Continued from Chapter 20
(Isaiah 48:16)
Trinitarians maintain that the terms ruach hak-kodesh, “holy spirit”; ruach tov, “good spirit”; and rucho, “His spirit,” are not abstract manifestations of God’s power but, on the contrary, refer to a separate entity within God’s essence that has a personality and consciousness of its own.
Thus, they say, it can feel emotion as when the children of Israel “embittered His spirit” (Psalms 106:33), it can feel sorrow as when they “rebelled and grieved his holy spirit” (Isaiah 63:10), and the “spirit” can give instruction (Nehemiah 9:20; Psalms 104:30, 143:10; Zechariah 7:12). They also ask why Micah raises the question as to whether “the spirit of the Lord” can become impatient (Micah 2:7). The fact is that these terms are figures of speech referring to manifestations of God that are intimately felt. Certainly, God’s presence is without bound but the use of these terminologies is descriptive of a perception of the divine that is felt although not tangible to the touch. This divine manifestation is called in later Jewish literary sources the Shechinah, “the Divine Presence,” from the verb shachan, “dwell,” “abide” and indicates intimate contact between God and the children of Israel as He dwells among His people. That is why it is the term used to show divine displeasure at Israel’s rebellion when that rebelliousness takes place at times when that intimate relationship is manifest. God’s holy spirit is not a person but is a manifestation of God’s imperceptible power by which He accomplishes His divine purpose and will. Essentially, it is a synonym for an aspect of God’s power, not a personification of part of His very essence.
The terms, ruach hak-kodesh, ruach tov, rucho, and Shechinah, expressing the intimate relationship of God dwelling among His people make them excellent midrashic vehicles for expressing homiletical teachings. Thus, there are midrashim, which have dialogues between God and His ruach ha-kodesh or His Shechinah, but they were never meant to be interpreted literally. Such dialogues are pedagogical tools used by the rabbis for teaching Torah. We see that it is God who put His holy spirit in the midst of the children of Israel: “Then His people remembered the days of old, the days of Moses: ‘Where is He that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of His flock? Where is He that put His holy spirit in the midst of them?’” (Isaiah 63:11). The holy spirit is thus a manifestation of an aspect of His power which is, so to speak, subordinate to God’s will since God may dispense it to His chosen ones. If the holy spirit is one part of a coequal triune deity, how can David make a request of one part of this triune deity: “Cast me not away from Your presence” about matters controlled by another part of this triune deity: “And do not take Your holy spirit from me” (Psalms 51:13)? The fact is that often in the Jewish Scriptures something may be personified that is not actually a person. For example, Moses calls upon heaven and earth to witness his exhortation, “Give ear, heavens, and I will speak; and let the earth hear the words of my mouth” (Deuteronomy 32:1); the universe praises the Creator, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims His handiwork” (Psalms 19:2); Zion speaks of her estrangement from God, “But Zion said: ‘The Lord has forsaken me, and the Lord has forgotten me’” (Isaiah 49:14); Zion gives birth, “For as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children” (Isaiah 66:8); Zion hears and shows emotion, “Zion heard and was glad” (Psalms 97:8); “wisdom” and “understanding” are personified as females who can speak with emotion: “Wisdom cries aloud in the streets; she utters her voice in the squares” (Proverbs 1:20-23); “Does not wisdom call? and understanding put forth her voice?” (Proverbs 8:1 ff., see also Proverbs 9:1-6).
There are some trinitarians who maintain that the personification of chochmah, “wisdom,” found in Proverbs 8:22-23 refers to an actual person, namely, Jesus: “The Lord created me as the beginning of His way, the first of His acts of old. I was set up ages ago, from the beginning, from the origin of the earth.” The verb qanah means, “to create” (cf. Genesis 14:19, 22; Deuteronomy 32:6; Psalms 139:13). Since it is clearly stated that God created “wisdom,” it becomes self evident that whoever or whatever is personified by “wisdom” cannot be God, for that which is created cannot be God. Although “wisdom” is figuratively given a personality of its own, it is a subservient creation of God. In fact, “wisdom” has neither a personal life of its own nor any ontological existence whatsoever. A further indication of the futility of the viewpoint expressed by trinitarians concerning wisdom is found in Proverbs 3:19: “The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding He established the heavens.” As we have seen, many of these Christians consider “wisdom” to be a real being, the second member of the Trinity, and the agent by which God created the world. But to follow this reasoning one may very well say that “understanding” also represents a real being and the agent by which God created the heavens. No doubt, if trinitarian Christians needed to prove that God is a Quaternary, they would claim that not only “wisdom” but also “understanding” is a distinct personality within the essence of God.
Paul personified the concept of sin, “But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. And I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me” (Romans 7:8-11).
Following the trinitarian thought process is it to be presumed that Paul meant that sin was actually an entity with its own personality and conscious?
Christians who are looking for trinitarian allusions in the Jewish Scriptures translate part of Isaiah 48:16 as, “The Lord God and His Spirit have sent me.” However, a proper rendering reads: And now the Lord God [’Ado-nai Y-H-V-H] has sent me, and His spirit.” The last two Hebrew words in this verse are shelachani ve-rucho, “He has sent me, and His spirit”, with “me, and His spirit” being the direct objects of “sent.” Although a definite direct object is usually preceded by the participle ’et, this grammatical rule is frequently not observed in the Bible (e.g., Exodus 15:9; Judges 5:12; Psalms 9:5, 20:3-4, 45:4). In fact, ’et rarely occurs in the poetic parts of the Bible. Thus, the meaning of the verse is that God has sent Isaiah accompanied by His prophetic spirit. There is no mention of the third member of the Trinity doctrine. Instead, Isaiah affirms that God, who has placed within him the power of prophecy, sent him.
The spirit is always at the disposal of God to bestow upon whomever He chooses, as stated in Numbers 11:17, 25, 29; Isaiah 42:1, 44:3; Joel 3:1. If this spirit referred to the third member of a coequal triune deity, how could it be ordered about at the discretion of the other members of this group? Such a condition makes it obviously impossible to consider the spirit as being an associate of God, let alone coequal with Him.1 Thus, we see that the Jewish Scriptures do not teach that “spirit” refers to the third person of a triune deity. God says to Moses: And I will take of the spirit which is upon you, and I will put it upon them.… And He took of the spirit, which was upon him, and He put it upon the seventy men, the elders, and it came to pass, when the spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied…. And Moses said …“would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put His spirit upon them.” (Numbers 11:17, 25, 29) 1 In the Talmud and midrashic literature, the angel Metatron is regarded notably as the defender of the rights of Israel (cf. Chagigah 15a). In the Babylonian Talmud, Metatron is mentioned in three places (Chagigah 15a, Sanhedrin 38b, and Avodah Zarah 3b). The first two references are significant because they are used in connection with polemical refutations of heretical beliefs in “two Powers.” The tractate Chagigah relates that Acher (Elisha ben Avuyah) saw Metatron seated (next to the Divine Throne) and said, “perhaps there are two powers,” that is, Metatron himself being a second deity. The citation explains that Metatron was given permission to be seated only because he was the heavenly scribe recording the good deeds of Israel. It was shown to Elisha that Metatron could not be a second deity by the fact that Metatron was carried out and received sixty fiery lashes to emphasize that Metatron was not a god, but an angel, and could be punished.
In tractate Sanhedrin 38b, a min (“heretic”) challenges the Amora, R. Idit, on why it is written in Exodus 24:1, “And to Moses He said: ‘Come up to the Lord,’” instead of “Come up to Me.” The heretic claims that the verse shows that there are two deities: the one who commanded Moses to ascend, and the one to whom Moses was commanded to ascend. R. Idit answered that the verse refers to Metatron “whose name is like that of his Master, for it is written, ‘For My name is in him [Exodus 23:21]’” (that is, Metatron acts as God’s emissary). When the heretic argued that, if that were so, Metatron should be worshiped as a deity. R. Idit pointed out that Exodus 23:21 also says, “be not rebellious against [tmr] him.” This, R. Idit, explained, should be understood to mean “do not exchange Me for him.” Metatron is not to be worshiped; to God alone belongs that honor. To worship Metatron, thereby “exchanging him for God,” is rebellion against him in that that is not within the God-given authority with which he is to deal with Israel. The verse continues, “he [the angel] will not pardon your transgression, for My name is in him.” Metatron cannot on his own pardon transgression, a power which God has not placed within his authority. The limits of his authority are set by God, in whose name he comes and who alone is the ultimate guide of Israel.
There is not a single instance in Jewish sources of Metatron being represented as synthronos, the co-occupant of the Divine Throne, a second power or deity. He always remains the servant of his Master, no matter what functions and powers he may exercise.
Continued