1. 150 AD Justin Martyr: In this text, Justin the Christian is trying to convince Trypho the Jew that Jesus is God, by showing one of the three men who appeared to Abraham, was Yahweh himself: ” I [Justin] inquired. And Trypho said, “Certainly; but you have not proved from this that there is another God besides Him who appeared to Abraham, and who also appeared to the other patriarchs and prophets. You have proved, however, that we [the Jews] were wrong in believing that the three who were in the tent with Abraham were all angels.” I [Justin] replied again, “If I could not have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of those three is God, because, as I already said, He brings messages to those to whom God the Maker of all things wishes [messages to be brought], then in regard to Him who appeared to Abraham on earth in human form in like manner as the two angels who came with Him, and who was God even before the creation of the world, it were reasonable for you to entertain the same belief as is entertained by the whole of your nation.” “Assuredly,” he said, “for up to this moment this has been our [the Jews] belief.” … “And now have you not perceived, my friends, that one of the three, who is both God and Lord, and ministers to Him who is in the heavens, is Lord of the two angels? For when [the angels] proceeded to Sodom, He remained behind, and communed with Abraham in the words recorded by Moses; and when He departed after the conversation, Abraham went back to his place. And when he came [to Sodom], the two angels no longer conversed with Lot, but Himself, as the Scripture makes evident; and He is the Lord who received commission from the Lord who [remains] in the heavens, i.e., the Maker of all things, to inflict upon Sodom and Gomorrah the [judgments] which the Scripture describes in these terms: ‘The Lord rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.’ “(Dialogue of Justin Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew, Chapter LVI.—God Who Appeared to Moses is Distinguished from God the Father.)

2. 180 AD Irenaeus “Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord. And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, “Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the LORD out of heaven.” For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness. And this [text following] does declare the same truth: “Thy throne, O God; is for ever and ever; the scepter of Thy kingdom is a right scepter. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee.” For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God — both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father.” (Irenaeus, Book 3, ch 6)

3. 200 AD Tertullian “That is a still grander statement [of Christ’s deity] which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” There was One “who was,” and there was another “with whom” He was. But I find in Scripture the name Lord also applied to them Both: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand.” And Isaiah says this: “Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? ” Now he would most certainly have said Thine Arm, if he had not wished us to understand that the Father is Lord, and the Son also is Lord. A much more ancient testimony [of Christ’s deity] we have also in Genesis: “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” Now, either deny that this is Scripture; or else (let me ask) what sort of man you are, that you do not think words ought to be taken and understood in the sense in which they are written, especially when they are not expressed in allegories and parables, but in determinate and simple declarations?” (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, [In which he defends, in all essential points, the doctrine of the holy trinity.] Chapter XIII.—The Force of Sundry Passages of Scripture Illustrated in Relation to the Plurality of Persons and Unity of Substance. There is No Polytheism Here, Since the Unity is Insisted on as a Remedy Against Polytheism.)

4. 250 AD Ignatius “For Moses, the faithful servant of God, when he said, “The Lord thy God is one Lord,” and thus proclaimed that there was only one God, did yet forthwith confess also our Lord [Jesus] when he said, “The Lord [Jesus] rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord.” And again [he confessed a second time our Lord Jesus by saying], “And God said, Let Us make man after our image: and so God made man, after the image of God made He him.”" (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, Chapter II.—The True Doctrine Respecting God and Christ.)

5. 253 AD Cyprian “In the Gospel according to John: “The Father judgeth nothing, but hath given all judgment unto the Son, that all may honour the Son as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father who hath sent Him.” Also in the seventy-first Psalm: “O God, give the king Thy judgment, and Thy righteousness to the king’s son, to judge Thy people in righteousness.” Also in Genesis: “And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur, and fire from heaven from the Lord.”" (The Treatises of Cyprian, Treatise XII. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews. Third Book., Testimonies., 33. That the Father judgeth nothing, but the Son; and that the Father is not glorified by him by whom the Son is not glorified.)

6. Novatian: “For who does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he reads that it was said by the Father, consequently to the Son, “Let us make man in our image and our likeness; ” and that after this it was related, “And God made man, in the image of God made He him? “Or when he holds in his hands: “The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord from heaven? ” (A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, Chapter XXVI. Argument.—Moreover, Against the Sabellians He Proves that the Father is One, the Son Another.)

7. Novatian “Therefore the Lord overturned Sodom, that is, God overturned Sodom; but in the overturning of Sodom, the Lord rained fire from the Lord. And this Lord was the God seen by Abraham; and this God was the guest of Abraham, certainly seen because He was also touched. But although the Father, being invisible, was assuredly not at that time seen, He who was accustomed to be touched and seen was seen and received to hospitality. But this the Son of God, “The Lord rained from the Lord upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire.” And this is the Word of God. And the Word of God was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and this is Christ. It was not the Father, then, who was a guest with Abraham, but Christ. Nor was it the Father who was seen then, but the Son; and Christ was seen. Rightly, therefore, Christ is both Lord and God, who was not otherwise seen by Abraham, except that as God the Word He was begotten of God the Father before Abraham himself.” (A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, Chapter XVIII. Argument.—Moreover Also, from the Fact that He Who Was Seen of Abraham is Called God; Which Cannot Be Understood of the Father, Whom No Man Hath Seen at Any Time; But of the Son in the Likeness of an Angel.)

8. Constitutions of the Holy Apostles: “To Him did Moses bear witness, and said: “The Lord received fire from the Lord, and rained it down.” Him did Jacob see as a man, and said: “I have seen God face to face, and my soul is preserved.” Him did Abraham entertain, and acknowledge to be the Judge, and his Lord.” (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book V. XX. A Prophetic Prediction Concerning Christ Jesus.)

In a recent question-and-answer article, Rabbi Stanley Greenberg of Temple Sinai in Philadelphia wrote:

Christians are, of course, entitled to believe in a trinitarian conception of God, but their effort to base this conception on the Hebrew Bible must fly in the face of the overwhelming testimony of that Bible. Hebrew Scriptures are clear and unequivocal on the oneness of God . . . The Hebrew Bible affirms the one God with unmistakable clarity. Monotheism, an uncompromising belief in one God, is the hallmark of the Hebrew Bible, the unwavering affirmation of Judaism and the unshakable faith of the Jew.”

Whether Christians are accused of being polytheists or tritheists or whether it is admitted that the Christian concept of the Tri-unity is a form of monotheism, one element always appears: one cannot believe in the Trinity and be Jewish. Even if what Christians believe is monotheistic, it still does not seem to be monotheistic enough to qualify as true Jewishness. Rabbi Greenberg’s article tends to reflect that thinking.

He went on to say, “…under no circumstances can a concept of a plurality of the Godhead or a trinity of the Godhead ever be based upon the Hebrew Bible.” It is perhaps best then to begin with the very source of Jewish theology and the only means of testing it: the Hebrew Scriptures. Since so much relies on Hebrew language usage, then to the Hebrew we should turn.

1. God Is A Plurality

The Name Elohim

It is generally agreed that Elohim is a plural noun having the masculine plural ending “im.” The very word Elohim used of the true God in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” is also used inExodus 20:3, “You shall have no other gods (Elohim) before Me,” and in Deuteronomy 13:2, “…Iet us go after other gods (Elohim)…” While the use of the plural Elohim does not prove a Tri-unity, it certainly opens the door to a doctrine of plurality in the Godhead since it is the word that is used of the one true God as well as for the many false gods.

Plural Verbs used with Elohim

Virtually all Hebrew scholars do recognize that the word Elohim, as it stands by itself, is a plural noun. Nevertheless, they wish to deny that it allows for any plurality in the Godhead whatsoever. Their line of reasoning usually goes like this: When “Elohim” is used of the true God, it is followed by a singular verb; when it is used of false gods, it is followed by the plural verb. Rabbi Greenberg states it as follows:

“But, in fact, the verb used in the opening verse of Genesis is ‘bara’ which means ‘he created’—singular. One need not be too profound a student of Hebrew to understand that the opening verse of Genesis clearly speaks of a singular God.”

The point made, of course, is generally true because the Bible does teach that God is only one God and, therefore, the general pattern is to have the plural noun followed by the singular verb when it speaks of the one true God. However, there are places where the word is used of the true God and yet it is followed by a plural verb:

Genesis 20:13: “And it came to pass, when God (Elohim) caused me to wander [literally: They caused me to wander] from my father’s house…Genesis 35:7: “…because there God (Elohim) appeared unto him…” [Literally: They appeared unto him.]

2 Samuel 7:23: “…God (Elohim) went…” [Literally: They went.]

Psalm 58:12: “Surely He is God (Elohim) who judges…[Literally: They judge.]

The Name Eloah

If the plural form Elohim was the only form available for a reference to God, then conceivably the argument might be made that the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures had no other alternative but to use the word Elohim for both the one true God and the many false gods. However, the singular form for Elohim (Eloah) exists and is used in such passages as Deuteronomy 32:15-17 and Habakkuk 3:3. This singular form could have easily been used consistently. Yet it is only used 250 times, while the plural form is used 2,500 times. The far greater use of the plural form again turns the argument in favor of plurality in the Godhead rather than against it.

Plural Pronouns

Another case in point regarding Hebrew grammar is that often when God speaks of himself, he clearly uses the plural pronoun:

Genesis 1:26: Then God (Elohim) said,”Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.…”

He could hardly have made reference to angels since man was created in the image of God and not of angels. The Midrash Rabbah on Genesis recognizes the strength of this passage end comments as follows:

“Rabbi Samuel Bar Hanman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan said, that at the time when Moses wrote the Torah, writing a portion of it daily, when he came to this verse which says, “And Elohim said, let us make man in our image after our likeness,” Moses said, “Master of the universe, why do you give herewith an excuse to the sectarians (who believe in the Tri-unity of God).” God answered Moses, “You write and whoever wants to err, let him err.”1

It is obvious that the Midrash Rabbah is trying to simply get around the problem and fails to answer adequately why God refers to Himself in the plural.

The use of the plural pronoun can also be seen in:

Genesis 3:22: Then the LORD God (YHVH Elohim) said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us…”Genesis 11:7: “Come, let Us go down, and there confuse their language…”

Isaiah 6:8: Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?”

This last passage would appear contradictory with the singular “I” and the plural “us” except as viewed as a plurality (us) in a unity (I).

Plural Descriptions of God

One point that also comes out of Hebrew is the fact that often nouns and adjectives used in speaking of God are plural. Some examples are as follows:

Ecclesiastes 12:1: “Remember now you creator…” [Literally: creators.]

Psalm 149:2: “Let Israel rejoice in their Maker.” [Literally: makers.]

Joshua 24:19: “…holy God…” [Literally: holy Gods.]

Isaiah 54:5: “For your Maker is your husband…” [Literally: makers, husbands.]

Everything we have said so far rests firmly on the Hebrew language of the Scriptures. If we are to base our theology on the Scriptures alone, we have to say that on the one hand they affirm God’s unity, while at the same time they tend towards the concept of a compound unity allowing for a plurality in the Godhead.

The Shema

Deuteronomy 6:4: Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!

Deuteronomy 6:4, known as the Shema, has always been Israel’s great confession. It is this verse more than any other that is used to affirm the fact that God is one and is often used to contradict the concept of plurality in the Godhead. But is it a valid use of this verse?

On one hand, it should be noted that the very words “our God” are in the plural in the Hebrew text and literally mean “our Gods.” However, the main argument lies in the word “one,” which is a Hebrew word, echad. A glance through the Hebrew text where the word is used elsewhere can quickly show that the word echad does not mean an absolute “one” but a compound “one.” For instance, in Genesis 1:5, the combination of evening and morning comprise one (echad) day. In Genesis 2:24, a man and a woman come together in marriage and the two “shall become one (echad) flesh.” In Ezra 2:64, we are told that the whole assembly was as one (echad), though of course, it was composed of numerous people. Ezekiel 37:17 provides a rather striking example where two sticks are combined to become one (echad). The use of the word echad in Scripture shows it to be a compound and not an absolute unity.

There is a Hebrew word that does mean an absolute unity and that is yachid, which is found in many Scripture passages,2 the emphasis being on the meaning of “only.” If Moses intended to teach God’s absolute oneness as over against a compound unity, this would have been a far more appropriate word. In fact, Maimonides noted the strength of “yachid” and chose to use that word in his “Thirteen Articles of Faith” in place of echad. However,Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) does not use “yachid” in reference to God.

II. God Is At Least Two

Elohim and YHVH Applied to Two Personalities

As if to even make the case for plurality stronger, there are situations in the Hebrew Scriptures where the term Elohim is applied to two personalities in the same verse. One example is Psalm 45:7-8:

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

It should be noted that the first Elohim is being addressed and the second Elohim is the God of the first Elohim. And so God’s God has anointed Him with the oil of gladness.

A second example is Hosea 1:7:

“Yet I will have mercy on the house of Judah, will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword or battle, by horses or horsemen.”

The speaker is Elohim who says He will have mercy on the house of Judah and will save them by the instrumentality of YHVH, their Elohim. So Elohim number one will save Israel by means of Elohim number two.

Not only is Elohim applied to two personalities in the same verse, but so is the very name of God. One example isGenesis 19:24 which reads:

“Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens.”

Clearly we have YHVH number one raining fire and brimstone from a second YHVH who is in heaven, the first one being on earth.

A second example is Zechariah 2:8-9:

For thus says the LORD of Hosts: “He sent Me after glory, to the nations which plunder you; for he that touches you touches the apple of His eye. For surely I will shake My hand against them, and they shall become spoil for their servants. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me.”

Again, we have one YHVH sending another YHVH to perform a specific task.

The author of the Zohar sensed plurality in the Tetragrammaton3 and wrote:

“Come and see the mystery of the word YHVH: there are three steps, each existing by itself: nevertheless they are One, and so united that one cannot be separated from the other. The Ancient Holy One is revealed with three heads, which are united into one, and that head is three exalted. The Ancient One is described as being three: because the other lights emanating from him are included in the three. But how can three names be one? Are they really one because we call them one? How three can be one can only be known through the revelation of the Holy Spirit.”4

III. God Is Three

How Many Persons Are There?

If the Hebrew Scriptures truly do point to plurality, the question arises, how many personalities in the Godhead exist? We have already seen the names of God applied to at least two different personalities. Going through the Hebrew Scriptures, we find that, in fact, three and only three distinct personalities are ever considered divine.

1. First, there are the numerous times when there is a reference to the Lord YHVH. This usage is so frequent that there is no need to devote space to it.

2. A second personality is referred to as the Angel of YHVH. This individual is always considered distinct from all other angels and is unique. In almost every passage where He is found He is referred to as both the Angel of YHVH and YHVH Himself. For instance, in Genesis 16:7 He is referred to as the Angel of YHVH, but then in 16:13 as YHVH Himself. In Genesis 22:11 He is the Angel of YHVH, but God Himself in 22:12. Other examples could be given.5 A very interesting passage is Exodus 23:20-23 where this angel has the power to pardon sin because God’s own name YHVH is in him, and, therefore, he is to be obeyed without question. This can hardly be said of any ordinary angel. But the very fact that God’s own name is in this angel shows His divine status.

3. A third major personality that comes through is the Spirit of God, often referred to as simply the Ruach Ha-kodesh. There are a good number of references to the Spirit of God among which are Genesis 1:2, 6:3; Job 33:4;Psalm 51:11; Psalm 139:7; Isaiah 11:2, etc. The Holy Spirit cannot be a mere emanation because He contains all the characteristics of personality (intellect, emotion and will) and is considered divine.

So then, from various sections of the Hebrew Scriptures there is a clear showing that three personalities are referred to as divine and as being God: the Lord YHVH, the Angel of YHVH and the Spirit of God.

The Three Personalities in the Same Passage

Nor have the Hebrew Scriptures neglected to put all three personalities of the Godhead together in one passage. Two examples are Isaiah 48:12-16 and 63:7-14.

Because of the significance of the first passage, it will be quoted:

“Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel, My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last. Indeed My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand up together. All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD has loved him; he shall do His pleasure on Babylon, and His arm shall be against the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; yes, I have called him, I have brought him, and his way will prosper. Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit have sent me.”

It should be noted that the speaker refers to himself as the one who is responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth. It is clear that he cannot be speaking of anyone other than God. But then in verse 16, the speaker refers to himself using the pronouns of I and me and then distinguishes himself from two other personalities. He distinguishes himself from the Lord YHVH and then from the Spirit of God. Here is the Tri-unity as clearly defined as the Hebrew Scriptures make it.

In the second passage, there is a reflection back to the time of the Exodus where all three personalities were present and active. The Lord YHVH is referred to in verse 7, the Angel of YHVH in verse 9 and the Spirit of God in verses 10, 11 and 14. While often throughout the Hebrew Scriptures God refers to Himself as being the one solely responsible for Israel’s redemption from Egypt, in this passage three personalities are given credit for it. Yet, no contradiction is seen since all three comprise the unity of the one Godhead.

Conclusion

The teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures, then, is that there is a plurality of the Godhead. The first person is consistently called YHVH while the second person is given the names of YHVH, the Angel of YHVH and the Servant of YHVH. Consistently and without fail, the second person is sent by the first person. The third person is referred to as the Spirit of YHVH or the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. He, too, is sent by the first person but is continually related to the ministry of the second person.

If the concept of the Tri-unity in the Godhead is not Jewish according to modern rabbis, then neither are the Hebrew Scriptures. Jewish Christians cannot be accused of having slipped into paganism when they hold to the fact that Jesus is the divine Son of God. He is the same one of whom Moses wrote when he said:

“Behold, I send an Angel before you, to keep you in the way, and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in Him. But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. For My Angel will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off.”
—Exodus 23:20-23

New Testament Light

In keeping with the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament clearly recognizes that there are three persons in the Godhead, although it becomes quite a bit more specific. The first person is called the Father while the second person is called the Son. The New Testament answers the question of Proverbs 30:4: “…What is His name, and what is his Son’s name, if you know?” His son’s name is Y’shua (Jesus). In accordance with the Hebrew Scriptures, he is sent by God to be the Messiah, but this time as a man instead of as an angel. Furthermore, He is sent for a specific purpose: to die for our sins. In essence, what happened is that God became a man (not that man became God) in order to accomplish the work of atonement.

The New Testament calls the third person of the Godhead the Holy Spirit. Throughout the New Testament he is related to the work of the second person, in keeping with the teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures. We see, then, that there is a continuous body of teaching in both the Old and New Testaments relating to the Tri-unity of God.

Footnotes
1Midrash Rabbah on Genesis 1:26, New York: NOP Press, N.D.
2Genesis 22:2,12; Judges 11:34; Psalm 22:21; 25:16; Proverbs 4:3; Jeremiah 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zechariah 12:10
3″Personal Name of God of Israel,” written in Hebrew Bible with the four consonants YHWH. Pronunciation of name has been avoided since at least 3rd c. B.C.E.; initial substitute was “Adonai” (“the Lord”), itself later replaced by “ha-Shem” (“the Name”). The name Jehovah is a hybrid misreading of the original Hebrew letters with the vowels of “Adonai.”—Encyclopedic Dictionary of Judaica, p. 593
4Zohar, vol. III, 288, vol. II, 43, Hebrew editions. See also Soncino Press edition, vol. III, 134.
5In Genesis 31 he is the Angel of God in verse 11, but then he is the God of Bethel in verse 13. In Exodus 3 he is the Angel of YHVH in verse 2 and he is both YHVH and God in verse 4. In Judges 6 he is the Angel of YHVH in verses 11, 12, 20, and 21 but is YHVH himself in verses 14, 16, 22 and 23. Then in Judges 13:3 and 21 he is the Angel of YHVH but is referred to as God himself in verse 22.

To Whom it May Concern:

Thank you for sending me ISSUES. I find it interesting to read other people’s viewpoints. I would like to continue my free subscription as long as you realize that I have no intention of believing in Jesus.

I cannot understand how you claim to be Jews and yet your belief that Jesus is somehow God is just the opposite of what Judaism teaches.

I used to think that you believed that Jesus became so holy that he became a god. Now I understand that Christians teach that God became a man instead of a manbecoming a god, which is nevertheless inaccurate.

No matter how you slice it, the idea of a Trinity” doesn’t make sense which you ought to know since the watchword of our faith is the sh’ma: “Hear O Israel the Lord our God the Lord is one.”

One God or monotheism is the cornerstone of Judaism. That is why it irritates me to think that you are spreading the belief that a Jew can think that somehow God is more than one.

However, I am an open-minded person and I do find some points of interest in ISSUES. I will continue to read your articles as long as you respect my position and don’t try to convert me.

Sincerely,

M.M.

We do not ordinarily print letters to the editor, but if enough people express interest in a particular issue, we try to address it. This is a composite letter of several we’ve received on the subject of the Trinity. – Editor

“Hear, O Israel, Adonai Eloheinu Adonai is one. These three are one. How can the three Names be one? Only through the perception of faith; in the vision of the Holy Spirit, in the beholding of the hidden eye alone.…So it is with the mystery of the threefold Divine manifestations designated by Adonai Eloheinu Adonai—three modes which yet form one unity.”¹

A Christian quote? Hardly. The above is taken from the Zohar, an ancient book of Jewish mysticism. The Zohar is somewhat esoteric and most contemporary Jews don’t study it, but there are other Jewish books that refer to God’s plurality as well.

Why then won’t Jews discuss these things? Could it be that to do so might lead a person to consider Y’shua (Jesus) as who and what he claimed to be?² Rabbis denounce the idea that God would come to us in human flesh as utterly pagan and contrary to what Judaism teaches.

What can we actually say that Judaism teaches? Some people see Judaism as a monolith of religion, with all its teachings resting upon the narrow foundation of the Sh’ma. The Sh’ma certainly is a point of unity that all Jews must affirm. But it does not state, imply or even support many of the interpretations and opinions that are labeled “what Judaism teaches.” What Judaism teaches is neither static nor monolithic! Phrases such as “Judaism teaches” or “according to our tradition” are relative. They do not mean “this was, is and always will be the one and only Jewish viewpoint.”

Ancient sages struggled with several portions of the Hebrew Scriptures and their implications vis-?-vis God’s plurality. Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Sh’ma) is but one such passage. Isaiah 6:8 is another: “Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” However, the first “proof” passage on God as more than one appears in the first chapter of the Hebrew Scriptures: “And God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26).³

Rabbis who believed that each word of the Hebrew Scriptures, each letter, is God’s revelation had to admit that God spoke to himself and referred to himself in the plural. How can that be, when we know there is only one God?

Much in Genesis 1:26 seems to confirm the idea that there is one God whose oneness is complex. The idea of God’s nature being triune (three in one) is mind-boggling. Contemplation of the infinite is always confusing to finite beings. Nevertheless, certain illustrations can help people grapple with the issue of a complex unity. C. S. Lewis, a talented philologist, writer and debater put it this way:

We must remind ourselves that Christian theology does not believe God to be a person. It believes Him to be such that in Him a trinity of persons is consistent with a unity of Deity. In that sense it believes Him to be something very different from a person, just as a cube, in which six squares are consistent with unity of the body, is different from a square. (Flatlanders, attempting to imagine a cube, would either imagine the six squares coinciding, and thus destroy their distinctness, or else imagine them set out side by side, and thus destroy the unity. Our difficulties about the Trinity are of much the same kind.)⁴

Christians consider themselves monotheists, while Jewish tradition maintains that believers in a triunity of God reject monotheism. Yet the Hebrew Scriptures do imply some kind of plurality in the Divinity. Why else would Jewish sages offer various alternatives to explain those implications, particularly in Genesis 1:26? Evaluate the following methods our forebears used to deal with the text.

1. Change the text or translate it differently

According to Jewish tradition, scholars who worked on the Septuagint⁵ translation of the Hebrew Scriptures for King Ptolemy were embarrassed by the plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26. They took the liberty of changing the text from “let us” to “let me.”⁶ Such “liberty” violates the sacredness of Scripture.

Other rabbinical commentators also took liberties with the text. The medieval rabbi Ibn Ezra described those commentators as “absurd” for attempting to translate the active “let us make” (na’a'seh) into a passive “there is made” (niphal). These commentators added that the phrase “in our image, after our likeness” was not said by God, but added as a postscript by Moses.⁷

2. The text describes God speaking to creation

Medieval commentators David Kimchi and Moses Maimonides accepted the talmudic interpretation of Rabbi Joshua b. Levi. Rabbi Levi explained that God was speaking to creation.

AND GOD SAID: LET US MAKE MAN, ETC. With whom did He take counsel? R. Joshua b. Levi said: He took counsel with the works of heaven and earth, like a king who had two advisers without whose knowledge he did nothing whatsoever.⁸

Levi knew that the plural implied that God was speaking to someone and concluded that the Lord was seeking advice and approval from other beings.

According to Rabbi Nachmanides, the plural reference denotes God speaking to the earth because “man’s body would come from the earth and his spirit (soul) from God.”⁹ But the separation of a person into distinct parts owes more to the Greek influence of Aristotle’s philosophy than to a careful and accurate reading of the text. The biblical view of humankind indicates that physical, spiritual and psychic aspects are held together in a composite and indivisible unity. Rabbi Abarbanel explained that God was capable of making all the lesser works of creation but needed assistance when it came to human beings. That position denies God’s omnipotence.

3. God is addressing the angels around his throne

Rashi explains that God chose to demonstrate humility by consulting his inferiors:

The meekness of the Holy One, blessed be He, they [the rabbis] learned from here: because man is in the likeness of the angels and they might envy him, therefore he took counsel with them.…Although they did not assist Him in forming him [the man] and although this use of the plural may give the heretics an occasion to rebel [i.e., to argue in favor of their own views], yet the verse does not refrain from teaching proper conduct and the virtue of humbleness, namely, that the greater should consult, and take permission from the smaller; for had it been written, “I shall make man,” we could not, then, have learned that He spoke to His judicial council but to Himself.¹⁰

According to Rashi, if God had used the singular (“I” and “my”) we could not have known he was addressing the angels. True—we would never have guessed that God was addressing angels, since there is no mention of angels in the text. But even with the plural, there is still no mention of angels in the text!

The text does not support the concept of God consulting angels in creation, and Rashi’s argument became a source of confusion and disagreement among various rabbis.

4. God was speaking to the souls of the righteous unborn

One Jewish tradition states that the souls of the righteous existed before God created the world (and were present at Mount Sinai for the receiving of the law). Those who believe this tradition link Genesis 1:26 with the phrase “there they dwelt with the king in his work” from 1 Chronicles 4:23.

R. Joshua of Siknin said in Rabbi Levi’s name: “[W]ith the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, sat the souls of the righteous with whom He took counsel before the creation of the world.”¹²

A later commentator rebutted the suggestion that God had partners in creation. He insisted that since no other beings are mentioned in the passage, it is not valid to invent them; in fact, it is best to maintain the solitude of God in creation: “Why was man created last? So that the heretics might not say there was a companion [i.e., Jesus] with Him in the work.”¹³

5. God was keeping his own counsel

Some Jewish scholars believe that the mystery of Genesis 1:26 can be solved grammatically. They suggest a “plural of deliberation,” whereby the plural expresses God’s pondering within himself, concentrating his thoughts and meditating over his decision.

Rabbi Ammi said: “He took counsel with His own heart. It may be compared to a king who had a palace built by an architect, but when he saw it, it did not please him: with whom is he to be indignant? Surely with the architect! Similarly, ‘And it grieved Him at His heart.’” (Genesis 6:6)¹³

Several passages in Scripture describe a person deliberating by “consulting” some part of himself. In Psalm 42:6, the psalmist addresses his soul: “Why art thou cast down, O my soul? And why moanest thou within me?” Yet unlike Genesis 1:26, the psalmist uses the words “O my soul,” and it is clear that he is deliberating within himself.

6. The royal “we”—plural of majesty

Just as Queen Victoria referred to herself in the plural (“We are not amused”), some say that God, as a majestic being, referred to himself the same way. This is a popular contemporary explanation. It does not raise the question of other beings. It rules out the possibility of God having a plural nature. It seems to be based on good linguistic evidence and analysis.

The Hertz Commentary on Genesis sees this explanation as one of two possibilities and points out that the first person plural is used for royalty in the Book of Ezra.¹⁴ ”The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me” (Ezra 4:18) is the sole example of a “plural of majesty” construction in Scripture. It also happens to be one of the few portions of Scripture in Aramaic, a language similar to Hebrew.

It would be poor scholarship to build a case for a grammatical construction in Hebrew on the grounds of this Aramaic text. Even so, the Ezra passage does not necessarily contain a singular royal subject linked to a plural verb-form. If the plural of majesty were a regular Hebrew idiom, why is the singular “me” in the same line?

Rabbinical commentators and linguists recognize that the Hebrew language provides no real basis for such an explanation.¹⁵ Ibn Ezra quotes the Gaon,…who suggests that the plural of Genesis 1:26 is the plural of majesty. He refuted that view in favor of God having consulted the angels.¹⁶ However, we have already mentioned the difficulties of using angels to solve the mystery.

7. There are different aspects within God’s being

Some rabbis acknowledge different aspects within God’s nature. There is no consensus as to what these aspects are or how to distinguish one from another. For example, the Zohar describes God as being both male and female.¹⁷

8. The Word: wisdom or messenger of God

Another way to explain Genesis 1:26 is to use the Memra, or “Word” of God. The Targum Neofiti (an early Aramaic paraphrase of the Hebrew text) translates verse 27: “And the Memra of the Lord created the man in his (own) likeness.”¹⁸

The Targum Onkelos on Deuteronomy 33:27 translates the Hebrew “underneath are the everlasting arms” as “And by His ‘Memra’ was the world created.”

Like the personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-31, the Word is often personified and assigned divine attributes, implying divine status.¹⁹ Memra is used to describe God Himself, especially when he is revealing himself to human beings. Rabbinical thought also links the Memra to the Messiah. The New Covenant portion of the Bible reveals a similar understanding of the role of the Word in creation.

The Book of Genesis records that God’s dynamic act of creation was through his spoken word: “And God said, Let there be light…,” etc.²⁰ The New Covenant Gospel of John begins this way:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.²¹

Jewish believers in Jesus believe in the Word of creation in Genesis. Therefore he is not only the Messiah, but God in human form.

Why the Rabbis Won’t Regard the Plurality of God with Credibility

Some rabbis agreed that the Genesis 1:26 passage gives weight to the case for God’s plurality. Their position has not shaped the current position or practice of Jewish religious leaders:

Rabbi Samuel ben Nahman said in Rabbi Jonathan’s name: “When Moses was engaged in writing the Torah, he had to write the work of each day. When he came to the verse, AND GOD SAID; LET US MAKE MAN, etc., he said: ‘Sovereign of the Universe! Why dost Thou furnish an excuse to heretics?’ (for maintaining a plurality of deity). ‘Write,’ replied He; ‘whoever wishes to err may err.’”²²

Some rabbis believe that to take the Scriptures at face value is to err. And yes, some out of concern to protect those who are deemed susceptible to such error, have set aside normative interpretations of the Scriptures. Rashi provided a clear example of this with the “suffering servant” passages of Isaiah 52 and 53.

The contemporary interpretation of Israel as the suffering servant was held by few of the early Jewish authorities. Nearly all believed it pointed to an individual and personal Messiah who would suffer and die for Israel’s sin. But Rashi popularized the “national view” in the Middle Ages to refute the obvious messianic interpretation. Neither grammar, context nor logic supports this view, yet it is considered superior to the previously held (Jewish) view.

Similarly, in discussion of the Genesis 1 passage, various cases are presented in order to refute Jewish belief in Y’shua. Rabbis understood that a passage wherein God speaks and acts in the plural is significant evidence of diversity within his nature. They also knew that the New Covenant describes Y’shua as the eternal Word of God, the instrument of creation and the fullness of God in human form. They realized that people might make a connection between the two and designed their interpretations for the sake of countering “the heretics.”²³

Rabbi Simlai said: “Wherever you find a point supporting the heretics, you find the refutation at its side. They [the heretics] asked him again: ‘What is meant by, AND GOD SAID: LET US MAKE MAN?’ ‘Read what follows,’ replied he: ‘not, “And gods created [Hebrew: wa-yibre'u—the plural of the verb] man” is written here, but “And God created [Hebrew: wa-yibra—in the singular]“‘ (Genesis 1:27). When they [the heretics] went out his disciples said to him: ‘Them you have dismissed with a mere makeshift, but how will you answer us?”²⁴

Rabbi Simlai dealt with Jewish believers in Jesus by sidestepping the question. His own disciples recognized that he had done so and expressed the need for a more satisfying reply.

Some of the ancients admitted that certain Scriptures seemed to pose a threat to their understanding of God. They sought ways to direct others away from disturbing conclusions, and, in the case of Rashi, they openly explained that they made choices based on the need to refute Christians.

A Warning and a Challenge

Reverence for the text prevented the ancient rabbis from ignoring or altering the text. Nevertheless, for all their creative solutions to the mystery of this passage, they could not agree on an answer that would satisfy them all.

Today, however, Jewish thinkers are in danger of simply excising from Scripture and from history clues that the rabbis were hard pressed to explain. Such clues point to ideas most Jewish people wish to avoid.

How many contemporary rabbis will say that some of their interpretations and translations are strongly weighted to help people avoid “unacceptable” beliefs? How many would admit that their answers to these complex issues might direct people away from the Bible?

Sherlock Holmes once observed that when you have eliminated all possible explanations, the only remaining solution is the truth, no matter how impossible it seems.

1. Zohar II:43b (vol. 3, p. 134 in the Soncino Press edition).
2. John 10:30.
3. Jewish Publication Society of America (Philadelphia, 1917). All quotations from Hebrew Scriptures are from this translation, unless otherwise stated.
4. Wayne Martindale and Jerry Root, eds., The Quotable Lewis (Tyndale House Publishers: Wheaton, IL, 1989), p. 587.
5. A Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures written some two hundred years before Y’shua.
6. As stated in “The Image of God in Man,” D.J.A. Clines, Tyndale Bulletin (1968), p. 62, referring to J. Jervell, “Imago Dei…,” Gottingen (1960), p. 75.
7. Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Pentateuch: Genesis (Bereshit), H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver, trans. (New York: Menorah Publishing Co., 1988), p. 43.
8. Genesis Rabbah VIII.3 (Soncino Midrash Rabbah, p. 56).
9. Referred to in Soncino Chumash (Soncino Press: London, 1956), p. 6.
10. Pentateuch with the commentary of Rashi, Silberman edition, Jerusalem 5733, pp. 6-7.
11. Genesis Rabbah, VIII.7, p. 59.
12. Tosephta on Sanhedrin 8:7.
13. Genesis Rabbah, VIII.3, p. 57.
14. J. H. Hertz, ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, (Oxford Univ. Press, 1940), p. 11.
15. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (A. E. Cowley, ed., Oxford, 1976) says on the “plural of majesty”: “Jewish grammarians call such plurals…plur. virium or virtutum; later grammarians call them plur. excellentiae, magnitudinis, or plur. maiestaticus. This last name may have been suggested by the we used by kings when speaking of themselves (cf. already 1 Macc.10:19, 11:31); and the plural used by God in Genesis 1:26, and 11:7, Isaiah 6:8 has been incorrectly explained in this way.…It is best explained as a plural of self-deliberation. The use of the plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign to Hebrew,” p. 398.
16. Ibid., Soncino Chumash, p. 6.
17. Zohar 22a-b (vol. 1, pp. 91-93 in the Soncino Press edition).
18. Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, Martin McNamara, tr. (The Aramaic Bible, vol. 1A; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 55.
19. Compare Colossians 1:5, Hebrews 1:3, Revelation 3:14 with Proverbs 30:2-6. By His Memra was the world created corresponds to John 1:10.
20. Genesis 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26.
21. John 1:1-4.
22. Genesis Rabbah, VIII.8, p. 59.
23. Hebrew minim literally “sectarians” but generally assumed to be a reference to Jewish Christians. See R. T. Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, (London, 1903), p. 361ff.
24. Genesis Rabbah, VIII.9, p. 60.

Glossary of Names

Ibn Ezra

12th c. Spanish poet and biblical scholar.

David Kimchi

12th-13th c. Hebrew grammarian and Bible commentator.

Maimonides

Moses ben Maimon, 12th c. Spanish-born philosopher and codifier of Jewish law.

R. Joshua b. Levi

a 3rd c. amora.* Known as a peacemaker, he refused to attack Christian teaching.

Nachmanides

Moses ben Nachman, 13th c. Spanish biblical commentator and leader of Spanish Jewry in his day.

Abarbanel

15th-16th c. Spanish biblical commentator and philosopher.

Rashi

Rabbi Solomon b. Yitzchak, an 11th. c. French biblical and Talmudic scholar; his commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures remains standard to tis day.

Joshua of Siknin

a 3rd c. amora* in Eretz Israel.

Ammi

Ammi bar Nathan. A 3rd c. amora* in Eretz Israel, closely associated with R. Assi.

Jonathan

Jonathan b. Eleazer, a 3rd. c. amora* born in Babylonia but who lived in Eretz Israel.

Simlai

a 3rd c. amora* in Eretz Israel, the first to reduce 613 commandments to one (Habakkuk 2:4).

by Dr.Al Garza, ISBN 978-1467994774

In a Barna survey in 1997, 61% of US residents surveyed agreed with the statement that the Holy Spirit is “a symbol of God’s presence or power, but is not a living entity”. Even more: that answer was held by a majority or near-majority of those in most every Christian denominational family, including mainline Protestants and evangelical Christians, and was most common in non-whites and young people. It’s not a new view. Back in the days of the early church, some held that the Holy Spirit was an ‘emanation’ of God the Father, and others thought of the Spirit in the same terms as the Talmudic discussions on the divine Shekinah (Presence), as an expression of what Christians call the ‘Father’. Those are not far off; they’re just describing part of a larger picture, like speaking of an elephant by describing its ears without reference to its trunk, tusks, or thick legs.

A person is identified as a self-conscious being, cognizant of its own existence and the existence of others who also have a self-identity. A will indicates the ability to think, to reason, a choice to act; having desire these are things we associate with self consciousness which is exclusive to Persons. All of these qualities the Holy Spirit have, just as the Son and Father. We find the Holy Spirit is the executive of the Father. He is co-creator of the universe, the author of divine Scripture, the generator of Christ’s humanity, the regenerator of the believer and the distributor of eternal life, for He also eternally exists.

In John 16:13 we read the following:

John 16:13 οταν^G3752 δε^{G1161 BUT WHEN}   ελθη^{G2064 [G5632] MAY HAVE COME}   εκεινος^{G1565 HE,}   το^{G3588 THE}   πνευμα^G4151 της^{G3588 SPIRIT}   αληθειας^{G225 OF TRUTH,}   οδηγησει^{G3594 [G5692] HE WILL GUIDE}   υμας^{G5209 YOU}   εις^{G1519 INTO}   πασαν^{G3956 ALL}   την^{G3588 THE}   αληθειαν^{G225 TRUTH;}   ου^{G3756 NOT}   γαρ^{G1063 FOR}   λαλησει^{G2980 [G5692] HE WILL SPEAK}   αφ^{G575 FROM}   εαυτου^{G1438 HIMSELF,}   αλλ^{G235 BUT}   οσα^G3745 αν^{G302 WHATSOEVER}   ακουση^{G191 [G5661] HE MAY HEAR}   λαλησει^{G2980 [G5692] HE WILL SPEAK;}   και^{G2532 AND}   τα^{G3588 THE THINGS}   ερχομενα^{G2064 [G5740] COMING}   αναγγελει^{G312 [G5692] HE WILL ANNOUNCE}   υμιν^{G5213 TO YOU.} 

“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come.” (ASV)

 The Holy Spirit is identified as a Person by John, using in the Greek the masculine “ekeinos” in Jn.16:13. The Holy Spirit is presented as a personal being with a self-identity different from both the Father, and the Son. As the Father and Jesus make this distinction when speaking of Him, the Holy Spirit says “Separate Barnabas and Saul to me;” He also is identified as “I” in Acts 13:2.  The uses of personal pronouns also make a clear distinction from the Father and the Son as distinct personages.

Looking at the attributes of the Holy Spirit we find no difference in His nature, function and communion with the believer than with Jesus. In Rom.8:27 “He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the spirit is, because he makes intercession for the saints,” 1 Cor.12:11: “But the one and the same spirit works all these things dividing to each one as He wills.” Acts 8.29: The Spirit spoke to Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.” Rev 2-3: “Let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches” Rev 22.17: The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” If the Spirit is impersonal so is the Bride.  The activities of the Spirit are all descriptions of what persons do. Many groups come to the irrational and illogical conclusion that he is only a force used by the Father to accomplish his purposes.

In Romans 8.16: The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. To make the Holy Spirit something other than a personality or a being (a force?) would mean that we are indwelt with a human non personality. This means we have no inner nature that rules over our body, that all we are is our body just like the evolutionists say.

Paul uses the spirit Gr. “pnuema” as the masculine pronoun “He”, giving him identity. The Holy Spirit is portrayed as a personal being with an identity different then both the Father and the Son. He is identified as “I” in Acts 13:2. As we understand that the nature of the Father and the Son and the Spirit have always been the same, they are all eternal. They all share in common the same essence and nature, which is God the spirit. They also share in the divine name of YHWH. All the attributes of God that are held in common with the Father and Son are shared also with the Holy Spirit.

He has omnipresence, in Ps.139:7-10 David writes whether he goes up to heaven or into Sheol below God is there, he cannot escape his Spirit. He is omnipresent, everywhere since he would dwell in every believer simultaneously. (3 Omnis are described in this passage omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience all attributes of God). The essence of the Holy Spirit is that he is omniscient- all knowing 1 Cor.2:10-11: “For the Spirit searches all things, yes, and the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.” Only God can comprehend himself, he knows things of himself and things we do not know of ourselves. There are scriptures that refer to the Holy Spirit as being the “Spirit of Jesus”, the “Spirit of Christ”, or the “Spirit of the Son” “the Spirit of the Father” If the Son and Father are persons then this certainly does not make the Spirit a non person.

In Rom.8:27 He has a mind (proving he is personal). Rom.15:30 he has love which only those with intelligence and personality express. Eph.4:30 he is grieved. Heb.10:29 he can be insulted. He can be blasphemed. Mt.12:32 Tells us all sins committed against the Son will be forgiven but the sin against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. This certainly affirms he is neither a force nor a mere creature. Only an eternal sin cannot be forgiven, which means it is against the eternal God. In John 14:26 we the following:

Joh 14:26  ο^G3588 δε^{G1161 BUT THE}   παρακλητος^{G3875 PARACLETE,}   το^{G3588 THE}   πνευμα^{G4151 SPIRIT}   το^{G3588 THE}   αγιον^{G40 HOLY,}   ο^{G3739 WHOM}   πεμψει^{G3992 [G5692] WILL SEND}   ο^{G3588 THE}   πατηρ^{G3962 FATHER}   εν^G1722 τω^{G3588 IN}   ονοματι^G3686 μου^{G3450 MY NAME,}   εκεινος^{G1565 HE}   υμας^{G5209 YOU}   διδαξει^{G1321 [G5692] WILL TEACH}   παντα^{G3956 ALL THINGS,}   και^{G2532 AND}   υπομνησει^{G5279 [G5692] WILL BRING TO REMEMBRANCE}   υμας^{G5209 YOUR}   παντα^{G3956 ALL THINGS}   α^{G3739 WHICH}   ειπον^{G2036 [G5627] I SAID}   υμιν^{G5213 TO YOU.} 

“But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.” (ASV)

As A.T. Robertson points out that the “He” (ekeinos) “is an Emphatic demonstrative pronoun and masculine like paraklētos.” and that the Holy Sprit knows “the deep things of God” (1Co_2:10) and he is our Teacher in the Dispensation of the Holy Spirit of both new truth (Joh_14:25) and old.” (A.T. Robertson’s Word Picture)

You can speak this way in scripture with concluding that the Holy Spirit is a person who share all the attributes of YHWH God. He must be the eternal God himself who is distinct from the Father and the Son. The last chapter of Matthew makes this point using Granville Sharp’s rule of Greek grammar. In Matthew 28:19 we read the following:

Matt. 28:19  πορευθεντες^{G4198 [G5679] GOING}   ουν^{G3767 THEREFORE}   μαθητευσατε^{G3100 [G5657] DISCIPLE}   παντα^{G3956 ALL}   τα^{G3588 THE}   εθνη^{G1484 NATIONS,}   βαπτιζοντες^{G907 [G5723] BAPTIZING}   αυτους^{G846 THEM}   εις^{G1519 TO}   το^{G3588 THE}   ονομα^{G3686 NAME}   του^{G3588 OF THE}   πατρος^{G3962 FATHER}   και^{G2532 AND}   του^{G3588 OF THE}   υιου^{G5207 SON}   και^{G2532 AND}   του^{G3588 OF THE}   αγιου^{G40 HOLY}   πνευματος^{G4151 SPIRIT;} 

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” (NASB)

Sharp’s sixth rule says that when nouns of the same case are joined by “kai” [and] and each noun is preceded by the article [the], the second noun expresses a different person, thing, or quality than the first noun. Here is the exact wording:

“And as the insertion of the copulative kai between nouns of the same case, without articles, (according to the fifth rule,) denotes that the second noun expresses a different person, thing, or quality, from the preceding noun, so, likewise, the same effect attends the copulative when each of the nouns are preceded by articles: . . .”

In Matthew 28:19 there are three nouns (Father, Son, and Spirit [“holy” is an adjective modifying “Spirit”), all joined by “and” and each proceeded by the article. Is there anything in the context to indicate that one person is in view rather than three distinct persons?

The word “name” is a singular noun. In the Jewish mind, “name” is virtually synonymous with “power or authority." In other words, Jesus’ Jewish disciples would have understood Him to mean that they were to baptize believers by the “power or authority of” (YHWH Himself) who is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In order for there to be one person in mind as Oneness Pentecostals would have you believe, the article “the” would have to be removed between the nouns of “the Son” and “the Holy Spirit”.  The “kai” (and) would also have to be removed between them as well. Then, and only then, would you have the view of one person (singular) who is given three names or titles. It would have to read as the following:

“…in the name (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,”

The above reading would give you the Oneness Pentecostal view. For those who believe that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three separate persons like Peter, James and Paul as do the LDS church do, you would have to have the text read as follows:

“…in the names (plural) of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit,”

The only understanding of the verse in Matthew 28:19 fits perfectly with the triune view and understanding of God. Granville Sharp’s rule fits within the context expressed in the passage. As with some of Sharp’s other rules, there is an exception to the sixth rule. It is as follows:

“Except distinct and different actions are intended to be attributed to one and the same person; in which case, if the sentence is not expressed agreeable to the three first rules, but appears as an exception to this sixth rule . . . the context must explain or point out plainly the person to whom the two nouns relate.” (Granville Sharp’s Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek New Testament)

 One such exception that is commonly agreed upon, and that is offered by Sharp himself, is John 20:28. In this text, Thomas says to Jesus, “Ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou.” A literal translation would be “the [ho] Lord [kurios] of me [mou] and [kai] the [ho] God [theos] of me [mou].” Even though this conforms to Sharp’s sixth rule (two nouns, Lord and God, are joined by “and,” and both are preceded by the article), Sharp rightly determined that this is an exception to the rule. The reason for this is that the context clearly indicates that Thomas was speaking to one person, Jesus, and that he was identifying Jesus as both Lord and God.

Those who wish to apply Sharp’s sixth rule using the exception to Matthew 28:19 have misunderstood either the rule itself or the doctrine of the triune nature of God. There is no indication in Granville Sharp’s Remarks that Sharp himself applied the rule to Matthew 28:19. Again, context means everything. Granville Sharp’s Rule fit’s in the context of Matthew 28:19.

Looking back to the Tanakh (Old Testament) we find Holy Spirit being called the Spirit of the Lord (Yahweh) Judges 3:10, 6:34, 11:29, 13:25, 2 Sam. 23:2, 1 Kings 18:12 Isa.11:2, 40:13 He is called the Spirit of God (Elohim) Gen.1:2, 1 Sam. 19:20,23. 2 Sam. 23:2; 1 Cor. 3:16, 7:40 the Spirit of our God 1 Cor.6:11, His Spirit Num.11:29, My Spirit Gen.6:3 Spirit of the living God 2 Cor.3:3, He is called the Spirit of the Father Mt.10:20. The Spirit of the Lord God Isa.61:1 if the Spirit is God (which he is) then his name would also be called YHWH just as the Father and the Son are. Since they are all God they all share in common the same name. In the NT he is called the Spirit of grace Heb.10:24, The Spirit of life in Rom.8:2, of truth Jn.14:17, Holiness Rom. 1:4, Spirit of Glory 1 Pt.4:14, showing he has the same glory shared with both the Father and the Son. These are descriptive of his attributes which all three persons share. He is called God in 1 Cor.6:19. It is Paul that states we are the temple of God because the Holy Spirit dwells in us (Rom. 8:9, 8:11, 1 Cor.3:16, 6:19) 2 Cor.6:16 “For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them and walk among them and walk among them. I will be their God and they shall be My people.” If God says he will be in us, and it is the Holy Spirit in us, doesn’t that make him God? God is personal.

All of these Scriptures prove that they uphold the Spirit as a personal being every bit as personal and intelligent as God.The Spirit is also attributed to being the author of Holy Scripture which gives him communication skills also part of intelligence. In Rev.14:13 we find the Spirit speaks from heaven saying “write”. All these characteristics give personal identity to the Holy Spirit which makes him a person. Rev 2-3: “Let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches” this is repeated 6 times after to each church. It is the Spirit that brings one to recognize who Christ is. To fight and refuse this is to ignore the testimony of Jesus. If one thinks it is a force that is revealing the Son, than this would automatically change who the Son is as well.

The Spirit has a different position functioning in a submissive role to Messiah. Just as Messiah was in a submissive position to the Father on Earth not acting independently, likewise the Spirit does the same, taking a subordinate role to both the Messiah and the Father when he is sent to earth ( Jn.16:13). This is not an essential subordination of nature but in position and function. His purpose is not to bring attention to himself but to Yeshua the Son of God.

The Trinity

By Milton B. Lindberg

Hear, O Israel (Shema Yisrael): The Lord our God (Adonai Eloheinu),

the Lord is one (Adonai Ehad). Deuteronomy (Humesh Devarim) 6:4.

            Upon the rock of this declaration rests the second of the Thirteen Principles of Jewish Faith: “I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is a Unity, and that there is no unity in any manner like unto His, and that He alone is our God who was, is, and will be.”

             From where, then, comes the doctrine of the Trinity? A large part of the world, though professing to worship the God who is revealed in the writings of Moses and the prophets, nevertheless believes in God as a Trinity.

            Although it may be granted that the Christian’s New Testament teaches that the term God may be applied to God the Father, to God the Son, and to God the Holy Spirit, the Christian should cease to claim that he worships the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Moses and the prophets, the God of the Torah, the Neviim, and the Ketuvim, unless there is found in the Tenach (Old Testament), indisputable evidence that God exists in more than  one personality.

            The first words of the Torah declare: “In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heavens (hashamayim) and the earth.” It must be admitted that the word for God here is in the plural form, even as is the word for heavens, and that it is the same as used in the first commandment: “You shall have no other gods (Elohim) before me” (Exodus 20:3).  Likewise in Deuteronomy 13:2 (v. 6 in Hebrew text): “If he (a false prophet) says, ‘Let us follow other gods. ‘” Elohim is invariably a plural form. Additionally, when speaking of the act of creation performed in the beginning by Elohim the Triune God, Moses used a verb in the singular number, bara (created).

            It is reasoned by some that the plural Elohim is the “plural of majesty,” used to ascribe majesty to one who is never the less a single individual, and that therefore the use of the singular verb would be entirely reasonable. But a singular verb is not invariably used with the plural Elohim. Readers familiar with the Hebrew text can check the plural verbs used in Genesis 20:13 and in Genesis 35:7. Plural adjectives are also used to describe this Elohim. For examples see Deuteronomy 4:7, Elohim krovim (God is near), and Joshua 24:19, Elohim kedoshim (a holy God).

            The plurality of the name Elohim leads naturally to a consideration of the fact that other plural words are also used in referring to God. In Genesis 1 :26 God said:’ “Let us make man in our image.” In Genesis 3:22 God said: “The man has now become like one of us.” And in Genesis 11:7
God said: “Come, let us go down and confuse their language.” To whom, and of whom is God speaking with the use of these plural pronouns?

            We have seen in Genesis 1: 1 that Elohim (plural) created the heavens and the earth; and in the next verse we read: “And the Spirit of God (Ruah Elohim) was hovering over the waters.” Was it speaking for himself and his Spirit that God (Elohim) said in verse 26: “Let us make man in our image?” Is this why Solomon said: “Remember your Creator (plural, in the literal translation of Ecclesiastes 12:1)?

            In Proverbs 30:4 the challenging question is presented to mankind: “Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his Son? Tell me if you know!” Does God have a Son?

            In Psalm 2 we have a prophetic picture which should be read in its entirety. In it is described (vv. 2 and 3) the time when the nations will declare themselves against God, and against his Anointed One (Mashiho, from which our English word Messiah comes). God says in verse 6 that he will nevertheless establish this Messiah as his King on Zion, his holy hill.

            In verse 7 Messiah steps forward to declare the decree by which his coronation shall be accomplished saying: “I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: “He said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father. Ask of me, and I will make the nations (goyim) your inheritance. ‘”

            Furthermore, in Psalm 2:11-12 we are solemnly instructed: “Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son (nashqu bar), lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.”

            The Hebrew for “kiss the Son” is nashqu bar. Even if this is translated, as some would have it, “Do homage in purity,” the homage is to the Lord of verse 11 and to the Son of verse 7. The Tanakh clearly indicates that there is a divine personality who is called the Son of God, who is worthy of homage, and if we put our trust in him, we are blessed.

            In Psalm 110, the one who is in a future day to rule in Zion is addressed as a divine personality by another who is also deity. “The Lord says to my Lord,” writes David the psalmist, “sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion; you will rule in the midst of your enemies” (psalm 110:1-2).

            Here is one who is “the Lord” speaking to David’s Lord and telling him to sit at his right hand until the time comes for him to rule in the midst of some who are now his enemies. Surely the psalm is speaking of two divine personalities, one whom is yet to be Israel’s King! “And the Lord shall be king over all the earth” (Zechariah 14:9). “At that time they will call Jerusalem The Throne of the Lord, and all nations will gather in Jerusalem to honor the name of the Lord. No longer will they follow the stubbornness of their evil hearts” (Jeremiah 3: 17).

            Does the Tanakh indicate how a divine eternal personality can be a Son? Is this not a great problem, since being a son suggests the idea of generation and birth? The divine solution: deity becomes a Son by way of incarnation, God taking upon himself humanity.

            Hear the words of the prophet Isaiah: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor,
Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever” (Isaiah 9:6-7b).

            “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign (no ordinary birth, but something so unusual, remarkable, and miraculous as to constitute a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:13-14). Immanuel means “God with us,” deity incarnate, dwelling with men!

            Who are the three divine personalities Isaiah 48:11-18 (Yeshaiah Hanavii speaks about? “Listen to me, 0 Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last. (Only God is eternal.) My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens (the Creator is speaking); … And now the Sovereign Lord (one divine personality) has sent me (the speaker is eternal and the Creator, and therefore a second divine personality), with his Spirit (a third divine personality).

            “This is what the Lord says — your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I am the Lord your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go. (This divine personality, the sent one, calls himself the Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; and he says that he and God’s Spirit have been sent by the Sovereign Lord.) If only you had paid attention to my commands, your peace would have been like a river, your righteousness like the waves of the sea.”

            Not only has Israel failed to listen to him, but mankind generally has failed to heed the Redeemer; and until men turn to him wholeheartedly, there will be no peace.

            Many Jewish people express the lament that if there is a God, he seems to have forgotten the Jews; but Israel’s long night of suffering is not without purpose. God permits her hardship in order that Israel may be brought to acknowledge her rejection of her God and return to him. In Micah 5:2 (verse 1 in Hebrew text) we read: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

            Thus we have corroboration of other predictions already considered concerning Messiah: 1) that he was to appear in human form; 2) that he was to be rejected (see Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22); 3) that he was to be born in Bethlehem (and every year the world celebrates the birth which took place there more than nineteen hundred years ago, before the dispersion of the Jewish nation); 4) this one is to be Israel’s King; and 5) that he is deity, for his “origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

            But if three divine personalities are revealed in the Tanakh, why does Moses speak of God as one? The second of the Thirteen Principles of Jewish Faith says: “The Creator, blessed be His name, is a Unity, and there is no unity in any manner like unto His.”

            The Hebrew word Maimonides used in the Principles of Faith for unity is the word yahid. The word yahid carries the thought of absolute oneness rather than unity. True, yahid always means oneness in the absolute sense. But the appeal of every honest seeker after truth is not to the Thirteen Principles of Faith, but to the Holy Scriptures, the Tanakh. The seventh of those Principles states: “I believe with perfect faith that the prophecy of Moses our teacher, peace be to him, was true, and that he was the chief of the prophets, both of those that preached and of those that followed him.”

            Therefore, to Moses we turn in Deuteronomy (Humesh Devarim) 6:4, and read: “Shema Yisrael (Hear, 0 Israel): Adonai Eloheinu (the Lord our God or Gods), Adonai ehad (the Lord a unity; not yahid, an absolute one, an only, but ehad). Ehad is the word that Moses also uses in Genesis 2:24, when he says: “And they (husband and wife) will become one flesh (basar ehad). Ehad is the word that God uses when he tells Ezekiel: “Join them together into one stick so that they (the two sticks for Israel and Judah) will become one (ehad) in your hand” (Ezekiel 37: 17).

            Truly, “there is no unity in any manner like unto His,” for the unity which is God’s transcends all other unity. So unique is his unity, that the virgin born son, Immanuel, of whom we read in a former paragraph, is by the same prophet (Isaiah) called the Mighty God and Everlasting Father. So completely are the divine and timeless eternal personalities joined, that although one of them appeared in time as an incarnate Son, yet, being equally and eternally self-existent with the Father, he is said to exist eternally as the Son. At the same time he was, is, and ever will be one with the mighty God, the everlasting Father.

            Is it not also a remarkable fact that the eternal one’s appearance in time nineteen hundred [plus] years ago marks the focal point of all history, so that all the world reckons time as either before or after his coming, B.C. or A.D.? Jewish people may prefer the designations B.C.E. (before the common era) and C.E. (the common era), but the dividing point between the eras is the same.

            The careful and honest inquirer therefore comes to the conclusion that the Tenach teaches the Trinity as well as the Unity of God.

            God declared unto Moses: “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to .account” (Deuteronomy 18:18-19).

            “Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let ‘him turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God (Eloheinu), for he will freely pardon” (Isaiah 55:6-7).

Used for educational purposes from

AMF International (Life In Messiah International)

www.lifeinmessiah.org

By Rachmiel Frydland

   Most modern Jewish people seem to have made their “peace” with Jesus of Nazareth.  Some consider Him to be a great, Jew, or even the greatest Jew who ever lived. Some of our Jewish leaders, as Dr.Heinrich Graetz and Dr. Joseph Klausner, compliment Him on His teaching. Some admire His parables and purity, as Moses Montefiore; and Some as Sholem Asch and others, even consider Him to be  the Messiah of the Gentiles. Today we often meet Jewish people who acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah for Jew and Gentile alike; and some are even willing to share these convictions with other Jewish  people. What then holds such Jewish people back from joining with us and accepting Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior?  

   The hindrance some have expressed to the writer of this article is the reluctance to accept the fact that Jesus is supernatural. Moreover, from childhood we have been inculcated with Maimonides’ Thirteen  Principles  one of which is:

I firmly believe that the Creator, blessed be his name, is One: that there is no oneness in any form like his; & that he alone was, is, & ever will be our God.

   We have been thus brought up to think that if we believe that God is One, then this idea excludes any  idea of God manifesting Himself through Jesus the Messiah. This Christian concept of God’s triunity seemed to us to be a Gentile and pagan idea. NOT SO! Christians, as well as Jewish people, must believe in One God. There is no other. The God of Abraham. Isaac and Jacob is the God of the Jewish people and of the Christians. The Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament are authoritative for the Jew and for the Christian. In them is found the confession that

 is authoritative for all of us.

Hear. O Israel. the LORD our God, the LORD IS ONE. Deuteronomy 6:4

TRIUNITY IN TANAKH (Old Testament)

   While it is universally admitted by both Jews and Christians that God is One and that there is no one beside Him, we are also compelled to acknowledge that the triunity of God is clearly taught in the Torah, the Prophets, and in the Writings — that is in the whole Tanakh, the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament, & the New Testament. Not only in the Tanakh but also in the Talmudical & Rabbinical writings this concept is well known. Space does not permit us to present proofs from all the sources in this short article. Here we present just a few challenging proofs:

        THE TORAH:   When God (Elohim) create the world He wanted to make absolutely clear to His creation that He is not some abstract mathematical unitarian principle with no analogy in all creation, as some of our philosophers tried to present Him under Aristotelian influence. Instead we read in the holy  Torah these words:

And (Elohim) said. Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle,
& over all the earth. Genesis 1:26

Elohim made man, a being composed of a triunity — body, soul and spirit, in the image of God;
and  to make this more clear God reveals Himself in His plural form of Elohim and says,

“Let us make man.”

   Even those of our rabbis who do not accept as yet the triunity of God, realize that this verse is clear support for such teaching. Thus in Midrash Rabbah on Genesis we find the following comments on the verse: Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan said, that at the time when Moses wrote the Torah; writing a portion of it daily, when he came to this Verse which says, “And Elohim said let us make man in our image after our likeness,” Moses said, Master of the Universe why do you give herewith an excuse to the sectarians (who believe in the triunity of God). God answered Moses, You write and whoever wants to err let him err. 

   But surely God did not make Moses to write the whole Scriptures in order to make people err. but rather to show them the right way and the right revelation, namely that the One God is a triune God who  calls Himself Elohim and who says. Let us make man. 

        THE PROPHETS:  There are many Scripture verses which show clearly that God manifested Himself also as the Word by which He created heaven and earth and by which He leads and directs creation. He also manifested Himself as the Ruakh Hakodesh, the Holy Spirit, who inspired the prophets of God and who did mighty miracles through the great judges of Israel, Gideon, Samson, and David. We want to point out one Scripture which compels us to admit the triunity of God. Isaiah the prophet speaks in the   name of God and says:

Come near unto me. hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning: from the time that it was,there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

Isaiah 48:16

   Here God calls the people to come to Him, but He is sent by the Lord GOD and His Spirit. Exactly the same teaching as we have found in the Torah. we find also in the teachings of God’s prophets. How else can it be? The same God who commanded Moses to manifest His triunitarian nature commands also the Hebrew Prophets to do the same.   

        THE WRITINGS: Very clearly we find the same teaching about God in the Psalms and in the other writings of the Hebrew Scriptures. We read in Psalm 2 where the Holy Spirit, the Ruakh Hakodesh, speaks through David and says:

I will declare the decree: The LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son:

 this day have I begotten thee. Psalm 2:7

   Here is the Holy Spirit speaking through David and instructing David, that the LORD, which is in Hebrew the ineffable name of Jehovah (which we pronounce as Adonai, has a Son who is begotten of God in a most supernatural way.  Maybe King David himself did not well understand the words that he was commanded to write by the Holy Spirit; but as Moses and Isaiah, he obeyed. Be wrote this down for us so that there be no misunderstanding. God who is almighty manifests Himself as a triunity, leaving us no doubt as to His nature.

IS TRINITY JEWISH?

   But is such a concept Jewish? Is it not some Gentile or pagan concept that has somehow crept into our Holy Scriptures as some extreme liberalists would like to tell us?  No, this was and still is a Jewish conception of God creating and dealing with His creation and His people Israel in a triune way. This quotation bears it out: Exodus 19 starts with the words, “In the third month.” This is explained by the words of Proverbs 22:20, “Have I not written to thee excellent (Hebrew, threefold) things in counsels and knowledge.” On this Rabbi Joshua bar Nehemiah said that this is the Torah whose letters are threefold, alf, bet, g(i)ml, and everything is a Trinity: The Torah is Trinitarian, for it is composed of the Torah, the  Prophets, and the Writings. The Mishna (talmudical learning) is a trinity composed of Talmud (learning) halakhot (daily Jewish laws) and haggadot (historical items). The mediator consisted of a trinity of Miriam, Moses, & Aaron. Prayers are a trinity of morning, afternoon, and evening prayers. Israel is a trinity consisting of priests, Levites and Israelites. The name Moses in Hebrew consists of three letters.  He is of the tribe of Levi, which again is in the   Hebrew three letters. from the seed of the Patriarchs who  are a trinity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; in the third month which is Sivan, after Nisan & Iyar on  mount Sin whose letters are three as it is written. “And they rested in the wilderness of Sin.”.(Midrash  Tanhuma on Exodus 19)

   If, according to our rabbis’, God has made everything and arranged everything in a Trinitarian way.  then it must also be Jewish and biblical to know that God, Himself is a Trinity. This He is and has manifested Himself as the Savior, Messiah, and Son of God in the person of the Lord Jesus, the Messiah.  He then sent down the Holy Spirit, the Ruakh Hakodesh, on the Disciples in the third month, of the Feast of Shavuot, the feast of perfection, celebrated after counting seven times seven.

TRINITY AND COMMON SENSE

   But. can three be one?  Does not common sense rebel against such a statement? Must we not state categorically that God is either One or Three? Not so. As a matter of fact everything you come in contact with is not a mathematical concept of one, but usually an item composed of a trinity. The ancient Greek philosopher reasoned out the theory of atoms by simply watching a black cow, eating green grass, and then giving white milk. All things are composed of millions and billions of atoms; but the atom itself is a trinity of a proton, electron and nucleus. Perhaps we could best express it in the words of Dr. Henry Heydt:

   In Romans 1:20 Paul uses the creation of the cosmos as demonstrating this Godhead (theiotes]. The universe … is an absolute triunity of space, time, and matter. Each of these in turn is an absolute triunity. Space consists of length, breadth, and depth or height: time is future, present, and past; matter is energy, motion, and phenomena. Here we have not merely an illustration of three in one — as in the case of light, heat, and ultra-violet rays of the sunbeam, or the manifestation of H2O as liquid, ice, and  steam — but an  absolute trinity composed of three absolute triunities.

WHAT IS THE MEANING TO YOU ?

   We now have only to answer the question. “What does it all matter?”  The answer is that it matters very much. It proves the truth of God’s Word. The most important thing is, what the Jewish Messiah Jesus  (Yeshua) said, “For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth  in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

   Do you want peace in your heart &  peace with your  Creator?  Receive this gift of God; confess your sins and believe in God’s Son, the Korban (sacrifice) for  your sins. Then you will be saved & have perfect peace in your heart. “But as many as received him to them gave he the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” (John 1:12)       

Reprinted by permission of
The Messianic Literature Outreach  www.messianicliterature.org/