Posts Tagged ‘father’

Jesus, Son Of Man, Son Of God (Part 4): The Trinity In The Old Testament

December 23, 2013

There are a lot of spiritually and scripturally ignorant people who view the doctrine of the Trinity as a problem.  The doctrine of the Trinity is not a problem at all; rather, it is an OBVIOUS ANSWER to the “problem” of the biblical data which assure us that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

Question: Does the Old Testament allow for the doctrine of the Trinity?

Answer: You betcha it does.
I. Uniqueness, Unity, and Diversity: a brief study on the nature of the God who would send the Messiah and give us the Bible.

A. God’s Uniqueness and Unity presented in the midst of a pagan world.

1. The fundamental point of OT theology is the uniqueness and unity of Israel’s God as opposed to the polytheism of Israel’s neighbors.

a. All the religions of the nations surrounding Israel were basically nature cults, designed to enlist the aid of the pantheon and ensure the fertility of the land.
b. Humans were basically created because the gods were lazy and needed someone to do the work so they could play and stay drunk.
c. In contrast, Duet 6:4 claims, “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.”  Yahweh alone is the true and living God.  He is unique and it is therefore humanity’s obligation to worship Him alone.  We also find that, unlike the pantheons (e.g. the Baal pantheon) God is not divided.  In Num 6:27, God’s “name” is singular in number (“put My name upon the people”).

2. But the above emphasis on the unity of God’s being seems to be supplemented by a kind of mulitiplicity suggesting distinct centers of consciousness, as we are about to see.
3.  And further, Israel knew that the “Lord is one,” but it also became aware of one called “Seed,” “Branch,” “Wisdom,” “Prophet,” and “King” (as well as [another?] one called “Spirit of God” and “Holy Spirit.”).

B. The diversity of the one true God revealed in the Pentateuch.

1. A study of “the Lord is one” (‘ehad /echad. Strong’s #259) in Deut 6:4.

a. “’Ehad” is closely identified with “yahad” (“to be united”) and “ro’sh (“first, head).” It stresses unity while also recognizing the potential for diversity within that oneness. A good translation for this sense would be “a compound unity/oneness.” The word “compound” is defined as being “composed of two or more parts, elements or ingredients.” Read Num 13:23 and Gen 1:5 for illustration.
b. Here are a FEW of the MANY times when ‘ehad/echad is used in this manner:

1) Gen. 1:5: The yom echad (first day) is a combination of two things – the evening and the morning as a compound unity.
2) Gen. 2:24: Adam and Eve became l-visar echad (one flesh). They were one, but two and they were two, but one.
3) Gen. 3:22: Adam and Eve became “one” (echad) with God. But they did not lose their personhood when they became “one” with God.
4) Gen. 11:6: The people were one (echad). They were, thus, “one” and “many” at the same time.
5) Gen. 34:16, 22: The Shechemites wanted to become “one people” (l-`am echad) with the Jews.
6) Ex 24:3 describes all the people as speaking “with one voice.”
7) In Ex 26:6,11; 36:13 the NIV translates “‘ehad” as “a unit.” The tabernacle curtains were fastened together to form one unit.
7) II Chron. 30:12: God gave the people “one heart” (lev echad). Obviously, the thousands of individual hearts were “one” in a compound or composite sense.
7) Ezra 2:64: The “congregation” (kol-haqahal) of forty two thousand, three hundred and sixty persons was described as “one” (k-echad). Similarly, in Jud 20:8 and 1 Sam 11:7 the word “’ehad” is used in the phrase “as one man” (all the people arose as one man).
8) Jer. 32:39: Under the New Covenant, God will give His people “one heart” (lev echad).

c. There ARE times where the word ‘ehad/echad is used as “one” in the sense affirmed by strict Unitarian monotheists (such as Deut 17:6 (“only one witness” as opposed to “two or three witnesses”) and Ex 9:6 (“but not one animal”). But all Christians need to demonstrate here is that there is a powerful sense of ‘ehad/echad as a compound oneness throughout the Bible. Thus the Trinity is in the door EVEN in the Shema of Deut 6:4, the monotheistic Jews’ most powerful claim of strict monotheism. It is simply intellectually dishonest not to recognize that fact. And NOTE that when we speak of human witnesses and animals, we are speaking of one AMONG MANY. We are merely speaking about one particular human or animal among many others. So this is hardly the strongest case for ‘ehad being used in a strict Unitarian sense.
d. By contrast, there IS another Hebrew word – “yachid” (Strong’s #3173) – which means an absolute or solitary oneness. It is even translated “solitary” in Psalm 68:6 and refers to someone who is absolutely alone. This is its general meaning throughout Scripture. Unitarians should naturally expect to find that the word yachid applied to God in the Bible. On the other hand, Trinitarians would not expect to find yachid used of God because they believe that there are three Persons within the Godhead. So who is right? When we turn to the Bible, what do we find? The authors of Scripture NEVER applied yachid to God. They never described God as a solitary person. This is simply devastating to the Unitarian position of strict monotheism.
e. “The Lord is one” of Deut 6:4 is a powerful contrast with the polytheism that surrounded Israel. It is clear that God is one in some profound sense, and that, as one, He is unique and worship is to be accorded to Him alone. But it does NOT in any way rule out the doctrine of the Trinity. Quite the contrary: it allows for it as much as “one team” allows for 11 or even 53 49er football players to be on the field.

2. A study of “In the beginning God created” (Elohim).

a. The 3rd word in the Hebrew Bible (‘In the beginning God’) conveys a clear sense of plurality in God.
b. “Im” (in “Elohim”) is a masculine plural suffix, which clearly allows – if not demands – for a plurality of persons.
c. This plural form (the singular is “’Eloah”) occurs ONLY in Hebrew and is not found in any other Semitic language (including Aramaic). THERE IS NO PLURAL FORM OF GOD IN ARAMAIC, ONLY IN HEBREW.  You seriously have to wonder why ONLY the Jews used the plural form if they were supposed to be strict Unitarian monotheists.
d. The singular form “Eloah” IS used in the Old Testament, but why is the plural form “Elohim” used FAR, FAR more???   Note that the singular form does NOT damage Trinitarian doctrine because Trinitarians AGREE that “God is ONE in His nature; we hold that God is ONE in Nature and THREE in Person.  The question here is why the plural form of God “Elohim” is used at ALL if God is the strict Unitarian entity of the radical strict monotheism of Islam and Judaism???
e. It is simply a fact that Israel, in distinction from all the nations, had a unique sense of plurality in the one true God whom they worshipped in addition to the fact that God is One.

3. A study of the use of plural pronouns and verbs.

a. Plural pronouns are used to describe the actions of God (Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7).

– This phenomenon of plural pronouns points to a plurality of persons within the Godhead.
– Religious liberals who like to call this a “plural of majesty” fail to be properly disappointed by the fact that there is NO example of a “plural of majesty” in the Ancient Near East. (And no Hebrew king ever uses “we” or “us” to describe himself). The very earliest usage of such a plural of majesty is in 4th century AD Byzantine – some 800 years AFTER the OT was written.

b. The OT occasionally uses plural verbs when God is the subject and a singular form of the verb would be expected.

– wooden literal translation of Gen 35:7 is “because there the gods they had revealed themselves to him [Jacob].”
– Liberals don’t want to acknowledge the deity of Jesus Christ, and they therefore refuse to acknowledge any grounds for the doctrine of the Trinity in the OT. If the facts get in the way, so much the worse for the facts!

4. A study of the enigmatic figure called the angel of the Lord (Gen 16:7-14). The angel of the Lord is apparently distinguished from “Yahweh” (v. 11b) and then identified with Yahweh, El, and Elohim (v. 13).

– Note that in Gen 16:10 the Angel of the Lord says, “I will multiply your offspring.” Contrast that with appearances of angels who are NOT “the Angel of the Lord,” such as Gabriel in announcing to Mary.
– In Luke 1:28 Gabriel says, “The Lord is with you.” In Luke 1:30 Gabriel says, “Do not be afraid, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive…” And when Mary asked, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” Gabriel responded in Luke 1:35, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”
– Contrast Gabriel’s “God will do these things” with the Angel of the Lord who said “I will do these things.”
– Who is this Angel of the Lord? He is the Preincarnate Christ

5. A study of the three “mystery men” who appeared to Abraham. Yahweh appeared to Abraham (18:1); when he lifted up his eyes he saw three men (v. 2).

– Notice in Gen 18:1 “the LORD” (Yahweh) appeared to Abraham. How does “the LORD” appear? In the form of three men standing before him.
– Why three men? Because God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  If you think you’ve got a response that somehow rules out the doctrine of the Trinity, let’s hear it.
– The doctrine of the Trinity is MORE than allowed in the Old Testament.  And as we continue to study the Person of Messiah as revealed in Old Testament prophecy, the fact that God is three Persons will scream louder and louder and louder.
– Just as God progressively revealed His sacrificial system and His law and His Messiah in the Old Testament prophecy, He similarly progressively revealed His Triune nature.

6. A study of the three-fold repetition of divine blessing with the three-fold repetition of the divine name. Paul saw in Num 6:24-26 a foreshadowing of the Trinity (2 Cor 13:14).

– Numbers 6:24-26 says, “‘”The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face shine on you and be gracious to you; the LORD turn his face toward you and give you peace.”‘
– 2 Corinthians 13:14 says, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.”

THIS is the language of the Bible that revealed the coming of the Person – the DIVINE Person, the Second Person of the Trinity – of the coming Messiah.

Advertisements

The Heinous Failure Of The Obama Administration Against Terrorism

December 29, 2009

This essentially is the first time that Democrats have been in charge of the war on terror.  And – contrary to Obama’s “good solid B+” that he gave himself – Democrats have flunked hideously.

According to Rasmussen, 79% of Americans believe another terrorist attack is likely within the next year.  Which is a thirty point jump from the end of August.  That’s a profound lack of confidence in Barack Obama.

“The war on terror.”  The very phrase demonstrates the unforgivable incompetence of Barrack Hussein.  Because his people refused to use the word “terrorism” and tried to replace it with “overseas contingency operation” and “man-caused disaster” to deny the reality of terrorism through politically correct re-labelling.  But with terrorist attacks occurring on US soil, what’s the deal with the word “overseas”?  It’s right here.

After days of White House officials saying they did a smashing job, even Obama is now finally calling his own administration’s handling of this terror attack “totally unacceptable.”

“There was a mix of human and systemic failures that contributed to this potential catastrophic breach of security,” Obama [FINALLY] said today.

There have been over a dozen attempted terrorist attacks against the United States on American soil in 2009, and two of them have been successful.

“Brian Jenkins, who studies terrorism for the Rand Corporation, says there were more terror incidents (12), including thwarted plots, on U.S. soil in 2009 than in any year since 2001. The jihadists don’t seem to like Americans any better because we’re closing down Guantanamo.”

And they don’t like us any better because of Barack Hussein’s naivete, incompetence, and constant apologies denouncing his own country, either.

We have only to look at the last two attacks to see the casual disregard and the blatant incompetence the Obama administration has demonstrated in the war against terrorism.

During the November Fort Hood terrorist attack that killed thirteen soldiers and wounded dozens more, the Obama administration first denied any link to terrorism, then basically suppressed the investigation after scores of details began to emerge revealing what a shocking failure of the system had taken place under Obama’s watch.  Obama himself gave an incredibly weird speech just after the attack, in which he offered a “shout out” to a man whom he incorrectly identified as having received the Medal of Honor before spending mere moments acknowledging that more than a dozen US soldiers on a secure American base inside the United States had just been murdered by a jihadist.

And we’re now beginning to see a rather frightening disconnected pattern emerging as to how Obama deals with terrorism.

In any event, we just had a situation in which a terrorist very nearly detonated a device that probably would have brought the plane down – killing 290 – and possibly would have killed many more as it crashed into Detroit’s airport.  The words “Christmas miracle” are being used to describe the luck we had in so narrowly avoiding this disaster.

And what was the Obama response?  Well, at first, nothing.  The same fawning sycophants that Obama surrounded himself with – who awakened him immediately to notify him that he “won” the Nobel price – didn’t bother to tell him that the United States had just experienced a terrorist attack for three full hours.

Obama didn’t bother to respond (and interrupt his glorious Hawaiian vacation) even after he heard about it.  But his minions began running around.  Their initial blathering was that “the system has worked very, very smoothly.”

Apparently, Obama believed that the media would give him the same adoring propaganda that they gave him during the campaign (which Bernard Goldberg dubbed “A Slobbering Love Affair“).  The narrative was that since the attack didn’t succeed, Barack Obama must be a brilliant commander-in-chief.  But fortunately, that lie was almost immediately revealed as a lie and angrily refuted even by the mainstream media.

I mean, even the New York Times is saying Obama screwed this up terribly.

The same incompetent Obama official – Department of Homeland Security administrator Janet Napolitano – who claimed how well the system worked proceeded to acknowledge that the system was a failure the very next day.  “The system did not work in this instance,” she said by way of massive understatement.

So the system that worked very, very smoothly actually didn’t work.

Mind you, this was also the same Obama official who had previously refused to call terrorists “terrorists,” but had no problem calling our very own returning veterans who had fought such terrorists “rightwing extremists” while hiring a man who turned out to be an actual terrorist to explain how our soldiers were potential terrorists.

Then the Obama administration went back to their tried and true formula, and the only thing they are actually good at: they decided to blame Bush.

From the Washington Post:

“White House officials struggled to explain the complicated system of centralized terrorist data and watch lists, stressing that they were put in place years ago by the Bush administration.”

The problem with that thesis is that the Bush system actually worked.  Here was a kid (I say “kid” because he looks like he’s about 15 years old) whose name showed up on a terrorist watch list.  It’s not George Bush’s fault that the Obama administration ignored the list.  Or that they ignored the fact that the UK had refused to issue the kid a visa a few months back after catching the kid in a lie regarding his purpose for visiting the country.  Or that the kid had spent the last couple of months in terrorist-dreamland Yemen.  Or that the kid’s father had personally gone to the UN embassy and said his son had been radicalized.  Or that the kid had no passport to go to the United States.  Or that the kid suspiciously didn’t bother to check any luggage on an international flight.  Those things were Goerge Bush’s fault exactly HOW?

Like every other time Obama has pointed a demagoguing finger of blame at Bush, there were at least three fingers pointing right at him.

Now we’re finding out that the father of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab actually met with the Central Intelligence Agency at the US embassy in Nigeria on November 19 and told them that his son was radicalized.   Basically, he couldn’t have done more without hiring a skywriter to scrawl, “Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is a terrorist!” over the White House.

We’re now finding out that the CIA had been tracking this kid since August.

And it’s George Bush’s fault that this terrorist got through?

Realize that whenever Obama blames Bush, what he is really admitting is that he is a pathetically incompetent non-leader who will not take responsibility for his failures.

George Bush wouldn’t have said that his system was perfect.  He would have argued that it needed to be constantly updated.  But Barack Obama not only has failed to improve on the security protections put into place by George Bush; he has worked hard to tear those protections apart and leave this nation and its citizens dangerously exposed.

Stop and think about it: Shoe Bomber Richard Reid (aka Abdul Raheem and as Tariq Raja) attempted to blow up a plane with PETN back in December, 2oo1 – only a couple of months after 9/11.  Bush systematically implemented policies to keep us safe.  Obama tore those policies apart, and look what is happening.

We can blame George Bush for not recognizing that Barrack Hussein was a dangerous man, and sticking him in Gitmo before he had a chance to do more damage.  But other than that, no honest person would blame George Bush for Obama’s failure.

When Obama finally bothered to make his initial comment on the attack (in a short statement, taking no questions), he said that the attack had been committed by an “isolated extremist” (and please note the inherent contradiction within even his own statement!).  But by the time he said that, it was already obvious that the only thing “isolated” about this attack was the Obama White House.  The kid said he had been trained and sent by al Qaeda, and that there were some 25 more terrorists just like him ready to unleash hells of their own.  And it turned out that the PETN explosive had come from al Qaeda-base Yemen.  And al Qaeda acknowledged that this kid was one of theirs.

Steve Hayes called Obama’s “isolated extremist” remark “stunningly foolish.”  And even the liberal Washington Post pointed out “the disturbingly defensive reaction of the Obama administration.”

Obama also said that his administration was doing “everything in it’s power to keep you safe.”  And then he treats the terrorist who had just tried to murder hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans like a common criminal and allows him to lawyer up while doctors attend to the wounds he incurred trying to murder said Americans.  For what its worth, the Bush administration would have recognized that this terrorist wasn’t a “criminal” at all, but a perpetrator of an act of war against the United States of America, and an enemy of the state.  And the Bush administrator – rather than focusing on the kid’s “rights” – would have instead focused on the country’s right to find out who had sent this punk to murder its citizens and every detail of every aspect of leading up to the attack so that we could stomp out another nest of terrorists.

Allow me to quote Joe Wilson to respond to Barack Hussein: “You lie!”

This was a cascading leadership failure from top to bottom.  A lousy disgrace of a president picked a lousy disgrace of a Homeland Security Secretary.

Now for the idiotic and frankly immoral liberal devices to defend America in a war they won’t even acknowledge is a damn war.

The word “profiling” immediately comes to mind.

Mind you, it’s not that the Obama administration isn’t profiling, just that they are focusing on the wrong profile.  I mean, the terrorist in question wasn’t a returning combat veteran who’d recently come back from protecting this country from terrorists; he didn’t have any “tea bags” on him; he wasn’t an evangelical Christian; he wasn’t pro-life.  They just had the wrong profile, and need to adjust it to include actual terrorists.

Let us not forget that the terrorists are profiling us.

The Christmas terrorist attack was a naked attempt to murder as many Christians as possible during Christmas.  Obama Democrats shriek at the thought that we might profile a terrorist.  But the terrorists are sure as hell profiling us.

Then you add the fact that for the last eight years millions and millions of innocent and harmless Americans have been subjected to invasive and embarrassing procedures to make sure we’re not jihadist murderers, but this young Muslim male who attended madrases and came from Yemen and paid for his ticket in cash and didn’t have a passport gets aboard with his damned bomb?

That American grandma in the walker isn’t your terrorist, dumbasses.  And it is an affront to common sense and even sanity that you treat that Grandma the same as the 23 year old Muslim whose just come from Yemen.

A lot of liberals are now STILL saying that we don’t dare violate the civil liberties of Muslims, regardless of the fact that 99.9999999999998% of all the hundreds of thousands of terrorist attacks over the past 20 years have been committed by Muslims. They want us to use invasive and expensive scanning equipment that literally strips us naked and shows our boobies, our bottoms, and our hoo hoos, and tramples on everybody’s basic rights, rather than focus on the group that is perpetrating the terror attacks.  We need to violate the civil rights of 300 million Americans, rather than acknowledge that Muslim terrorists are all actually Muslims.

The craziest thing of all about the body scanners that liberals want might be this: Muslims apparently wouldn’t stand for submitting to such scans, and Obama liberals are such moral idiots that they would probably exempt Muslims from the scans used to detect explosives brought on planes by Muslims.

George Bush was like Winston Churchill in the war on terror; and Barack Obama is like Neville Chamberlain.  Chamberlain tried to compromise with terror, negotiate with it.  Winston Churchill, nearly alone among leaders (FDR included), realized that Nazism was so evil that it literally had to be fought to the death.

Obama Democrats believed George Bush viewed terrorism through an ideological prism, and saw nonexistent enemies everywhere.  The thing is that Obama Democrats ALSO view terrorism through an ideological prism, but see enemies NOWHERE.  And Obama’s ideology keeps biting him in the balls because both his ideology and his policies simply fail to correspond to reality.