under command of Aragorn, assemble outside the gates of Mordor to
face the armies of Sauron. The gates of
Mordor open, and out rides a dark figure on a horse, who stands and speaks
against the forces of good; who have assembled outside. This character’s name is, ”Mouth of
Sauron”. Everyone reading the book
realizes, and you, reading this article realize that this character isn’t
Sauron’s literal mouth. He was called
“Mouth of Sauron” because he was the agent who spoke for and in the place of
Sauron.
Many
will object at this point, and say, “Yes, but in John 1:1, we read that “…the Word was with God and the Word was
God”. That is true and that is a
topic I will address in a later installment in this series.
In
this article, we will look at three specific instances in which representatives/agents
of God, are referred to as “God” or “Yahweh”.
First,
let’s look at Exodus 7:1, which was cited at the beginning of this
article. I am going to provide several
varying translations of this verse.
(Rotherham) “Then said Yahweh unto Moses—See! I have
appointed thee to be God unto Pharaoh,—and, Aaron thy brother, shall be thy
prophet!”
(Concordant Literal) “Yahweh said to Moses: See, I appoint you
as Elohim to Pharaoh; and Aaron, your brother, shall come to be your prophet.”
(King James Version) “And the
LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy
brother shall be thy prophet.”
In
the closing verses of Exodus 6, in verse 29, God tells Moses, “…I am the LORD: speak thou unto Pharaoh
king of Egypt all that I say unto thee.”
This is Moses in the role of agent for his Principal, God. This is very much like the modern example I
gave at the outset of this article, in which the President of the United States
sends an ambassador (agent for the President) to tell his words to the Premier
of China.
Moses
was “God unto Pharoah” or “as Elohim to Pharaoh” or even “a god to Pharaoh”, because Moses was
standing before Pharaoh in God’s place and saying the things to Pharaoh that
God told Moses to say, and working signs before Pharaoh that God empowered
Moses to work.
In
the next example, we have three instances in which the scriptures state that it
is the LORD Who flies over and kills the firstborn of Egypt. But, let’s see if it is literally The LORD
Who passes over Egypt and kills the firstborn, or if scripture says that it was
an agent of The LORD who did this.
“I will pass along, therefore, throughout the land of Egypt this
night, and will smite every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from man even to
beast,—and against all the gods of Egypt, will I execute judgments—I, Yahweh.”
(Exodus 12:12)
“And Yahweh will pass along to plague the Egyptians, and when he
beholdeth the blood upon the upper beam and upon the two door-pests, then will
Yahweh pass over the entrance, and not suffer the destroyer to enter into your
houses to inflict on you the plague.”(Exodus 12:23)
“And it came to pass, at midnight, that Yahweh, smote every firstborn
in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat upon his throne,
unto the firstborn of the captive who was in the pit of his prison,—and every
firstborn of beasts.” (Exodus 12:29)
The
answer to our question is answered in verse 23 (above). The identity of who literally passed over and killed the firstborn of Egypt was “the
destroyer”; not Yahweh. In these
passages, “the destroyer” is agent of Yahweh.
The
final example for us to consider in this study is the example of “The LORD”
appearing to Abraham, their discussion, and later in the story where “the LORD”
goes down to Sodom, but (at the same time) Abraham “stood with The LORD”.
“And Yahweh appeared unto him among the oaks of Mamre,—as, he, was
sitting at the opening of the tent in the heat of the day. 2 And he lifted up his eyes and
looked, and lo! three men, standing over against him,—so he looked and ran to
meet them from the opening of the tent, and bowed himself to the earth; 3 and said,—O My Lord! if, I pray
thee, I have found favour in thine eyes, do not I pray thee pass on from thy
servant. 4 Let there be fetched, I pray thee a
little water, and bathe ye your feet,—and rest yourselves under the tree. 5 And let me fetch a morsel of bread,
and stay ye your heart, Afterwards, ye may pass on, For on this account, have
ye passed by, over against your servant. And they said, Thus, shalt thou do as
thou hast spoken. 6 So Abraham hastened towards the
tent unto Sarah,—and said, Hasten thou three measures of fine meal, knead it,
and make hearth-cakes. 7 And unto the herd, ran Abraham,—and
took a calf tender and good and gave unto the young man, and he hastened to
make it ready. 8 And he took butter and milk and the
calf that he had made ready, and set before them,—while, he, was standing near
them under the tree, they did eat. 9 And they said unto him, As to Sarah
thy wife… And he said Lo! [she is] in the tent. 10 And he said, I will, surely
return, unto thee at the quickening season,—and lo! a son for Sarah thy wife.
Now Sarah, was hearkening at the opening of the tent, it, being behind him. 11 But Abraham and Sarah, were old,
far gone in days,—it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. 12 So then Sarah laughed within
herself, saying: After I am past age, hath there come to me pleasure, my lord,
also being old? 13 And Yahweh said unto
Abraham,—Wherefore now did Sarah laugh saying. Can it really and truly be that
I should bear, seeing that have become old? 14 Is anything, too wonderful for
Yahweh? At the appointed time, I will return unto thee, at the quickening
season and Sarah, shall have a son. 15 And Sarah denied, saying, I
laughed not, For she was afraid. And he said—Nay! but thou didst laugh! 16 And the men rose up from hence,
and looked out over the face of Sodom,—Abraham also going with them to set them
on their way. 17 Now, Yahweh, had said,—Am I going
to hide from Abraham what I do, 18 when, Abraham, shall surely
become, a great and mighty nation,—and all the nations of the earth, shall be
blessed in him? 19 For I have become his intimate
friend, To the end that he may command his sons and his house after him, so
shall they keep the way of Yahweh, by doing righteousness and justice. To the
end that Yahweh may bring in for Abraham, what he hath spoken concerning him. 20 So Yahweh said, The outcry of
Sodom and Gomorrah, because it hath become great,—And their sin, because it
hath become exceeding grievous, 21 Let me go down, pray, and let me
behold, whether according to their outcry which hath come in unto me, they have
done altogether, And if not. I must know! 22 And the men turned from thence,
and went their way, towards Sodom,—but, Yahweh was yet standing before Abraham.
23 So then Abraham drew near and
said, Wilt thou really sweep away, the righteous with the lawless? 24 Peradventure there are fifty
righteous, in the midst of the city, Wilt thou really sweep away, and not spare
the place, for the sake of the fifty righteous which are therein? 25 Far be it from thee! to do after
this manner. to put to death the righteous with the lawless! Then should
righteous and lawless be alike, Far be it from thee! Shall, the Judge of all
the earth not do justice? 26 And Yahweh said, If I find in
Sodom fifty righteous in the midst of the city, then will I spare all the place
for their sake. 27 And Abraham responded and
said,—Behold I pray thee I have ventured to speak unto My Lord, though I am
dust and ashes: 28 Peradventure there may lack, of
the fifty righteous, five, Wilt thou destroy for five all the city? And he
said, I will not destroy, if I find there forty and five. 29 And he added, yet once more, to
speak unto him, and said, Peradventure there may be found there—forty. And he
said—I will not do it, for the sake of the forty. 30 And he said Let it not, I pray
thee, be vexing to My Lord, but let me speak, Peradventure there may be found
there—thirty And be said, I will not to it, if I find there—thirty. 31 And he sad Behold, I pray thee, I
have ventured to speak unto My Lord, Peradventure there may be found
there—twenty. And he said I will not destroy it, for the sake of the twenty. 32 And he said, Let it not, I pray
thee, be vexing to My Lord, but let me speak only this once, Peradventure there
may be found there—ten. And he said, I will not destroy [it], for the sake of
the ten! 33 And Yahweh went his way, when he
had made an end. of speaking unto Abraham,—Abraham, also returned to his place.”
(Genesis 18:1-33)
Who
do you say the three men whom Abraham interacts with are? When continuing to read the account through
Genesis 19, we are explicitly told that the two men who went to Sodom and
stayed in Lot’s house were “angels”. See
below:
“And there
came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot
seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the
ground; 2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your
servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up
early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street
all night.” (Gen. 19:1-2)
There
are several thoughts on the identity of the three men whom Abraham is engaged
with in Genesis 18. Below are the
various theories:
Ø All three men were angels.
Ø Two of the men were angels and one was God, Almighty (the Father).
Ø Two of the men were angels and one was a pre-incarnate Jesus Christ.
Starting with the last view, typically this is
the view widely held by Orthodox Christians who hold a Trinitarian view of
God. Typically referred to as a
“Christophany”, this view holds that Jesus Christ, the second Person of the
Trinity, appeared to men in the Old Testament scriptures. There are several scriptural and logical
problems with this view, in my opinion, and these problems will be discussed at
length in a forthcoming installment in this series. But, even if for argument’s sake, I allow
that Genesis 18 does represent a Christaphany, does that prove that the
identification as one of the three men as “Yahweh” and “The LORD” prove that
Jesus Christ is Yahweh, God Almighty in the absolute and literal sense? I would argue that it does not and further,
that this understanding would be ambiguous as best, given the theme of Agency
which is so prevalent throughout the Old Testament scriptures. Instead, we arrive at an understanding of
Jesus Christ as being called “God” because He is perfectly representing and
speaking on God’s behalf, as with the exchange in John 14:8-9 (discussed
earlier in this article). One scripture
which I submit here that seems to completely prohibit the theory that one of
the three men was a “pre-incarnate” Jesus Christ is Hebrews 1:1-2, below:
“Whereas, in many parts and in many ways of old, God spake unto the
fathers, in the prophets, 2 At the end of these days, He hath spoken unto us in his Son,—whom he
hath appointed heir of all things, through whom also he hath made the ages;”
Above, the author of Hebrews is quite
emphatically contrasting two different dispensations of God. In the former, he is speaking of the various
ways God spoke to the fathers in the times before
He did something new. This new thing
happened not until “at the end of these days” wherein, He spoke to us in
His Son. This language creates two
possible contradictions for the Trinitarians holding to this view.
The problems created are either the writer of
Hebrews was incorrect and God did
speak to the fathers (patriarchs) in His Son, or a “pre-incarnate” Jesus Christ
was one of the men in Genesis 18, but was at that time not considered “God, the
Son” which cuts against one of the primary pillars of the Trinity Doctrine;
namely, “the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ”, which we will consider in a
future article in this series.
Further, how does the Trinitarian who espouses
the idea of the “angel of the LORD” being a pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, decide
which such occurrences are examples of a “Christophany” and which are examples
of the “angel of the LORD” truly being an “angel”? How does the Trinitarian reconcile and
differentiate between God Almighty as opposed to one of His angels when one
scripture identifies the being as “God” and another scripture states the being
is an “angel’? One such example is found
when we examine the story of Jacob. In
Genesis 32:24-30 we read:
“And Jacob was left alone,—and there wrestled a man with him, until
the uprisings of the dawn. 25 And when he saw, that he prevailed not against him, he touched the
hollow of his thigh,—and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was put out of joint, as
he wrestled with him. 26 Then said he—Let me go, for uprisen hath the dawn. And he said: I
will not let thee go, except thou have blessed me 27 Then he said unto him—What is thy name? And he said—Jacob. 28 Then he said—Not Jacob, shall thy name be called any more, but
Israel,—For thou hast contended with God and with men and hast prevailed. 29 Then asked Jacob and said, Do, I pray thee, tell me thy name! And he
said—Wherefore now, shouldest thou ask for my name? And he blessed him there, 30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; For I saw God face to
face; and my soul was delivered,”
Jacob here, contended “with God” and saw God
“face to face”. Hosea clears this up
when speaking of this account, stating:
“In the womb, took he his brother by the heel; and, in his manly
vigour, strove he with God: 4 Yea he strove against a Messenger, and prevailed, he wept, and made
supplication unto him,—At Bethel, he found him, and, there, he spake with us;”
(Hos. 12:3-4)
Above,
the prophet Hosea identifies God as Whom Jacob struggled against; but in the
same instance was literally wrestling with a messenger of God, not God Himself.
A
similar situation is found with the encounter of Moses and the burning bush;
recorded in Exodus 3. The “angel of the
LORD” appears in the flame of fire (v.2) but we read that “God” called out to
Moses out of the midst of the bush in verse 4, and in verse verse 7, we have
the name “Yahweh” used and not the generic “God” used of the Speaker.
In
this type of example, many Trinitarians will argue that because “God” and/or
“Yahweh” are identified as the Speaker, we must have an instance of a
pre-incarnate Jesus Christ in view. Of
course, a reading of Hebrews 1:1-2 (as cited above) seems to dismiss that idea
due to the contradiction created; where if we simply understand the concept of
Divine Agency; all perceived problems evaporate.
The second view, that the three men were two
angels along with God the Father (in human form) is held by some modern Jews
and also held by some Modalists, who believe that there is one God, Who appears
in different modes. For me, this is the
most problematic of the three possible interpretations, due to the overall
testimony of scripture. Below are some
emphatic statements of scripture which seem to (in my opinion) prohibit the
second view of Genesis 18.
“God no one has ever seen. The only-begotten God, Who is in the bosom
of the Father, He unfolds Him." (John 1:18)
“He also said: You cannot see My face, for no human shall see Me and
live.” (Exodus 33:20)
Jesus speaking in John 1:18 says that no one
has seen God. Moses asked to see God and
God’s reply was recorded in Exodus 33:20.
In support of the view that one of the three
“men” was God, Himself, many will use Genesis 19:24-25:
“And, Yahweh, rained, upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah, brimstone and
fire,—from Yahweh, out of the heavens: 25 so he overthrew these cities, and all the circuit,—and all the
inhabitants of the cities, and the produce of the ground.”
The argument in favor of the second view in
this context is that Yahweh (in human form on earth) rained brimstone and fire
from Yahweh (in Spirit form in heaven).
This view seems to ignore the surrounding text; however, which shows
that we have “Yahweh” (God) being used in an agentival sense to refer to actual
angels. See below:
“And the men said unto Lot, Whom besides hast thou here? Son-in-law
and thy sons and thy daughters, and all that thou hast in the city, bring thou
forth out of the place; 13 For we are about to destroy this place,—for, great, is the outcry of
them unto the face of Yahweh, so that Yahweh hath sent us to destroy it. 14 And Lot went forth and spake unto his sons-in—law who were about to
take his two daughters and said Arise come forth out of this place, for Yahweh
is about to destroy the city.” (Gen. 19:12-14)
In the above passage, we have the two
messengers/angels identified as “men” telling Lot that “…we are about to
destroy this place” and that “Yahweh hath sent us to destroy it”. Lot goes on to tell his sons-in-law; not that
the angels are going to destroy Sodom; but that Yahweh is going to destroy
Sodom. Lot stated that Yahweh was going
to destroy Sodom because he recognized that the angels were sent by Yahweh to
do this thing and thus; acting as Yahweh in an agentival manner.
The final view, that all three men were
angels, is the traditional view held by orthodox Jews and rabbis for
millennia. This is the view I have come
to acknowledge as the most scripturally consistent view. The view of divine agency and messengers and
representatives of God; being referred to as “God” is completely consistent
with the understanding of and language used by the inspired writers of
scripture.
In the next installment of this series, we
will look at the history of the Trinity Doctrine and how it was adopted.
