Sermon Tone Analysis

Andrew Hodge                                                                                                     8th March 2006

 

 

Assignment for Dogmatology T201

 

 

Jehovah and His Relationship to the Trinity

 

 

*Introduction*

            Many Christians assume that the LORD God of the Old Testament is the Father, because the Son and the Holy Spirit do not ‘appear’ until the New Testament account.

Further thought establishes that all Persons of the Godhead have always existed, therefore all of them must have been omnipresent at all times including during Old Testament events.

What, if any, was their role then?

When the OT text describes the activities of the LORD, was it the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit acting?

Two, or all three?

It is unsafe to assume that because the Triunity exists, then all Three would have been acting at all times, each perhaps to a greater or lesser degree depending on the OT occasion.

Taken just a small step further, this assumption leads to Sabellianism or modalism “because it views one God who variously manifests Himself in three modes of existence: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”[1]

This is a view that could also apply to the NT, for even there it is not always clear Who the Agent of an action is eg Matthew 2:12, 22, 6:24, 30, 33 et al.

Further, we are less likely to identify a particular member of the Triunity in the OT because of its heavy emphasis on monotheism.

However, the revelation of the NT clearly states that the Persons of the Triunity are to be found in the OT (eg Luke 24:44; John 5:39; John 12:37-41 and Acts 28:25-27 both alluding to Isaiah 6:5-10).

The purpose of this assignment is to examine relevant occurrences of LORD in the KJV, and determine Who is acting according to proper hermeneutics, particularly including the revelation regarding the Triunity in the New Testament.

It is outside the scope of this assignment to examine all 6519 instances of YHWH in the OT, but this is ultimately what would be required to do justice to the topic.

In any case, much of the work of identifying Who is acting at a particular time has already been done by God Himself, mostly by the revelation of the Triunity in the NT.

*The Names of God in the Old Testament*

The Tetragrammaton YHWH in the Hebrew Scriptures has no official, not even Hebrew, pronunciation.

‘Official’ vowel pointings were added by the Masoretes between 600 and 1000 AD so as to allow easier public reading of the Hebrew text, but there is no assurance that the resulting “Yahweh” (or “yahwah” /Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia/) is the correct written rendering.

“To avoid the risk of taking God’s name (YHWH) in vain, devout Jews began to substitute the word /ădōnā(y)/ for the proper name itself.

Although the Masoretes left the four original consonants in the text, they added the vowels /ĕ/ (in place of /ă/ for other reasons) and /ā/ to remind the reader to pronounce /ădōnāi/ regardless of the consonants.

This feature occurs more than six thousand times in the Hebrew Bible.”[2]

“In those places where /ădōnāy yhwh/ occurs the latter word is pointed with the vowels from /ĕlōhı//̂//m/, and the English renderings such as “Lord GOD” arose (e.g.

Amos 7:1).”

[3]

With the exception of the JB, Yahweh is not used for the Name of God in any of the commonly used English translations, but the Latinised transliterated “Jehovah” is used in the Darby, ASV, NWT (for the JWs) and Young’s Literal translations.

By convention, the English versions generally use the capitalised ‘LORD’  (KJV, NAB, NIV, ESV, NASB) to communicate ‘Jehovah’.

The other two root words used for Deity, /adon /and /el/ are broader words encompassing more than a description of God.

It is not proposed to examine the relationship of /adon /and /el/ to the Trinity for several reasons:

First, the Triunity of the New Testament is an intensely personal relationship - not only within the essential Unity of God Himself but also between God and His people.

Only ‘Jehovah’ in the Old Testament is compatible with this characteristic.

For example, Adam and Eve hide from Jehovah in the garden, not from /adon /or el; it is Jehovah who speaks face to face with Moses, it is Jehovah who reveals Himself bodily on special occasions, etc.

 Strong’s Concordance has this entry: “*3068 **יהוה**, **יְהוִה* [/Yâhovah/ ~/yeh·ho·*vaw*~/] n pr dei.

From 1961; TWOT 484a; GK 3378; 6519 occurrences; AV translates as “LORD” 6510 times, “GOD” four times, “JEHOVAH” four times, and “variant” once.

*1* the proper name of the one true God.

1a unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136 (/adonai/).

/Additional Information:/ Jehovah = “the existing One”.”

[4]

LORD is used only to describe God; /adon /when used in its emphatic form /adonay/ to refer to God/ /(translated Lord, lord) is also used of men (eg Abraham, angels, pharaoh, Boaz, Eli, Joab, et al); /el/ when used in its plural form /elohim /to refer to God, may also refer to humans.

The entry for /elohim /in Strong’s Concordance states: “*430 **אֱלֹהִים* [/’elohiym/ ~/el·o·*heem*~/] n m p. Plural of 433; TWOT 93c; GK 466; 2606 occurrences; AV translates as “God” 2346 times, “god” 244 times, “judge” five times, “GOD” once, “goddess” twice, “great” twice, “mighty” twice, “angels” once, “exceeding” once, “God-ward + 4136” once, and “godly” once.

*1* (plural).

1a rulers, judges.

1b divine ones.

1c angels.

1d gods.

*2* (plural intensive—singular meaning).

2a god, goddess.

2b godlike one.

2c works or special possessions of God.

2d the (true) God.

2e God.”[5]  Therefore /Elohim/ can be and is used to describe idolatrous heathen deities as well as the One true God of Israel.

It is clear that both roots /adon /and /el /are less appropriate in describing the unique personal God of the OT than is ‘Jehovah’.

Second, Jehovah is the Name that is specific to the relationship of God to His chosen nation Israel, by conditional and unconditional Covenants.

In a sense, this parallels the relationship of the Triunity to the Body of Christ, the Church, with important differences related to the Dispensations in which they find themselves.

Third, when God is personally referred to in the OT eg “the name”, or “in the name” when individuals are prophesying, Jehovah is invariably the term used (/ISBE// /*II*, 506).

This indicates that when God wishes to establish or communicate a specific commandment or precept to His people, He does it with the ‘personal’ side of His character, typical of how the Triunity interacts with men.

Fourth, when God is explaining to Moses what His name - the LORD God /YHWH-Elohim - /in Exodus 3:14-16 means, He uses Hebrew grammar which reveals not so much the inner nature of His being, but His active, redemptive intentions on their behalf.

YHWH is less “I am who~/what I am”, but more “I will be who~/what I will be” which carries a sense of active ongoing presence with His Nation while fulfilling promises (from /ISBE// /*II*, 507).

This Name also carries with it the sense of presence with individuals eg when Jehovah promises to be with Moses at the burning bush commissioning, He will be ‘with his mouth’ (Ex 3:12, 4:12, 15); Jehovah also proclaims to be Redeemer (Ex 20:12) and forgiver (Ex 34:6).

This is very much like the relationship of the Triunity with the Redeemed even though the Dispensations are different.

It should be noted at this point that the essential attributes of God do not change in spite of the fact that He deals with mankind differently at different times.

It is therefore expected that the fully revealed Triune relationship of God with mankind in the NT should be evident in the OT.

The OT concept of monotheism does not swamp the plenary Scriptural concept of the Triunity.

*The concept of Jehovah as ‘Father’ in the OT*

In the thinking of the early Church as expressed in their creeds, when speaking of God the Father, it was not that He was just the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was portrayed as the source of all being, the Creator, the eternal self-existent One.

This is in line with the Great Commission, especially Matt 29:18-20, which clearly shows that all of Jesus’ power comes from His Father as the Source.

This is not to say that either the Son or the Holy Spirit are inferior or subsidiary (as believed by the Gnostics), but that their earthly (and heavenly v18?) roles are directed by that part of the Trinity that remains in heaven.

The Second Person of the Trinity agreed to the role He would play on earth, prior to the creation (Eph 1:4, Heb 4:3, 1 Pet 1:20, Rev 13:8, 17:8) in order to achieve the salvation of men.

It is not unreasonable to assume that the other two Persons cooperatively formulated and supported this plan, as the kerygma of the NT demonstrates.

As seen below, it will be argued that the activity of Jehovah in the OT is actually the activity of the Triunity.

It is again not unreasonable to speculate that this activity was planned before Creation.

If so, the ‘Fatherhood’ of Jehovah is logically reduced to a role in heaven ‘directing events’ as is largely the case in the NT, where the hierarchy of ‘event management’ is of the Christ performing the will of the Father Who is in heaven, Jesus in turn promising to send the Comforter to permanently indwell the saved.

This hierarchy of ‘event management’ in the NT fits well with the characteristics of the Dispensation of the Age of Grace.

Rigid adherence to the concept of the Dispensational Governmental Styles of God must not overshadow the essential Triune nature of the Unity of God - the Trinity is inevitably present in all Dispensations, and in my view is worth searching for.

As will be shown, to dismiss the Triunity when considering Jehovah is to deliberately short-change oneself of the spiritual treasures to be had.

The history of the development of the orthodox view of the Triunity assists in understanding its full revelation and the pitfalls which numerous individuals and churches have been trapped in:

The Early Church ‘fathers’ Hermas, Clement, Aristides, Justin and Irenaeus (/ISBE /*II*, 513) would agree with me there can be no subsidiary ‘demiurge’ which shares creation, revelation and redemption with the Father.

In fact, all three act together but are not so isolated from one another that only the Father creates, only the Son redeems and only the Spirit gives grace.

Not all of these individuals had the whole story.

Both Hermas and Justin, while accepting that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were Deity, nevertheless assigned them to a lower rank than the Father - more to express the economy of God’s dealing with events outside Himself, rather than to God’s being inside Himself.

Modalism cannot accept any distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The Moody Handbook of Theology: “The designation /modalistic /stressed the idea that God was one God who variously manifested Himself as Father, other times as the Son, and other times as the Holy Spirit.

Even though modalistic monarchianists spoke of three persons, they nonetheless believed that there was but one essence of deity who variously manifested Himself in three different modes.

Hence, the Father was born as the Son, the Father died on the cross and the Father also raised Himself from the dead.

In fact, Praxeas, the probable originator of modalistic monarchianism, said the Father became His own Son.”[6]

This is clearly not consistent with the NT revelation of the Trinity, but is a trap into which one could fall if a strong presupposition exists, or if the Scriptures are taken as less than plenary.

“Noetus equated God specifically with the Father and argued that if Christ is God then He must be the same as the Father.

For this reason he embraced the idea of the suffering Father (patripassianism).

What Christ endures, the Father endures, even to the death and passion.

On this view the term Father has meaning only in the sense of the fount of all being.

It has no Trinitarian content.

As Hippolytus pointed out, the terms “Father and Son can be used interchangeably as the situation suggests””.

(/ISBE// /*II*, 513).

Tertullian and Hippolytus (who exposed the modalistic error) and Novatian and Origen (middle of 3rd century AD) significantly advanced the concept of Trinitarianism by demonstrating the distinctiveness of the Persons of the Trinity but without ruling out a unity of substance.

Adoptionism and Arianism (Seminars 15 and 17) resisted the Trinitarian view but were effectively rebuffed by the Council at Nicea in 325AD which declared that Jesus was “begotten, not made” as the Nicene Creed declares.

This left the Father as the source of being of the Son and the Spirit in the Godhead, without the Son or the Spirit being any less God than the Father.

At this stage in the revelation of the truth of the Triunity, it has been appreciated that the Godhead is a Unity in itself, but that in the expression of that Unity in outward works, Three Persons are identified.

All works involve all three Persons, but the activity of one of those Persons may predominate eg God suffered on the Cross as the Son not as the Father, but all three were involved in the whole process of death and resurrection (/ISBE// /*II*, 513-514).

The next step in the logic of the development of Triunity is that “if the outward works of God are works of the whole Trinity, this means that God is no longer seen first as the Father in His capacity as the source of all created being.

He is primarily and properly the Father within the one triune God” (/ISBE// /*II*, 514).

In my view this elevates the Triunity above its essential Unity, which in fact are equal characteristics of God.