Refuting All Trinitarian ‘Proof-Texts’
The Old Testament
Elohim should be understood as a plural of majesty rather than a numerical plural, when used in reference to Yahweh. The plural of majesty is the use of plural titles by a single person of authority, usually a king or deity. [1] This can be seen in the fact that the plural is also used as a title for Canaanite gods (Judg. 6:31; 11:24; 16:23-24; 1 Sam. 5:7; Ruth 1:15; 1 Kgs. 11:33; 18:24), but the Canaanites did not think that their gods were a ‘plurality of persons.’Genesis 1:1: The very first verse of the Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The word translated “God” is Elohim, which is in fact a plural noun (lit. ‘Gods’). Elohim is translated as “God” over two thousand times and is the default title of God in the OT. Other plural titles are also used of God throughout the OT, such as “Creators” (Ecc. 12:1); “Husbands” (Isa. 54:5); “Lords” (Mal. 1:6); and “Most Highs” (Dan. 7:18). This provides strong evidence of the plurality of Persons within God.
Furthermore, some humans in the Old Testament were also given plural titles. Abraham was referred to as his servant’s “masters” (Gen. 24:9-10). The king of Egypt was referred to as the “lords” (adonim) of Egypt, as was Joseph (Gen. 40:1; 42:30, 33). In Judges 19:26, a concubine falls at the door of the house where “her masters” was staying, even though there was only one master. King David is referred to as “lords” (1 Kgs. 1:43, 47). There are further examples, but this should suffice to show that plural titles in the Old Testament are typically plurals of majesty and not numerical plurals.
In addition, Psalm 45:6-7 refers to both the king and God as Elohim. This passage is re-applied to Jesus and the Father in the New Testament (Heb. 1:8-9). If Elohim implies ‘plurality of persons,’ then Jesus and the Father are both multi-personal beings, which is patently ridiculous. Instead, Elohim (along with other plural titles of God) must be a plural of majesty, not a numerical plural, [2] and so does not provide any evidence for ‘plurality of persons’ within God.
Genesis 1:26: Elohim states that Adam will be made “in our image,” yet in the next verse Adam is made “in the image of Elohim.” This indicates the plurality of Persons within Elohim.
In this verse, God is most likely speaking to His divine council. [3] Although the concept of the divine council is almost entirely absent from modern Christianity, the Bible is clear that there is a council in heaven with God (1 Kgs. 22:19; Job 15:8; Psa. 89:7; Dan. 7:10, 26; Eph. 3:10). This council is made up of divine beings known as “gods” or “sons of God” (Exod. 15:11; Job 1:6; 2:1; Psa. 89:6-7). Furthermore, these “sons of God” were with God during creation (Job 38:6-7).
But if God was speaking to His divine council, why does the subject switch from plural (“our image”) to singular (“in the image of Elohim”) between v. 26 and v. 27? This is not at all problematic for the view that God is here speaking to His divine council, because this same switch from plural to singular appears in another passage that speaks of the divine council. Daniel 4:17 says, “the decree of the watchers… of the holy ones,” while v. 24 refers to the same decree as “the decree of the Most High.” Furthermore, David makes a similar statement (on behalf of Israel) in 2 Samuel 24:14.
Genesis 3:22: Yahweh Elohim states that “the man has become like one of us.” This indicates the plurality of Persons within Yahweh Elohim.
God is likely speaking to the members of His divine council in this verse (see my response to the note on Genesis 1:26). In verse 5, the serpent says to Eve, “on the day when you take of [the tree’s] fruit, you will be like the gods who know good and evil.” [4] Here, “gods” clearly refers to the members of the divine council. As such, when God says in verse 22, “the man has become like one of us who know good and evil,” He is almost certainly speaking to the divine council.
Genesis 11:7: Yahweh says, “Let us go down and confuse their language.” However, in the next verse it is Yahweh alone who scatters the people. This indicates the plurality of Persons within Yahweh.
Again, in this verse God is speaking to the members of His divine council (see my response to the note on Genesis 1:26). When Yahweh says, “Behold, they are one people… and this is what they begin to do” (Gen. 11:6), are we to believe that this is one Person within Yahweh speaking to the other Persons within Yahweh? That would be ridiculous. All of the Persons within Yahweh are omniscient according to trinitarians, so why would one Person have to tell the others about the tower that the humans were building?
Obviously, Yahweh is speaking to His divine council, not to other ‘Persons’ within Yahweh. This has been the Jewish interpretation since before the time of Jesus. [4] The switch from plural to singular between v. 7 and v. 8 is no challenge to this interpretation, since the same thing occurs in another passage that explicitly refers to a decree of the divine council (Dan. 4:17, 24).
Genesis 19:24: Yahweh rains down fire and sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah from Yahweh out of the heavens. This indicates two Persons called “Yahweh.”
On the contrary, this is typical of Hebrew texts, which often repeat statements for emphasis. Almost the exact same thing is seen in 1 Kgs. 8:1, which states, “Then Solomon assembled all the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the chief fathers of the sons of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem.” Obviously, this does not prove that there are two individuals called “king Solomon,” and so neither does Gen. 19:24 demonstrate (or even suggest) that there are two persons called “Yahweh.”
Genesis 20:13: Abraham says, “Elohim caused [plural] me to wander.” Whereas Elohim (plural) is occasionally used in reference to lesser gods, it is always with a singular verb; here, (plural) Elohim is used together with a plural verb, unprecedented in Hebrew except where multiple persons are in view. This is strong evidence for the plurality of Persons within Elohim.
This may not be speaking of God alone; it could also be translated as, “gods caused me to wander from my father’s house.” Abraham is speaking to the Canaanite king Abimelech, so he may have been accommodating his speech to the king’s polytheistic perspective. [5] Alternatively, this could be a plural of majesty, which is not unprecedented in Hebrew. When the medium at Endor saw the ghost of Samuel rising up, she said, “I see a god [elohim] ascending [plural] out of the earth,” even though only one individual was coming up (1 Sam. 28:13).
Genesis 31:53: Laban says, “May the Elohim of Abraham and the Elohim of Nahor, the Elohim of their father, judge [plural] between us.” Here, (plural) Elohim is used together with a plural verb, unprecedented in Hebrew except where multiple persons are in view. This is strong evidence for the plurality of Persons within Elohim.
This is referring to multiple gods, not just God alone. Laban was a polytheist (Gen. 31:19), as was the father of Abraham and Nahor (Josh. 24:2), so this verse should be translated as, “May the God of Abraham and the god of Nahor, the gods of their father, judge between us.” [6]
Genesis 35:7: “[At] Bethel… Elohim appeared [plural] to him [Jacob] when he fled from the face of his brother.” Here, (plural) Elohim is used together with a plural verb, unprecedented in Hebrew except where multiple persons are in view. This is strong evidence for the plurality of Persons within Elohim.
As in Gen. 20:13 and 31:53, this verse could be referring to multiple “gods.” When Jacob fled from Esau, stopping at Bethel, he not only saw Yahweh in a vision, but he also saw many angels descending and ascending a ladder to heaven (Gen. 28:12-13, 19). Thus, it was not God alone that appeared to Jacob, but “gods” (i.e., divine beings). [7] Alternatively, this could be a plural of majesty, which is not unprecedented in Hebrew (see my response to the note on Genesis 20:13).
Exodus 23:20-21: Yahweh says to Moses, “I am sending an Angel before your face to preserve you on the road, and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. Beware of Him and obey His voice, do not provoke Him, for He will not forgive you, for My name is in Him.” This shows that there are two Persons that share the name of Yahweh, one of Whom is sent by the other.
The key to understanding this passage is that the word “angel” in Hebrew (malak) does not always, or even typically, refer to a non-human being. Rather, it simply means ‘agent’ or ‘messenger’ and refers to anyone that is commissioned or sent. In light of this, it is most likely Moses who is the agent referred to in this passage, [8] as he was commissioned by Yahweh to save Israel (Exod. 3:10 cf. Num. 20:16). The agent is said to be “sent before your [Israel’s] face,” and so is Moses (Mic. 6:4). The agent is said to “preserve” Israel and so is Moses (Hos. 12:13). Moses is said to be a “prophet” (Hos. 12:13), which means that he is “the agent [malak] of Yahweh” (Hag. 1:1, 13).
Alternatively, the agent sent before the Israelites may have been Joshua, who brought the Israelites into the Promised Land and defeated the Canaanites (Josh 12:7-8 cf. Exod. 23:23). This was, in fact, the predominant interpretation of this passage in early Christianity. [9] Whether the ‘angel’ of Exodus 23 was Moses or Joshua, it’s clear that he wasn’t the pre-incarnate Messiah.
2 Samuel 7:23: David says, “Elohim went out [plural] to redeem [Israel] as a people for Himself.” Here, (plural) Elohim is used together with a plural verb, unprecedented in Hebrew except where multiple persons are in view. This is strong evidence for the plurality of Persons within Elohim.
Unlike in the other passages where a plural verb is used alongside the word elohim, the context of this verse clearly establishes that Elohim refers to Yahweh alone (2 Sam. 7:22-24). Therefore, this plural verb is most likely a plural of majesty, which is not unprecedented in Hebrew (see my response to the note on Genesis 20:13). Alternatively, David might be crediting both Yahweh and Yahweh’s agent Moses, who is also called elohim in Exod. 7:1, with having saved Israel from Egypt (Exod. 3:8, 10; Num. 20:16).
Psalm 45:6-7: A Davidic king, addressed as Elohim, is anointed by Elohim His Elohim. This demonstrates that there are at least two Persons called Elohim, one of Whom is inferior to and anointed by the other.
On the contrary, this passage proves that the plural title Elohim does not indicate divine multi-personality. Otherwise, we would have to conclude that there are two divine, multi-personal beings, and (based on the New Testament application of this verse; Heb. 1:8-9) that the Father and the Son are each separate multi-personal beings. But if God is not more than one person, then how are two individuals called God in this psalm?
Throughout the Old Testament, human agents of God are called “God” (Elohim) in a representative sense (Exod. 7:1; 22:8-9; Psa. 82:1, 6). This is especially true of the Davidic kings of Israel, of which God said, “the house of David will be as God, as the agent [malak] of Yahweh before them” (Zech. 12:8). This psalm was addressed to a king of Israel, most likely Solomon or Ahab, [10] on his wedding day (Psa. 45:1, 9, 11-15). No one would argue that Solomon and Ahab are ontologically equal to Yahweh; therefore, this passage must be referring to them as Elohim in a representative sense, as kings from the dynasty of David.
Psalm 58:11: The Psalmist says, “there is a God Who judges [plural, lit. ‘they judge’] the earth.” Here, (plural) Elohim is used together with a plural verb, unprecedented in Hebrew except where multiple persons are in view. This is strong evidence for the plurality of Persons within Elohim.
It is possible that this should instead be translated, “there are gods that judge the earth,” as the Psalmist puts this statement in the mouth of pagan observers of divine vengeance (Psa. 58:10-11). [11] More likely, this plural verb might be a plural of majesty, which is not unprecedented in Hebrew (see my response to the note on Genesis 20:13).
Proverbs 30:4: Yahweh has a Son whose name is not expected to be known by the writer’s audience. This could be a point in favor of the pre-existence of Jesus, the Son of God.
The point of this passage is to establish that no human has done what Yahweh has done. “Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in the hollow of his hand? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth?” (Prov. 30:3) The final question, “What is the person’s name, and what is his son’s name?” simply underscores the point that no one except Yahweh has done these things. No one can answer the question because such a person does not exist. [12]
Isaiah 6:8: Yahweh asks, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?” This indicates the plurality of Persons within Yahweh.
At the beginning of this chapter, Isaiah describes seeing the host of heaven surrounding Yahweh, including seraphs (6:1-5). Thus, the context clearly establishes that God is speaking to the members of His divine council, not to other persons within Himself (see my response to the note on Genesis 1:26). [13]
Isaiah 7:14: The future Messiah is named Immanu’el, meaning “God with us” (Matt. 1:23). Some trinitarians understand this to mean that the Messiah will be God incarnate, although other interpretations are possible.
Yes, the name Immanu’el means “God [is] with us.” However, it does not imply that the child will be God. Instead, the name is symbolic, because the child’s birth symbolizes that God will be with Judah, in that He will send Assyria against Judah’s enemies (Isa. 7:14-17). In the very next chapter, Isaiah says, “Take counsel together, [you nations], but it shall be brought to nought; speak a word, but it shall not stand; because God is with us [immanu’el].” The fact that the child is named “God is with us” does not imply that the child is God Himself, any more than Elijah’s name (meaning “Yahweh my God”) implies that he is Yahweh our God.
Furthermore, the child in Isaiah 7:14 is transparently not the future Messiah, in the original context of the prophecy. This child was born as a sign for Ahaz, the king of Judah, so that he would know when Ephraim and Syria were about to be invaded by Assyria (Isa. 7:3-17); thus, he must have been born more than seven hundred years prior to Jesus, and was most certainly not God incarnate. Therefore, the same prophecy applied to Jesus cannot mean that he is God incarnate, either.
Isaiah 9:6: The prophet prophesies the future arrival of a Son, a descendant of David, who will be called El-Gibbor (literally “Mighty God”). The very same title is applied in the next chapter to Yahweh, to Whom Israel is exhorted to return (Isa. 10:20-21). This is evidence that the coming Messiah will be Yahweh Himself, Who will be born as a child, a descendant of David.
The full name given to the child in Isa. 9:6 is Pele-joez-el-gibbor-abi-ad-sar-shalom. This could be translated in a way that describes the child: “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” This would still not necessarily indicate that the child is God, because the same title el-gibbor (“mighty god”) is used to describe human rulers (Ezek. 32:21), as is the related title el (Job 41:25; Jer. 51:56; Ezek. 31:11). For this reason, and because there was no Jewish expectation that the Messiah would be God, Martin Luther translated this title as merely Held (“hero”), and Wilhelm Gesenius, one of the foremost authorities on biblical Hebrew, translated it as “mighty hero” (Hebrew Lexicon, p. 49).
Alternatively, the name could be translated, “Wonderful in counsel is the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace.” This option is more in line with the names given to children by Isaiah elsewhere; She’ar-yashub (“A remnant will return”), Immanu’el (“God is with us”), and Maher-shalal-hash-bez (“Quick to the spoil, swift to the plunder”). In each of these cases, the name does not describe the child, but what the child signifies. Thus, the name Pele-joez-el-gibbor-abi-ad-sar-shalom could signify what will happen during this king’s reign, rather than describing the child himself.
The issue is further complicated by the fact that the prophecy was probably not originally referring to the Messiah, but foretelling the reign of Hezekiah. The pericope in which this prophecy is placed concerns the Assyrian invasion of Syria and Israel (Isa. 8:1-10:19), and so the most natural reading of the prophecy in Isaiah 9 is that it refers to a king who will save Judah from Assyria, that is, Hezekiah (Isa. 36-37). Although it ultimately came to be regarded as a Messianic prophecy (Matt. 4:14-16), its original fulfillment was found in Hezekiah. [14] Because of this, the name Pele-joez-el-gibbor-abi-ad-sar-shalom cannot be ascribing divinity to the child itself, since Hezekiah was obviously not God incarnate.
Isaiah 48:16: Yahweh, Who declares, “I am He, I am the First and I the Last... My hand has laid the foundation of the earth and My right hand has stretched out the heavens,” now also says, “the Lord Yahweh has sent Me and His Spirit.” There is no evidence of a change in speaker between v. 12 and v. 16. This shows there to be two Persons called Yahweh, one of whom sends the other.
The one who speaks in verse 16 is clearly the one about whom Yahweh just said, “I have summoned him, I lead him, and he will succeed” (v. 15). The speaker must change between verse 15 and 16 from the One who sends (Yahweh) and the one who is sent; there is no reason to think that the new speaker is also Yahweh apart from trinitarian presupposition. To the contrary, the context clearly shows that the one who is sent is he who will destroy Babylon — that is, God’s anointed, Cyrus (v. 14; cf. 45:1). [15]
Isaiah 61:1: Yahweh, Who is contextually the One speaking throughout the entirety of this passage (see 60:22; 61:8), says, “The Spirit of Lord Yahweh is upon Me, for Yahweh has anointed Me.” The same Yahweh Who is speaking then goes on to state that He will rejoice in Yahweh His God (v. 10)! The grammar indicates three Persons, all of Whom are called Yahweh directly: Yahweh Who anoints and sends to Israel, Yahweh Who is anointed and sent to Israel, and the Spirit of Lord Yahweh.
Commentators recognize that the speaker changes from Yahweh to His servant between Isa. 60:22 and 61:1, and again back to Yahweh between v. 4 and v. 5. [16] It was common for the Old Testament prophets to switch between speakers without warning (e.g., Isaiah 3:1-4; 34:2-8; 53:10-12; Hosea 14:1-4; Micah 1:6-16; Zechariah 14:1-3). There is also no reason to see “the spirit of Lord Yahweh” here as referring to a personal being; on the contrary, it refers to a mental disposition, of “wisdom and understanding… counsel and might… knowledge and fear of Yahweh,” which will be placed on the Messiah (Isa. 11:2).
Isaiah 63:8-10: Yahweh saved Israel by the instrumentality of the Angel of His Presence (see note on Exodus 23:20-21). However, they rebelled and His Holy Spirit grieved. The grammar indicates three separate Persons, all of Whom are identified with Yahweh (either in this passage or elsewhere) yet distinguished from one another.
The “agent [malak] of His presence” is not a divine Person, but likely a title of Moses or Joshua (see my response to the note on Exodus 23:20-21). The fact that Moses is in view here, and not some other divine Person, is made clear in Isa. 63:11-12. Moses is called “the agent of His presence” (literally “of His face”) because he spoke “face to face” with God (Exod. 33:11).
Furthermore, the fact that Israel “grieved His holy spirit” does not mean that ‘the Holy Spirit’ is a personal being. On the contrary, to be grieved in one’s spirit is a Hebraic idiom meaning simply ‘to be grieved,’ and does not imply that one’s spirit is a separate person. For example, Esau’s wives “grieved the spirits of Isaac and Rebekah” (Gen. 26:35); Daniel’s spirit was grieved by a vision he saw (Dan. 7:15); and Paul’s spirit was angered by idolatry (Acts 17:16). The spirits of these people were not separate from themselves. Therefore, Isaiah 63:10 does not demonstrate that “His holy spirit” is a separate person.
Jeremiah 23:5-6: The name of the Davidic king and Messiah Who will come to restore Israel will be “Yahweh our Righteousness.”
The name YHWH-tsidqenu could indeed be translated to say that the Messiah will be called “Yahweh our Righteousness.” However, it could also be translated to say that the Messiah will be called “Yahweh is our righteousness.” Furthermore, the city of Jerusalem is also called YHWH-tsidqenu (Jer. 33:16), though it is obviously not Yahweh Himself. As such, it cannot be concluded based on this verse that the Messiah is Yahweh Himself.
Daniel 7:13-14: “One like a son of man” is presented before the Ancient of Days, riding on the clouds of heaven, and is religiously served (pelach) by all people. Both riding on the clouds of heaven and being religiously served are deeds elsewhere reserved for Yahweh alone. This implicitly indicates that the “One like a son of man” is Himself Yahweh, despite being distinguished from the One on the throne.
Daniel says, “I saw one like a human [lit. ‘son of man’] coming with the clouds of heaven.” It is important to remember that this comes in the context of a prophetic vision, which is later explained in vv. 17-18, 22-27. According to the angel’s interpretation, the “one like a human” is not a single individual, but stands for “the holy ones of the Most High,” that is, the people of Israel (v. 18, 22, 27). [17] Jesus later adopts the title “Son of Man” as a Messianic title, because the Messiah is representative of true Israel. [18] However, in the original context, the ‘son of man’ clearly refers to the people of Israel. Thus, this passage cannot be claiming divinity for the ‘one like a son of man.’
What, then, does it mean for the people of Israel to “come with the clouds of heaven”? In the Old Testament, clouds are commonly symbolic of armies (Deut. 33:26-29; Jer. 4:13; Ezek. 38:9, 16). In the New Testament, we read that when Jesus returns, “the armies of heaven, clothed in white linen, fine and clean, followed him… and with him are his called, chosen, and faithful followers” (Rev. 17:24; 19:14). Therefore, when Daniel sees in his vision “one like a human coming with the clouds of heaven,” we should understand that “the holy ones of the Most High” will be followed by “the armies of heaven.”
What about the fact that we are told that “all peoples, languages and nations served him”? Some trinitarians claim that the Aramaic word translated as “serve” (pelach) can only refer to divine worship, but this is patently false. When the angel explains Daniel’s vision, he says, “all dominions shall serve [pelach] and obey them,” that is, “the people, the holy ones of the Most High” (Dan. 7:27). Therefore, this does not prove that the “one like a son of man” is God; rather, he is symbolic of the people of Israel.
Hosea 1:6-7: Yahweh states that He will save Israel “by Yahweh their Elohim.” This is evidence of two Persons called Yahweh, one of Whom sends the other to save Israel (esp. in light of Zech. 2:8-11).
On the contrary, this is an emphatic literary device called illeism, and simply means that Yahweh will save Israel by Himself. The same literary device is found all throughout the Hebrew Bible, used by human individuals: for example, see Gen. 4:23-24; 18:3; 27:31; 32:10; 44:18-34; 49:2; Num. 24:3; Deut. 3:24; Judg. 15:18; 1 Sam. 1:11, 16, 18; 12:11; 17:32-36; 20:13; 25:22-31; 2 Sam. 3:9; 5:8; 7:18-29; 11:23; 19:11, 12; 22:51; 24:23; 1 Kgs. 2:45; 14:2; 2 Kgs. 5:11; 10:18; 16:15; 18:33; 19:10; 2 Chron. 6:42; Ezra 4:22; 6:10; 7:11-26; Esth. 1:15; 8:8; 9:12; Job 26:2-3; Jer. 38:5; Dan. 3:28. [19] Illeism also appears all throughout the speech of gods and kings in other ancient Near Eastern writings. [20]
Zechariah 2:8-11: Yahweh of Hosts insists no less than three times that He has been sent by Yahweh, and that He Himself will come to dwell in the midst of Israel. This indicates the existence of at least two different Persons called Yahweh, one of Whom will send the other to dwell in Israel.
This passage can easily be translated in a way that removes this confusion:
For thus says Yahweh of hosts — after glory He has sent me — concerning the nations that plunder you, “For surely I will shake My hand against them, and they shall become plunder for their servants.” Then you will know that Yahweh of hosts has sent me. “Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For I am coming and will dwell in your midst,” says Yahweh, “And many nations shall be joined to Yahweh on that day, and they shall become My people, and I will dwell in your midst.” Then you will know that Yahweh of hosts has sent me to you.
What does it mean for Yahweh to “dwell in your midst”? Well, in context, this is a prophecy about the destruction of Babylon and the freedom of the Jews from exile (Zech. 2:6-13). Thus, when Yahweh states that He will dwell in their midst, He is referring to the Second Temple which was built after the exile (2 Chron. 36:23; Hag. 1:8; Zech. 1:16). Although this prophecy may have secondary fulfillment in the future when God, the Father, truly comes to dwell with His people (Rev. 21:1-5), the immediate fulfillment is clearly the Second Temple.
Zechariah 12:10: Yahweh says about Israel, “They will look on Me, the One Whom they have pierced.” However, in the NT, it is Jesus Who is pierced by Israel (Jn. 19:37). This shows conclusively that Jesus is Yahweh.
The full verse states, “They will look on Me, the one whom they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and will grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.” Since God refers to the coming Messiah in both the first and third person, we can conclude that the Messiah is in some sense Yahweh, but is also not Yahweh.
This makes sense if we look just two verses back: “In that day, the house of David will be as God to them, as the agent [malak] of Yahweh” (Zech. 12:8). In other words, the Messiah, the Son of David, will be considered “God” in a representative sense by virtue of being God’s agent. The authors of the New Testament understood this, because John quotes Zech. 12:10 as, “They will look on him whom they pierced” (19:37). John clearly understood that the Messiah would only be God in a representative sense, and paraphrased Zech. 12:10 rather than quoting it directly to avoid confusion.
Zechariah 14:9: Yahweh, Who is one and Whose name is one, will Himself become king over the whole earth from Jerusalem. This indicates that the coming Messiah will indeed be Yahweh Himself.
Yahweh will become king through His chosen vassal, the Messiah, to whom He has given over the kingdom until the end (1 Cor. 15:24-28). This is the same as the other Davidic kings of Israel, whom God chose as His vassals to rule over His kingdom (2 Chron. 9:8; 13:8).
Refuting All Trinitarian ‘Proof-Texts’
The Old Testament
______________________________
[1] The ‘plural of majesty,’ which refers to plural titles, is to be distinguished from the so-called ‘royal we,’ which refers to plural pronouns. The Old Testament certainly has examples of the plural of majesty, but there is no evidence that the ‘royal we’ was present in biblical Hebrew.
[2] Wilhelm Gesenius, one of the foremost authorities on biblical Hebrew, wrote in his Hebrew Grammar (§124), “That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in יםִהֹלֱא [Elohim] (whenever it denotes one God), is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.”
[2] Wilhelm Gesenius, one of the foremost authorities on biblical Hebrew, wrote in his Hebrew Grammar (§124), “That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in יםִהֹלֱא [Elohim] (whenever it denotes one God), is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.”
[3] The NET Bible is a Bible translation, produced by evangelical Christian scholars, which has extensive translation and study notes. According to the study note on Genesis 1:26, “The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text... In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8)... Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine ‘image’ in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.“
[4] Regarding Genesis 3:5 and 22, the NET Bible states, “In this case אֱלֹהִים [elohim] has to be taken as a numerical plural referring to ‘gods,’ ‘divine beings,’ for if the one true God were the intended referent, a singular form of the participle would almost certainly appear as a modifier. Following this line of interpretation, one could translate, ‘You will be like divine beings who know good and evil.’ The following context may favor this translation, for in 3:22 God says to an unidentified group, ‘Look, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil.’ It is probable that God is addressing his heavenly court… the members of which can be called ‘gods’ or ‘divine beings’ from the ancient Israelite perspective… The statistical evidence strongly suggests that the participle [‘knowing’] is attributive, modifying ‘divine beings’ (see Ps 31:12; Isa 1:30; 13:14; 16:2; 29:5; 58:11; Jer 14:9; 20:9; 23:9; 31:12; 48:41; 49:22; Hos 7:11; Amos 4:11). In all of these texts, where a comparative clause and accompanying adjective/participle follow a copulative (‘to be’) verb, the adjective/participle is attributive after the noun in the comparative clause.”
[4] See Jubilees 10.22-23.
[5] The NET Bible writes on Gen. 20:13, “Perhaps Abraham is accommodating his speech to Abimelech’s polytheistic perspective. (See GKC 463 §145.i.) If so, one should translate, ‘when the gods made me wander.’” Wilhelm Gesenius writes, “The construction of יםִהֹלֱא God with the plural of the predicate may be explained... partly as an acquiescence in a polytheistic form
of expression” (GKC §145). On Genesis 20:13; 31:53; 35:7; 2 Sam. 7:23; and Psalm 58:11, see Michael Heiser, “The Noun Elohim with Plural Predicate: Implications for Israelite Religion.”
[6] The NET Bible states, “Laban had a polytheistic world view, as evidenced by his possession of household idols (cf. 31:19). The translation [NET] uses ‘God’ when referring to Abraham’s God, for Genesis makes it clear that Abraham worshiped the one true God. It employs ‘god’ when referring to Nahor’s god, for in the Hebrew text Laban refers to a different god here, probably one of the local deities.”
[7] Regarding Gen. 35:7, the NET Bible says, “Perhaps אֱלֹהִים (ʾelohim) is here a numerical plural, referring both to God and the angelic beings that appeared to Jacob.”
[8] Troy Salinger, “Exodus 23:20-23: Who Is The Angel?”, Let the Truth Come Out (blog), 5 January 2023.
[9] Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 75; Tertullian, Answer to the Jews 9; Against Marcion 3.16; Augustine, Against Faustus 16.19; for an opposing view, see Cyprian, Testimonies Against the Jews 2.5.
[10] Claude Mariottini, “Jezebel’s Wedding Song — Part 1,” Dr. Claude Mariottini — Professor of Old Testament (blog), 11 December 2007.
[11] Regarding the plural verb in Psalm 58:11, the NET Bible states, “Another option [than scribal error] is to translate, ‘Yes indeed, there are gods who judge in the earth.’ In this case, the statement reflects the polytheistic mindset of pagan observers who, despite their theological ignorance, nevertheless recognize divine retribution when they see it.”
[12] This is the view taken by most major commentaries; see here (BibleHub).
[13] The NET Bible says, “The plural pronoun refers to the Lord, the seraphs, and the rest of the heavenly assembly.”
[14] Grace Song, “Hezekiah or Jesus: Who is the Child of Isaiah 9:6-7,” Reformed Perspectives Magazine 10, no. 14 (April 2006).
[15] Regarding Isa. 48:16, the NET Bible states, “The speaker here is not identified specifically, but he is probably Cyrus, the Lord’s ‘ally’ mentioned in vv. 14-15.”
[16] E.g., Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, Isaiah 61:1; Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, Isaiah 61:1; NET Bible Commentary, Isaiah 61:5.
[17] The NET Bible writes on Daniel 7:13, “In both Jewish and Christian circles the reference in the book of Daniel has traditionally been understood to refer to an individual, usually in a messianic sense. Many modern scholars, however, understand the reference to have a corporate identity. In this view, the ‘son of man’ is to be equated with the ‘holy ones’ (vv. 18, 21, 22, 25) or the ‘people of the holy ones’ (v. 27) and understood as a reference to the Jewish people.”
[18] See Isa. 49:3-6 in which the Messiah is referred to as “Israel” and yet is also said to save Israel. See also John 15:1 in which Jesus refers to himself as “the true vine,” which is symbolic of ‘true Israel’ (cf. Psa. 80:8-9; Isa. 5:1-2; Jer. 2:21).
[19] Ervin Roderick Elledge, “The Illeism of Jesus and Yahweh,” 29-85.
[20] Ibid., 110-151.
No comments:
Post a Comment