Commentary on 2 Maccabees 3: 22-30

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andrew1983
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Andrew1983

Guest
Greetings Brethren and Sistren!

I have been putting together my own personal Bible commentary and while reading through on the Second Book of Maccabees, I came across something of interest that I would like to share in the matter, and that is the possibility of the Holy Trinity being manifested in the Old Testament outside of Genesis 18 (if there are other instances, I don’t remember them).

Below, you will find my excerpt, which is still a WIP at the moment since I don’t yet have my Navarre Old Testament (hopefully it will arrive soon!!! :extrahappy:). Please tell me what you think and enjoy!

[Disclaimer: This is a personal interpretation only and I do not confer it as an article of faith that must be believed to be saved… Basically, I don’t want to accidentally father or dig up a heresy. As with all religious material or theological musings that are put forth in the public eye, I humbly submit these works to correction by a higher ecclesiastical authority if indeed error is found.]

THE HOLY TRINITY (TRIUNE GOD) In The OLD TESTAMENT

Commentary on 2 Maccabees 3: 22-30 (RSV) – St. Ignatius 2nd Edition Official Catholic Bible

• These verses specifically deal with the LORD of HOSTS making his appearance in triumph over the heathens who dared to attempt desecration of His Holy Temple.

• As Heliodorus and his soldiers approach the treasury, SCRIPTURE tells us that “… then and there the SOVEREIGN of spirits and of all authority caused so great a manifestation that all who had been so bold as to accompany him were astounded by the power of GOD, and became faint with terror.” (v.24)

• In continuation verses 25-26 describe the visualization of this manifestation, “For there appeared to him a magnificently caparisoned horse, with a rider of frightening mien…” (v.25) and in (v.26), “Two young men also appeared to him, remarkably strong, gloriously beautiful and splendidly dressed, who stood on each side of him, and scourged him (Heliodorus, that is) continuously, inflicting many blows on him.” Depending on how one reads these verses, a person can reach several conclusions, the manifestation of the Holy Trinity not being the only one (it is possible that people can interpret the rider on horseback to be God and the two men beside him to be angels). The only issue that I tend to take with this interpretation is that typically, throughout the Old and New Testaments, there is a distinction made between an angel and that of God. Furthermore, verse 30 makes no distinction between the rider on horseback and His two other manifestations for “… they praised the LORD who acted marvelously for his own place. And the temple, which a little while before was full of fear and disturbance, was filled with joy and gladness, now that the Almighty LORD had appeared.” Once again, there is no discernment between our BLESSED MASTER and that of His servants.

• I exercise my personal interpretation backed by also referencing GENESIS 18, where Abraham encounters the TRIUNE GOD who extends a covenant with him and his descendants. Another appearance of the Trinity in the Old Testament is GENESIS 19:24.

Commentary on 2 Maccabees 3: 31-40 (RSV) – St. Ignatius 2nd Edition Official Catholic Bible

• Verses 31-34 deal with the prayer of Onias acting as intercession for Heliodorus that ultimately spares him from the wrath of GOD. Specifically, verses 33, “While the high priest was making the offering of atonement, the same young men appeared again to Heliodorus dressed in the same clothing, and the stood and said, “Be very grateful to Onias the high priest, since for his sake the Lord has granted you your life,” and 34, “And see that you, who have been scourged by heaven, report to all men the majestic power of God.” Having said this, they vanished.”

• One point of contention that the objector may raise is that the young men are only the “Two young men” from 2 Macc. 3: 26 and that the rider did not appear. Furthermore, while the two men don’t refer to themselves as angels, it should be made clear that they don’t call themselves God or take any other names that are reserved for our LORD.

• It is however true that the young men who speak to Heliodorus are in unison, similar to how the LORD speaks to Abraham in Genesis 18. Now, it is true that in that particular chapter of GENESIS, GOD speaks at times in the third-person, however He clearly also refers to himself in the singular first person as opposed to 2 Macc. 3 where this does not happen.

• Now, on the flip side, during the Conversion of Heliodorus, verses 35-36 denote how he, “offered sacrifice to the Lord and Savior of his life, we see that Lord and Savior are separated from each other. Perhaps this is merely grasping at straws, but verses 36 and 39 have Heliodorus specifically state that it is GOD who protected His temple from being profaned. Again, one may still consider angels to be but a manifestation of that power, if indeed the two young men were simply servants of the LORD. At best, one can draw an inference from the appearance of three as 3 is ultimately both a Holy number in Judaism and Christianity.
 
I can’t help but see Jesus turning over the money changers tables. A horse and a rider armoured in gold flanked by two young men seems a fitting symbol for the Trinity during the earthly life of Jesus. I noticed that the horse struck Heliodrus not the rider. A detail that corresponds with Jesus’ punishment of the money changers.
For there appeared to them a horse with a terrible rider upon him, adorned with a very rich covering: and he ran fiercely and struck Heliodorus with his fore feet, and he that sat upon him seemed to have armour of gold.
I’m thinking Onias’ reaction to the intention to rob the Temple may offer some insight to how Jesus reacted to the money changers.
Now whosoever saw the countenance of the high priest, was wounded in heart: for his face, and the changing of his colour declared the inward sorrow of his mind. [17] For the man was so compassed with sadness and horror of the body, that it was manifest to them that beheld him, what sorrow he had in his heart.
There doesn’t seem to be much said about the money changers after their tables were turned. I have a feeling that they had few advocates for their cause. This OT story provides a couple of possibilities.
So the high priest considering that the king might perhaps suspect that some mischief had been done to Heliodorus by the Jews, offered a sacrifice of health for the recovery of the man.
And when the high priest was praying, the same young men in the same clothing stood by Heliodorus, and said to him: Give thanks to Onias the priest: because for his sake the Lord hath granted thee life. And thou having been scourged by God, declare unto all men the great works and the power of God.
Good find Andrew.👍
 
So I briefly flashed through the Navarre Old Testament and NABRE, which didn’t really talk about any kind of reference to the Trinity. I still can’t believe that I somehow “found” this a whopping TWO THOUSAND + years after 2 Macc was written. Maybe I should just ask Father Serpa or Michelle Arnold what their take is on this.

In any event, I might consider posting another commentary piece in the future, though do something about the headers to garner more interest as “Commentary on 2 Maccabees 3: 22-30” (really should’ve been 22-40), especially if no one knows what those verses deal with. Oh well, live and learn.
 
I can’t help but see Jesus turning over the money changers tables. A horse and a rider armoured in gold flanked by two young men seems a fitting symbol for the Trinity during the earthly life of Jesus. I noticed that the horse struck Heliodrus not the rider. A detail that corresponds with Jesus’ punishment of the money changers.

I’m thinking Onias’ reaction to the intention to rob the Temple may offer some insight to how Jesus reacted to the money changers.

There doesn’t seem to be much said about the money changers after their tables were turned. I have a feeling that they had few advocates for their cause. This OT story provides a couple of possibilities.
Good find Andrew.👍
Thanks, though I never considered this to be typology of Christ chasing the money lenders from the temple. I suppose that the rider on horseback could be linked to Revelation though.
 
So I briefly flashed through the Navarre Old Testament and NABRE, which didn’t really talk about any kind of reference to the Trinity. I still can’t believe that I somehow “found” this a whopping TWO THOUSAND + years after 2 Macc was written. Maybe I should just ask Father Serpa or Michelle Arnold what their take is on this.

In any event, I might consider posting another commentary piece in the future, though do something about the headers to garner more interest as “Commentary on 2 Maccabees 3: 22-30” (really should’ve been 22-40), especially if no one knows what those verses deal with. Oh well, live and learn.
I would be interested to know what they think too. I would be more surprised if it were never known before than if it is safe to believe though. 🙂
 
I find it remarkable that no-one seems to have made this connection before…🤷
 
I like both of these interpretations (the Trinity and the money-changers)- very insightful! One of the many things I love about the Scriptures is the layers & layers of meaning- His Word is always new and applicable in the here & now. Hearing the insights of others really adds to my devotional life, so thank you both for sharing.
 
I like both of these interpretations (the Trinity and the money-changers)- very insightful! One of the many things I love about the Scriptures is the layers & layers of meaning- His Word is always new and applicable in the here & now. Hearing the insights of others really adds to my devotional life, so thank you both for sharing.
🙂
 
I find it remarkable that no-one seems to have made this connection before…🤷
lol. Yeah really. You’d think it would be used in apologetics against Rabbinical Judaism to at least show a continuity of Trinitarian thought in Biblical Judaism. I don’t mind being wrong on this, but it would help to at least understand why people just gloss over this.

Even the Navarre didn’t have that much on it.
40.png
LiseTravis:
I like both of these interpretations (the Trinity and the money-changers)- very insightful! One of the many things I love about the Scriptures is the layers & layers of meaning- His Word is always new and applicable in the here & now. Hearing the insights of others really adds to my devotional life, so thank you both for sharing.
No problem, that’s what this is all about.

I might post another commentary, though this might be like dropping a bomb in front the theologically heterodox and moral relativists among us as the subject matter is Against Abortion. That one will be more of an apologetics piece.

Another one might be on the Parable of the Good Samaritan. I am kind of hesitant to post some of my commentaries because not all are just musings; some are very much to be used as a beating stick or sword in terms of they contain and would NOT recommend them for evangelization or ecumenism.

For example, my commentary on 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 is not at all written in a conciliatory fashion towards our separated brethren and I wouldn’t want to be the reason for driving a wedge between us and more ecumenical Protestants who aren’t extreme like Fundamentalist cults.

I hope everyone has a blessed Sunday! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top