Plurality in God

[Susan Unger]

On page 86 of Reflecting the Divine Image, Dunning says "Some popular bible teachers suggest that here we have an Old Testament reference to the Trinity, a New Testament truth. This is anachronistic. I believe the best way to explain these references that suggest a plurality in God is to interpret them to mean that God has a social nature, interpersonal in character."

Any one up to explaining this to me? I have heard the first part before, and it worked for me. I can't picture how one can "suggest a plurality in God" without it meaning the Trinity. Unless Dunning is trying to say that 'we can't go so far as to pinpoint three persons in that plurality' in which case I can see that somewhat. It is a rather vague statement nonetheless.

[Ryan Scott]

On page 86 of Reflecting the Divine Image, Dunning says "Some popular bible teachers suggest that here we have an Old Testament reference to the Trinity, a New Testament truth. This is anachronistic. I believe the best way to explain these references that suggest a plurality in God is to interpret them to mean that God has a social nature, interpersonal in character."

Any one up to explaining this to me? I have heard the first part before, and it worked for me. I can't picture how one can "suggest a plurality in God" without it meaning the Trinity. Unless Dunning is trying to say that 'we can't go so far as to pinpoint three persons in that plurality' in which case I can see that somewhat. It is a rather vague statement nonetheless.

It's all philosophical - but in essence, yes - Dunning admits there is something more than a strict monotheism in Hebrew Scriptures, but it doesn't indicate a trinitarian monotheism. Quite honestly, the NT doesn't indicate a trinitarian monotheism either - it's just a logical conclusion we've put together to explain the mystery that the Israelites were fine leaving as a mystery. We only have a trinity to maintain the seemingly contrary affirmations of both testaments - that God is one and that Jesus is God.

I prefer the conclusion that God is inherently and eternally relational - it allows the man, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit to be distinct persons, yet also completely YHWH, without having to nail down so many definitions.

[Susan Unger]

It's all philosophical - but in essence, yes - Dunning admits there is something more than a strict monotheism in Hebrew Scriptures, but it doesn't indicate a trinitarian monotheism. Quite honestly, the NT doesn't indicate a trinitarian monotheism either - it's just a logical conclusion we've put together to explain the mystery that the Israelites were fine leaving as a mystery. We only have a trinity to maintain the seemingly contrary affirmations of both testaments - that God is one and that Jesus is God.

I prefer the conclusion that God is inherently and eternally relational - it allows the man, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit to be distinct persons, yet also completely YHWH, without having to nail down so many definitions.

Thanks, Ryan. Nicely explained.

[Jim Chabot]

it's just a logical conclusion we've put together to explain the mystery that the Israelites were fine leaving as a mystery.

Thanks Ryan, especially for this. I'm thinking that the Israelites were wise to leave this as mystery.

[Dennis Bratcher]

It's all philosophical - but in essence, yes - Dunning admits there is something more than a strict monotheism in Hebrew Scriptures, but it doesn't indicate a trinitarian monotheism. Quite honestly, the NT doesn't indicate a trinitarian monotheism either - it's just a logical conclusion we've put together to explain the mystery that the Israelites were fine leaving as a mystery. We only have a trinity to maintain the seemingly contrary affirmations of both testaments - that God is one and that Jesus is God.

I prefer the conclusion that God is inherently and eternally relational - it allows the man, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit to be distinct persons, yet also completely YHWH, without having to nail down so many definitions.

I disagree with Dr. Dunning here (Ray and I have talked about this). I think he is still reading the OT through a lens heavily tinted by later western philosophical categories. Such a reading neglects the cultural context of the Ancient Near East in which both corporate identity and metaphorical language (mytho-poetic imagery) are primary intellectual constructs. Thus, for example, the "three men" in Genesis 18 morphs in the narrative into "the Lord," and the messenger of God talking to Gideon becomes the Lord speaking (Jud 6:12-16). Or plural pronouns can be used in referring to God (Gen 1:26, 11:7, Isa 6:8, etc.) invoking the imagery of a high king surrounded by a heavenly court (as in Job 1:6 ff or 1 Kings 22:19-22, Psa 82:1, etc.).

I would contend that in light of these aspects, the OT is strictly monotheistic. All of the OT is processed through the experience of the exile. That left the Israelites fiercely monotheistic. So even when there are remnants of older mytho-poetic imagery or instances of corporate identity, those aspects are placed within an overarching theological framework that is unwaveringly and unambiguously monotheistic.

Of course that does not mean that all Israelites actually practiced such monotheism, as both the torah and the prophets often remind us. But it is there as one of the baseline theological confessions of the OT (Deut 6:4). That is precisely what necessitates the logical conclusion of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Ryan Scott]

I disagree with Dr. Dunning here (Ray and I have talked about this). I think he is still reading the OT through a lens heavily tinted by later western philosophical categories. Such a reading neglects the cultural context of the Ancient Near East in which both corporate identity and metaphorical language (mytho-poetic imagery) are primary intellectual constructs. Thus, for example, the "three men" in Genesis 18 morphs in the narrative into "the Lord," and the messenger of God talking to Gideon becomes the Lord speaking (Jud 6:12-16). Or plural pronouns can be used in referring to God (Gen 1:26, 11:7, Isa 6:8, etc.) invoking the imagery of a high king surrounded by a heavenly court (as in Job 1:6 ff or 1 Kings 22:19-22, Psa 82:1, etc.).

I would contend that in light of these aspects, the OT is strictly monotheistic. All of the OT is processed through the experience of the exile. That left the Israelites fiercely monotheistic. So even when there are remnants of older mytho-poetic imagery or instances of corporate identity, those aspects are placed within an overarching theological framework that is unwaveringly and unambiguously monotheistic.

Of course that does not mean that all Israelites actually practiced such monotheism, as both the torah and the prophets often remind us. But it is there as one of the baseline theological confessions of the OT (Deut 6:4). That is precisely what necessitates the logical conclusion of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

I agree. But you can't exactly call the Christian understanding of a triune God something other than monotheism, correct?

I think perhaps our modern constructs of Trinity belie the fact that while Israel didn't see God in three distinct persons, there is a sense of relationship and immanence in the OT that perhaps isn't completely clear without a NT understanding of Trinity, but is certainly present before Christ.

I see some of that in the way Fretheim explains the creation narratives and I don't take him as one who too often incorporates latter paradigms into his exploration of the text.

[Randy Wise]

On page 86 of Reflecting the Divine Image, Dunning says "Some popular bible teachers suggest that here we have an Old Testament reference to the Trinity, a New Testament truth. This is anachronistic. I believe the best way to explain these references that suggest a plurality in God is to interpret them to mean that God has a social nature, interpersonal in character."

Any one up to explaining this to me? I have heard the first part before, and it worked for me. I can't picture how one can "suggest a plurality in God" without it meaning the Trinity. Unless Dunning is trying to say that 'we can't go so far as to pinpoint three persons in that plurality' in which case I can see that somewhat. It is a rather vague statement nonetheless.

The Son was kept hidden in the OT unless you knew to look for Him though God foretold of a Son given who is called both God and Son. We now know of Jesus however the Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is seen in the OT. That Spirit, to me, is the Fathers and acts according to the mind/will of the Spirit (Father). So I see that Spirit of Truth as a extension of the Father after all God is Spirit. Since the Father has given Jesus a place on His throne I see that Spirit as a extension of the Son as well. Of course I differ in that I see Jesus as Firstborn and that the Father was pleased to give His fullness to dwell in Jesus who has always been the Son. (Firstborn) To me its the Father=>Son=>Angels of God=>Creation which includes mankind. To me the creation is defined by the aspects listed in Genesis. Neither the Son nor the Angels are listed in those aspects. I see what was created through Jesus as those aspects that are listed in Genesis. The Father is the God and Father of all spirits (Son, Angels, mankind) and the Father is the One true God. I can state in the name of the Father and of the Son and Holy Spirit but I note the word Son and I can't see the Holy Spirit as having a separate mind from the Father as to me the Holy Spirit or Spirit of Truth or Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is the Fathers Spirit.

Now in us who have been grafted into the true vine (Jesus) by the Gardner (Father) the Holy Spirit acts as an extension of Christ Jesus. So that same Spirit, to me, in that context can be stated as the Spirit of Christ.

If I start with what I know/believe is true it's that "There is only One true God and Jesus stated it was the Father"

Those that listen to the Father and learn from Him go to Jesus. As in "they shall all be taught by God".

Randy

[Dennis Bratcher]

I agree. But you can't exactly call the Christian understanding of a triune God something other than monotheism, correct?

Correct, since the Doctrine of the Trinity's purpose is to maintain monotheism while having to deal with the reality of Jesus as the Son of God. But it is still a logical necessity, in spite of the fact that the early Church asserted it as ontological reality (which may explain why it took 300 years to nail down and spawned a plethora of differing ideas).

I think perhaps our modern constructs of Trinity belie the fact that while Israel didn't see God in three distinct persons, there is a sense of relationship and immanence in the OT that perhaps isn't completely clear without a NT understanding of Trinity, but is certainly present before Christ.

I do not see the necessity of anything other than strict monotheism in dealing with the concepts of relationship and immanence in the OT. I think those ideas are perfectly clear without overlaying a Trinitarian confession, however embryonic. There is certainly a sense of mystery throughout the OT in dealing with God, what Otto called the numinous, no matter what idea is being considered (expressed playfully in Job 28-29). But that sense of mystery was not explained or eliminated by Jesus or by the Church's doctrines of God.

I see some of that in the way Fretheim explains the creation narratives and I don't take him as one who too often incorporates latter paradigms into his exploration of the text.

I like Fretheim's approach. However, I don't think it requires nascent Trinitarian ideas.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Ryan Scott]

I like Fretheim's approach. However, I don't think it requires nascent Trinitarian ideas.

I don't either and I wouldn't suggest it. Perhaps there's just a fuller, more complete understanding of the vastness of YHWH's personality as compared to other gods of the time. When I think of monotheism, I don't necessarily think of Judaism because the understanding of the One God is so much more complex in the specific than monotheism denotes in the general. Israel was unique in their conception of God to a point, at least in developments by the time of Christ, that just don't seem to ever be present in other monotheistic conceptions (Islam or Zoroastrianism, for example).

We're probably just arguing semantics. Perhaps its best to say Israel has a more fleshed out concept of monotheism.

I also think that perhaps Israel's conception of monotheism is more appropriate even for us as Christians than the concrete extrapolations of Trinity that we've philosophized over the years. I'd rather err on the side of the OT confession of God in affirming Christ's divinity than to err on the side of a clearly delineated logical explanation of trinity. In other words, I'd rather risk modalism than risk tritheism even as I attempt to avoid both.

I think we're better off just saying "God is One and Jesus is God," without going too far down the road of "how?"