It took a couple of days of searching—mostly due to struggling with how to formulate the right search string, putting my Google-fu to the test—but I finally discovered the solution for WordPress stripping the angle brackets ‘<’ and ‘>’ from incoming code published remotely using Windows Live Writer. So when I publish this:

<p>Wit is educated insolence.</p>

What ends up getting published is this:

pWit is educated insolence./p

It seems that the problem is produced by a bug in the version of the LibXML2 software library that our site is running, which mangles XML-RPC requests when parsing XML. If you are running anything less than PHP version 5.2.9+ with LibXML2 version 2.7.3+ then you are likely to experience this problem. (Obviously this sort of stuff is way over my head, so you can see why I struggled with my searches.) I talked to the technical support staff with our web hosting company but they were either unable or unwilling (I could not interpret which) to update the version of PHP and LibXML2 that we are running. But surely there had to be some kind of fix available.

And there is! Thanks to Joseph Scott and JoeWare.net the solution is very simple. Scott wrote a WordPress plugin that magically fixes the problem. From the Plugins menu at your WordPress dashboard, click Add New and search for LibXML2 Fix. Or you can click on the following link to download the plugin:

http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/libxml2-fix/

Many thanks to WordPress Answers, Joseph Scott, and JoeWare.net!

A response to John Hileman

(The following is my response to @JohnHileman who sent me a message on Twitter earlier this evening.)

Thank you for raising those questions to me on Twitter and directing me to your article (Hileman, 2011). You asked me two questions; first, whether or not I believe in miracles, and second, what I think of your story about faith.

Do I believe in miracles? The short answer is yes. However, I do not really look at miracles in the way they are most commonly supposed, as violations of nature by an act of God. On the one hand, I tend toward a view that is most succinctly captured by Augustine who said, “Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us in nature,” such that the term ‘miracle’ is sort of shorthand for our ignorance of how God accomplished some extraordinary thing he did. On the other hand, I tend toward a view of the Creator and the cosmos that the Israelites of the ancient Near East held, in that everything is an act of God. As noted by John Walton, Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, there was no concept of a ‘natural’ versus ‘supernatural’ dichotomy in their world view. That is a relatively modern invention. God revealed to them—and to us through them—that everything is a product of him acting. “Every plant that grew, every baby born, every drop of rain and every climatic disaster was an act of God,” Walton observed. “There were no ‘miracles’ (in the sense of events deviating from that which was ‘natural’), there were only signs of [God’s] activity (sometimes favorable, sometimes not). The idea that deity got things running then just stood back or engaged himself elsewhere (deism) would have been laughable in the ancient world because it was not even conceivable. As suggested by Richard Bube, if God were to unplug himself in that way from the cosmos, we and everything else in the cosmos would simply cease to exist. … The categories of ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ had no meaning to them, let alone any interest” (2009, pp. 20-21). The universe would not exist but for the providential sustaining power of this covenant God. All of creation exists by him, through him, and for him; by his word all things were created and have their being; all things are held together in him. This is the biblical world view to which I am committed.

What do I think of your story of faith? Well it is edifying, first of all, and I thank you for sharing it. Although there were fewer players involved, I experienced something that was not too unlike your story. My wife and I along with our newborn daughter had gone for a long drive away from civilization; we were looking to enjoy a warm Sunday afternoon at a lake someone had told us about. At the end of the day, as we started to make our way back toward civilization our car got stuck, and quite badly. It was just the three of us, in the middle of nowhere and very alone as the afternoon was creeping toward evening. This was a few years before the ubiquity of cell phones, and it would have taken several hours of walking before reaching any signs of civilization. There was nothing we could do but pray, and we certainly did. About 30 minutes later a tow truck showed up. In the middle of nowhere. On a single-lane dirt road in the woods. Several miles from anything. A tow truck. Did I mention that our car was badly stuck? How perfect is a tow truck? Later that night after our daughter was asleep in her crib, my wife and I grabbed the telephone book to find the number for the towing company whose name was on the side of the truck. We wanted to get the name of the gentleman so we could send him some kind of thank you gift. There was no listing for a towing company by that name. We called a couple of listed numbers and were told they had never heard of a company by that name. It was a mystery. I am not suggesting that he was an angel who specially appeared from God in answer our prayer, but to my wife and I that man certainly was an angel, even if metaphorically. I have no idea who he was, where he was from, or what he was doing with a tow truck in the middle of nowhere, just what we needed and at just the right time, but I do give God all the glory for that answer to our prayer.

Is there a plausible and perfectly ‘natural’ explanation for our experience? Maybe. I have a very good imagination and can think of any number of perfectly ‘natural’ explanations for a tow truck being in the woods miles away from civilization as evening was drawing near. Perhaps he worked for a local towing company and had recently purchased this tow truck from another town and was just taking it for a drive to check it out. Who knows. But as I indicated earlier, I reject the notion that miracles are violations of nature by an act of God. At the most profound end of the spectrum, miracles are events which contradict what we know about nature—and when it comes to nature we have more ignorance than knowledge, a fact which our scientific pursuits keep humbling us with. We have no idea how Jesus walked on water, for example, but we cannot on that basis conclude that it therefore violated the laws of nature. Maybe there is a scientific explanation for how he did that, which we have yet to discover. We have such a long, long way to go before we truly understand the laws of nature. As I said, ‘miracle’ in this sense is shorthand for our ignorance of how God accomplished some extraordinary thing he did. He is a covenant God of promise: he will not violate the laws of nature (cf. Jeremiah 33:25-26, “But I, the LORD, make the following promise: I have made a covenant governing the coming of day and night. I have established the fixed laws governing heaven and earth. Just as surely as I have done this, so surely will I never reject the descendants of Jacob. Nor will I ever refuse to choose one of my servant David’s descendants to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”).

But as I also indicated earlier, everything is an act of God. As such I glorify him for the entire experience—for our getting stuck, for the tow truck appearing, for the lessons of faith that we learned, for however it edifies those I share the story with and so forth. And the same should apply to the story that you shared. You are a writer so you also have a very good imagination and could probably think of any number of perfectly ‘natural’ explanations that would account for the various elements in the story. But even supposing one of those explanations being the case, would that mean that it was not an act of God in answer to your wife’s prayer? According to the biblical world view to which I am committed, it certainly was an act of God in answer to her prayer; as such I would say her attitude (and yours) and what she said to your daughter was right and entirely consistent with what God reveals about himself and his creation. Like I said to you over Twitter earlier, “I think you and your wife glorified God for his providential care.” I appreciate your story, particularly the way it made me reflect upon my own similar experience and motivated me to thank him all over again.

References:

John Hileman, “Is it really God?John Michael Hileman [blog] (2011, August 2).

John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (InterVarsity Press, 2009).

Aristostats for 2011

I have noticed that there are some in the blogosphere who are looking back over the last year and reporting on various stats generated by their blogs, such as Josiah Concept Ministries and others. They talk about page view totals for the year, which pages were the most popular, who their top referrers were, the most popular browsers used to view their site and so forth. So I thought I would likewise take a look back over the last year and see what some of our totals were. The following information was pulled from the data collected by the company that hosts the Aristophrenium.

Total number of page views for 2011 were in excess of 201,200, which actually topped our 2010 total of 197,700.

For those who prefer visit counts, last year’s total pushed upwards of 65,400, beating the previous year’s total of 48,900.

And the amount of bandwidth we have used over the last two years is 22.3 GB.

The most active month surprisingly was December (24,131 page views).

The most popular operating systems are not a surprise: Windows (74%), Macintosh (16%), and Linux (7%), with the remaining three percent comprised of Other (which I suspect are things like smartphones and mobile devices).

And the top web browsers used are likewise not much of a surprise: Explorer (29%), Firefox (28%), Chrome (21%), Safari (16%), Opera (3%), and Other (3%).

And the top five most viewed articles for 2011 were:

  1. Adam Morgan, “We don’t hate sin so we don’t understand what happened to the Canaanites.”
  2. Luis Dizon, “The Trinity in the Torah.”
  3. Adam Morgan, “Do homosexuals have equal rights?
  4. Mathew Hamilton, “Abortion images: Ignorance isn’t bliss, it’s just ignorance (or worse).”
  5. David Smart, “Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011).”

And finally, the top ten referrers for 2011 were:

  1. atheistforums.org
  2. 4simpsons.wordpress.com
  3. www.facebook.com
  4. hereiblog.com
  5. www.choosinghats.com
  6. urbanphilosophy.net
  7. www.reclaimingthemind.org
  8. apologetics315.blogspot.com
  9. sydneyanglicanheretics.blogspot.com
  10. www.newcovenantforum.org

I don’t often make reviews of debates, but when I do, it’s usually when I hear a debate that was exceptionally good and is worth commenting on. Perhaps one of the best debates I’ve heard this year was the one between Dr. James White and Abdullah Kunde on the doctrine of the incarnation. The debate took place in Australia back in September 17 of this year. The video of the debate can be viewed below:

Read the rest of this entry

Star of Bethlehem

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, “Christmas Bells,” The Complete Poetical Works of Longfellow (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1893).

I heard the bells on Christmas Day;
their old, familiar carols play.
And wild and sweet
the words repeat
of peace on earth, good will to men!

And thought how, as the day had come,
the belfries of all Christendom
had rolled along
the unbroken song
of peace on earth, good will to men!

Till ringing, singing on its way,
the world revolved from night to day.
A voice, a chime,
a chant sublime
of peace on earth, good will to men!

Then from each black, accursed mouth
the cannon thundered in the South;
and with the sound
the carols drowned,
of peace on earth, good will to men.

It was as if an earthquake rent
the hearth-stones of a continent,
and made forlorn
the households born
of peace on earth, good will to men.

And in despair I bowed my head;
”There is no peace on earth,” I said,
“for hate is strong,
and mocks the song
of peace on earth, good will to men.”

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead, nor doth He sleep!
The wrong shall fail,
The right prevail,
with peace on earth, good will to men!”

MercyMe, “I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day,” track 10, The Christmas Sessions [CD] (INO Records, 2005).

Video uploaded to YouTube by ryanturner70 on 31 July 2010.

A little over three weeks ago I published an article addressing 1 Peter 3:15 and how, when it comes to apologetics or defending the biblical world view, we are to set apart Christ as Lord in our hearts when meeting that task (Smart, 2011); that is the very point which the passage begins with, after all.

Today I received a comment on that article by Jeremy Styron of the Our Daily Train blog. No, I do not know who that is either, nor am I familiar with that blog at all. But that is neither relevant nor important vis-a-vis addressing his comment, which was brief so I shall quote it in full here, and then I want to address it (Styron, 2011):

The third paragraph here (beginning with “And we certainly ought to be ready”) is a garbled mess of question begging and wishful thinking. Explaining the “hope” you possess in Christ isn’t good enough, since Muslims aren’t going to convince me of their hope in Allah either. And you admitted it here that Christ is your reason for hope. So you actually should provide a reason for why he’s your reason for hope. And good luck with that. Outside of your own desire for it to be true, there is scant evidence that Christ existed at all, much less that he was anything other than a peasant roaming the countryside. There is not a single contemporary source that confirms his existence. Base your hope on a guy for which there is no evidence outside of the Bible all you want.

There are two essential points here that I wish to address.

First, he suggests that I am guilty of begging the question, a charge he connects to the very existence of Jesus. However, his existence was not the question so this charge is utter nonsense. It is both common and reasonable to assume certain things for the sake of argument; one is guilty of begging the question only if one’s argument assumes the very thing to be proved. The existence of Jesus was not the point at issue or the thing to be proved; the point at issue was the role he plays in the hope we possess, which does not make sense apart from his existence so we obviously assume his existence for the sake of that argument. The question of whether or not Jesus ever existed is an important and relevant but nevertheless separate question. Assuming the existence of Jesus does not per se (by itself) explain the hope we possess, which simply underscores that his mere existence is not the question.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, he said that our explaining the hope we possess in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ is “not good enough.” Good enough for what? For convincing him, apparently: “Muslims are not going to convince me of their hope in Allah, either.” And thus Styron makes the all too common mistake of supposing that the Christian’s task is to convince unbelievers. This, of course, is not the Christian’s task at all, which Styron would know if he bothered to understand the biblical world view he presumes to argue against. It is rather like hearing a young-earth creationist say, “Evolutionists are not going to convince me that we evolved from monkeys.” If one is going to argue against a position, one should properly understand it first. It is not our task as Christian’s to convince Styron; that is the Holy Spirit’s task (see regeneration). Our task is to spread the message of the gospel everywhere, making disciples in all the nations of the earth, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything Jesus commanded us. As Peter notes, part of that task involves always being ready, with Christ set apart as Lord in our hearts, to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope we possess. One plants the seed of the word, another waters it, but it is God who makes it grow (Deu 30:6; Eze 11:19; 36:26-27; John 3:27; 6:63-65; 10:25; Act 11:18; 13:48; 16:14; 18:27; 1 Cor 2:4–5; 3:6–7; Eph 2:8-10; Php 1:29; 1 Thes 1:4–6; 2 Tim 2:25-26; Jas 1:18; 1 Pet 1:3; 2 Pet 1:1).

References:

David Smart, “The context is setting apart Christ as Lord,” Aristophrenium [blog] (2011, November 24).

Jeremy Styron, comment on Smart, 2011. (2011, December 23).

12 Reasons for Christmas

John Piper, “12 Reasons for Christmas,” Desiring God (1991, December 9).

  1. “For this I was born and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth” (John 18:37).
  2. “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8; cf. Hebrews 2:14-15).
  3. “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17).
  4. “The Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10).
  5. “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).
  6. “God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Galatians 4:5).
  7. “For God so loved the world that whoever believes on him shall not perish but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved” (John 3:16).
  8. “God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him” (1 John 4:9).
  9. “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10).
  10. “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against . . . that the thoughts of many may be revealed” (Luke 2:34f).
  11. “He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed” (Luke 4:18).
  12. “Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God’s truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarches, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy” (Romans 15:7-8; cf. John 12:27f).

christopherhitchens.png

It might seem a little odd that a Christian apologetics web site should pay respect to the passing of a militant atheist who was so fervently opposed to the Christian religion, but in all honesty I rather enjoyed the contributions he made to the culture of dialogue between Christians and atheists. He was inarguably a man possessed of considerable rhetorical skill and sardonic wit who managed to articulate his antipathy for religious convictions with an eloquence that was engaging and thought-provoking. Despite the fact that his arguments were sophomoric and did not present any cogent challenge to biblical Christianity, he nevertheless forced believers to think critically and do their homework regarding the points on which he attempted to hang his arguments, and in my books that is always a good thing for it produces a more informed believer. And in the forge of his blazing vitriol, combined as it was with the likes of Richard Dawkins and the other “four horsemen” of neo-atheism, my own apologetic was tempered and refined to contend with a new breed of antitheism.

Say what you will about his venomous language but one can hardly dispute that the man was a gifted writer, “the vocation of his life, one in which he excelled,” pastor and theologian Douglas Wilson admitted (2011, para. 2). Hitchens himself confessed that writing was not just his living and livelihood but his very life; after having received some injection to relieve the pain in his hands and fingers, a side effect of which is a numbness in the extremities, he greatly feared losing the ability to write. “I feel my personality and identity dissolving as I contemplate dead hands and the loss of the transmission belts that connect me to writing and thinking,” he confessed toward the end of what would be his last essay (2011, para. 20). In spite of the stark antithesis between the convictions and values of Hitchens and myself that is one thing that we both shared in common, a passionate and consuming need to write and an abiding appreciation for its capacity to serve as a conduit for shaping not only our own thoughts but also the thinking of others. Although he used his craft as a rhetorician and author to distill and augment his enmity with God—and maybe that is one sense in which we can take Tom Gilson’s comment that Hitchens’ rhetorical effectiveness “was in many ways his undoing” (2011, para. 4)—there is little room for doubt that he was powerfully eloquent and captivated his readers, both admirers and critics alike. He may have been convincing only to the already convinced but to just about anyone he was eminently readable, engaging, and entertaining.

Nobody of course knows what will be his ultimate fate other than the fact that, like everyone else, he will stand before the judgment throne of God. It is unfortunate that he cultivated such an atheistic celebrity because it practically cemented his obdurate rebellion against God and repentance. So worried was Hitchens about the potential for reports of a deathbed confession that he crafted in advance a narrative to combat that sort of thing. As he told his friend Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic in an interview (Goldberg, 2010; video clip 2:56–3:26):

Now might be the time to say, I guess, that in the event of anyone reading or hearing a rumor of any such thing [as a deathbed confession] being made it would not have been made by me. The entity making such a remark might be a raving, terrified person whose cancer has spread to the brain. I can’t guarantee that such an entity wouldn’t make such a ridiculous remark. But no one recognizable as myself … could possibly say something so silly.

As Wilson observed, it was almost as if Hitchens was “afraid of letting down the infidel team,” so to speak (para. 10), as if to express a sort of concern that his antitheistic legacy might be robbed of its credibility should he quite inexplicably turn to Christ in repentance and faith at the end. If you hear something like that coming out of my mouth, he said, then it was not me saying it. He wanted people to know that if he confessed faith, then the Christopher Hitchens we all knew “should be counted as already dead,” Wilson said (ibid.). What Wilson found most interesting was that the advance narrative Hitchens prepared, while yet manifestly in his right mind, did not involve someone claiming to have heard him cry out to God and thus misrepresenting yet another unbeliever (as had been done with Charles Darwin, for example), but rather involved Hitchens himself uttering such a thing. Was Hitchens thus implying that it was conceivable to him that he might (and thus he had to discredit it ahead of time)? I have to agree with Wilson: it is interesting that Hitchens framed the advance narrative in the way that he did.

But I bring this up because of something that I found particularly interesting beyond what Wilson observed: the biblical truth inadvertently lurking within the narrative that Hitchens crafted. If he should turn to Christ in repentance and faith at the end, then we should understand that it was not him saying it, that the Hitchens we all knew would never do or say any such thing, that in the face of such a statement he should be counted as already dead. And that is precisely what would be the case, for that is the very nature of what happens for anyone who turns to Christ in genuine repentance and faith. It is a new creation that emerges from regeneration, that is, being born again of the word of Christ and power of the Spirit; the old person is gone, having given his life up to God for Christ’s sake: “For through the law I died to the law so that I may live to God. I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:19-20). It is true that if Hitchens had turned to Christ in repentance and faith it would not have been the Hitchens we all knew who had done such a thing; indeed that Hitchens would be counted as already dead if he went from loving sin and hating God to loving God and hating sin, because those who are “in Adam” are morally and spiritually incapable of such a thing. And the one who believes in Christ will live even if he dies (John 11:25). The unintended irony of his advance narrative is that it was entirely consistent with a pronouncement of saving faith he was trying to distance himself from.

We do not know if he turned to Christ; there is no reason to suppose he did and plenty of reasons to think he did not. And that is a sad and sober thing, for on the day that he stands before the throne of God he would have nothing to which he can appeal but the 62 years he lived from April 13, 1949, until December 15, 2011, a life during which he heard the light of the gospel in many ways and from many people but preferred the darkness of life apart from Christ, the Son of God he defiantly reviled. That is not by any means something to celebrate and I want nothing to do with the Westboro Baptist type of people who would disgrace themselves and bring shame to the name of Christ by doing so. It is something that we should reflect upon soberly as we include his wife, family, and particularly his brother in our prayers.

As for me, I am going to miss him.

The deep pain that is felt at the death of every friendly soul arises from the feeling that there is, in every individual, something which is inexpressibly peculiar to him alone, and is therefore absolutely and irretrievably lost.

— Arthur Schopenhauer

(See Peter Hitchens, “In Memoriam: My courageous brother Christopher, 1949-2011,” Daily Mail Online [2011, December 16]).

(See also Larry Alex Taunton, “My Take: An evangelical remembers his friend Hitchens,” CNN Belief Blog (2011, December 16). This is a powerfully evocative piece and well worth the read. It gives you a peek at a side of Hitchens that few got to see.

There are others in the Christian apologetics community who have commented on his passing. Please take the time to read their reflections on this event:

References:

Tom Gilson, “On the passing of Christopher Hitchens,” Thinking Christian [blog] (2011, December 16).

Jeffrey Goldberg, “Hitchens talks to Goldblog about cancer and God,” The Atlantic (2010, August 6). See also Goldberg, “On the possibility of Christopher Hitchens finding Jesus” (2011, December 13).

Christopher Hitchens, “Trial of the Will,” Vanity Fair (2012, January).

Douglas Wilson, “Christopher Hitchens Has Died, Doug Wilson Reflects,” Christianity Today (2011, December 16).

HT: Dr. James White

The Trinity in the Torah

God does not change. His nature is the same now as it as has ever been and will ever be throughout eternity. What this means is that the God who reveals Himself in the New Testament is the same God who reveals Himself in the Old. And while the New Testament gives a fuller explanation His nature, aspects of these revelations are nonetheless present in the Old Testament. This is particularly true of God’s triune nature. Even back in the time of Moses and his contemporaries, aspects of the Trinity are already partially revealed in the pages of the Torah.

This does not mean that the Israelites in those days had the exact same understanding of God that Christians do today. The Israelites were limited to what God has chosen to reveal about Himself at that point in time. This is true even today, as even with the fullness of revelation, we continue to be limited to what God has revealed in the books that today comprise the Bible. The reason why the Trinity will always be mysterious and paradoxical to us is that God does not reveal everything that there is to know about Himself, but chooses only to give us what we need to know about Him. As the Torah states: “the secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:29). We shall speak only where He speaks, and we shall remain silent where He remains silent.

That being said, it is worth looking at what is contained in the Torah in order to see what can be gleaned from it regarding the Triune nature of God. In doing so, it must be confessed that we are approaching it in hindsight: we are interpreting it in light of what has been revealed later on in the rest of the Bible. This is not an invalid approach, since truth is necessarily consistent, and the fact that something wasn’t noticed before doesn’t mean that it wasn’t there prior to its being noticed. What matters is that we are being true to the real meaning of the text, and are not merely attempting to import foreign concepts into it.

First of all, it must be pointed out that the Trinity has always been there from the beginning. Even in the opening chapters of Genesis, one can see that when God decrees creation, when He says “let there be” it is His Word that brings about the creative acts. Moreover, we are told that His Spirit hovers over the face of the unformed world just prior to the six days of creation (Genesis 1:2).[1] This same Spirit gives life to creation, as seen when God puts His breath in the first man, and he is said to become a living soul (Genesis 2:7).

It is interesting to note as well that in the sixth day, when God decides to create man, He says, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). The usage of the first person plural here is very intriguing, and implies that personal self-distinctions exist within the Being of the Creator. Now, there are alternate ways of attempting to explain this passage. Some say that God is addressing His angels, or that He is speaking in the plural of majesty (just as how the queen of England would say “We are not amused.”) Needless to say, these explanations do not really work, as they cannot be substantiated by the rest of scripture.[2] The best explanation remains that God speaks in the first person plural because He is multi-personal in nature.

One other piece of information to take into account is the appearance of God to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre (Genesis 18:1ff). As He converses with Abraham, He discusses His plans to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:17ff). In the next chapter, God walks towards Sodom and Gomorrah, and their destruction is described. Interestingly, it is written towards the end of the account that “Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” (Genesis 19:24). Here, there appear to be two Yahwehs present simultaneously; one on earth and one in heaven. If we read this passage in light of the Triune nature of God, the appearance of more than one person who are both regarded by scripture as Yahweh make perfect sense.

Finally, a word must be said regarding the oneness of God, as it is always important to connect the oneness of God’s Being with the threeness of His person: Every practicing Jew is familiar with the words of the Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). What is interesting is that the Hebrew language has two words for “one.” The first one is the word yakhid (יְחִֽידְ). This word is used to denote absolute oneness. In the Torah, it is used to refer to a child who has no siblings.[3] If the Hebrew author wanted to indicate that God was an absolute, homogenous unity, he would have used this term.

However, as anybody who can read the shema in Hebrew knows, the word that is used is not yakhid, but rather ekhad (אֶדחָֽ). This is a word that is used to simply mean unity, without the connotation of homogeneity or aloneness that comes with the first word. It is interesting to see how this word is used elsewhere in the Torah. For example, in Genesis 2:24, when a man leaves his parents to become joined to his wife, it is said that they become “one [אֶחָֽד] flesh.” And when the spies are sent by Moses to survey the promised land, when they come to the valley of Eshcol, it is written that [they] cut down a branch with a single [אֶחָ֔ד] cluster of grapes; and they carried it on a pole between two men, with some of the pomegranates and the figs” (Numbers 13:23). As is clear from the way the word is used in these two instances, the word Ekhad can be used to denote a compound unity. That is exactly what the Trinity means: That God is a compound unity of three persons Who together constitute One Being.

Thus, it can be seen that belief in God as a Trinity is perfectly compatible the confession of faith found in the Shema. Furthermore, we can see how this teaching is found embedded in the pages of the Pentateuch. Although it is nowhere near as clear here as it is in the New Testament, we see that even then, God has already provided hints of His Triune nature.

Endnotes

  1. Some translations (such as the NRSV and NEB) render the word Ruwakh (ר֣וּחַ) as “wind” rather than “Spirit,” but this makes little difference, since in the Hebraic conception, wind and spirit are one and the same concept.
  2. Biblical scholar Dr. Gleason Archer notes concerning Genesis 1:26: “This first person plural can hardly be a mere editorial or royal plural that refers to the speaker alone, for no such usage is demonstrable anywhere else in biblical Hebrew. Therefore, we must face the question of who are included in this ‘us’ and ‘our.’ It could hardly include the angels in consultation with God, for nowhere is it ever stated that man was created in the image of angels, only of God. Verse 27 then affirms: ‘and God [Elohim] created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them’ (NASB). God—the same God who spoke of Himself in the plural—now states that He created man in His image. In other words, the plural equals the singular. This can only be understood in terms of the Trinitarian nature of God. The one true God subsists in three Persons, Persons who are able to confer with one another and carry their plans into action together—without ceasing to be one God” (Archer, Gleason. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982. p. 359.).
  3. It is used this way three times in Genesis 22, where Isaac is said to be Abraham’s “only [יְחִֽידְ] son” (verses 2, 12 and 16).

Further Reading


SoulVision Theme created in Dreamweaver with ThemeDreamer | skidzopedia | Blogger Templates
Imagery courtesy of Billy Alexander | Distributed by Wordpress Themes