Trinity and the old testament

[MindNight]

Is it true that the trinity is not explained in the OT? I mean, for instance, Jews don’t believe in God being three persons. My question doesn’t deal with what the trinity is (I already know that), but the question is specifically why the trinity is present in NT but not in OT?

 

[dronald]

Genesis 18… figure that one out for me.

 

[Zachary]

What pushed you away from the Church?

 

[rom422]

Genesis 18… figure that one out for me.

The three men cited in Genesis 18 could represent the Trinity, and this is an interpretation that I could not dispute. At the same time, however, I must say that this interpretation is not the only possible one. It is possible that only one of the men represents God, and the other two represent angels. The idea that one of them represents God comes from Genesis 18:2, where it is said that Abraham “adored down to the ground.” Yet, it is also possible that the three men were mere angels who came as God’s messengers. Because in Genesis 19 we also read Lot having the same experience and worshipping “prostrate to the ground,” which indicates that Abraham and Lot’s “adoration” could really just be a very respectful form of veneration.

Although Genesis 18 could be interpreted to teach the Trinity, it is not conclusive. It seems that the definitive revelation of the Blessed Trinity did not come from any of the prophets but from our Lord Jesus Himself who, because He is the Second Person, has an intimate knowledge of the Trinity.

Just my opinion.

 

[Jozefo]

I don’t think it’s explained in the OT or NT. I think it’s the object of a dogma that explains God’s revelation to creation. We are told there is one God in three persons, yes? So what is a person?

Person is derived from persona, which is an actor’s mask. So God reveals himself to the world in three different roles. Collectively, they are the Trinity.

Read my disclaimer below. If I’m wrong about this according to Church teaching, please let me know.

 

[MindNight]

The three men cited in Genesis 18 could represent the Trinity, and this is an interpretation that I could not dispute. At the same time, however, I must say that this interpretation is not the only possible one. It is possible that only one of the men represents God, and the other two represent angels. The idea that one of them represents God comes from Genesis 18:2, where it is said that Abraham “adored down to the ground.” Yet, it is also possible that the three men were mere angels who came as God’s messengers. Because in Genesis 19 we also read Lot having the same experience and worshipping “prostrate to the ground,” which indicates that Abraham and Lot’s “adoration” could really just be a very respectful form of veneration.

Although Genesis 18 could be interpreted to teach the Trinity, it is not conclusive. It seems that the definitive revelation of the Blessed Trinity did not come from any of the prophets but from our Lord Jesus Himself who, because He is the Second Person, has an intimate knowledge of the Trinity.

Just my opinion.

ok, but if Genesis trully tells us of the trinity, then how come the Jews didn’t believe in “3 person- one deity”? I mean, knowing that judaism came before christianity, the Jews, who were experts in the hebrew language and the scriptures, believed that God could be one in one only (not three persons in one). They believed God was one person only. See what I’m saying? I would appreciate if you answer this, thx.

 

[dronald]

ok, but if Genesis trully tells us of the trinity, then how come the Jews didn’t believe in “3 person- one deity”? I mean, knowing that judaism came before christianity, the Jews, who were experts in the hebrew language and the scriptures, believed that God could be one in one only (not three persons in one). They believed God was one person only. See what I’m saying? I would appreciate if you answer this, thx.

In a way the Jews must accept that the nature of God is not completely known. For example, let’s look at the very beginning of Genesis:

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth

So here we see in verse 1 that One God created everything. Not two God’s but one.

2The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the **Spirit of God **was hovering over the face of the waters.

Now, have we just discovered in the very beginning of Genesis a second God, or One God but with a nature? Obviously the latter. The Spirit of God in Genesis 2 is fully God, and yet still the Spirit of God.

Let’s now look at Isaiah 42:8 "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.

So obviously God would never give His glory to another but what does Daniel 7 say?

13 "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

It is interesting to note that Jesus quotes Daniel 7:13 and applies it to Himself, and for that His accusers shout “blasphemy” and kill Him. (Mark 14:62)

 

[rom422]

I don’t think it’s explained in the OT or NT.

The Old Testament gave us “hints” or indications of the existence of a plurality of Persons in one God, but it is in the New Testament that we find this dogma revealed. For example, we read Christ saying, “Going, therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19).

 

[rom422]

ok, but if Genesis trully tells us of the trinity, then how come the Jews didn’t believe in “3 person- one deity”? I mean, knowing that judaism came before christianity, the Jews, who were experts in the hebrew language and the scriptures, believed that God could be one in one only (not three persons in one). They believed God was one person only. See what I’m saying? I would appreciate if you answer this, thx.

Genesis did not explicitly reveal the dogma of the Blessed Trinity. We find it more fully revealed in the New Testament. In addition to the mandate given by Christ to baptize everyone in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), we also find the doctrine on other occasions where He spoke of the Holy Spirit (or the Paraclete) whom the Father will send in Christ’s name (John 14:26).

Note that although the Old Testament did not explicitly teach the doctrine of the Trinity, neither did it explicitly teach that there was only one Person in one God. In fact, there are passages in the messianic prophecies of the OT that indicate a plurality of Persons, for they make a distinction between the Father (as the one who sends) and the Son (as the one who is sent).

 

[IvanHR]

I don’t think it’s explained in the OT or NT. I think it’s the object of a dogma that explains God’s revelation to creation. We are told there is one God in three persons, yes? So what is a person?

Person is derived from persona, which is an actor’s mask. So God reveals himself to the world in three different roles. Collectively, they are the Trinity.

Read my disclaimer below. If I’m wrong about this according to Church teaching, please let me know.

If I’m not mistaken, that teaching is called sabellianism (Googled now, but I think I read something about it in the intro to st. Augustine’s De civitate Dei). It was proclaimed heresy.

 

[Todd977]

After Moses introduced monotheism to the Israelites, they often lapsed into polytheism. It took many hundreds of years before monotheism was firmly established among them. I think introducing the triune nature of God to them, while they were still struggling with polytheism, would only have confused them into wrongly thinking that there are three gods.

 

[Jozefo]

If I’m not mistaken, that teaching is called sabellianism (Googled now, but I think I read something about it in the intro to st. Augustine’s De civitate Dei). It was proclaimed heresy.

Ah, thank you. I see that what I described does indeed look like sabelianism. I didn’t describe my entire belief though. I do not subscribe to the idea of one person wearing three masks. I use that as an analogy to describe one God in three persons.

I do see a distinction in the persons. So technically it’s not sabellianism. I want to say I very much appreciate you speaking up though. Thank you!

 

[Jozefo]

The Old Testament gave us “hints” or indications of the existence of a plurality of Persons in one God, but it is in the New Testament that we find this dogma revealed. For example, we read Christ saying, “Going, therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19).

Right. But it was never explained, until later, you know, one God in three persons.

 

[rom422]

Right. But it was never explained, until later, you know, one God in three persons.

I think that the Trinity was known to the Apostles, and that it was passed on to succeeding generations of Christians. I agree, though, that the understanding and formulation of the mystery requires time. The doctrine was formulated very precisely in the early creeds, such as the Apostles Creed, the Athanasian Creed and the Nicene Creed.

In the 13th century, largely due to the work of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic Church developed a more refined and philosophical understanding of certain key concepts in the doctrine, particularly the distinction between “person” and “substance.”

In one of your posts you mentioned that the word “person” originally meant a theatrical mask. That is true, but that was a nominal definition, and that is not how the Church today understands the word “person” as used in the Trinity. A person (according to the philosophical understanding developed by St. Thomas) is **a free and intelligent subject **, and a subject is any substance that acts. A stone is a substance, but is not a subject - because a stone does not act. A bird, however, is not merely a substance, but is also a subject - because a bird can fly or be the author of its own acts. However, a bird is not a person because it is not a free or intelligent subject. Human beings, angels and God alone are persons because they are free and intelligent subjects, capable of initiating their own acts, and - because they are intelligent - are also responsible for their acts. However, each human being and each angel is one distinct person. From revelation we learn that in God there are three distinct persons that constitute but one divine subject.

The three divine Persons are distinct as persons because they have distinct internal acts. For example, the Father is the one who, by knowing Himself, begets the Son and who sends the Son into the world. The Son (not the Father) is He who has been sent, who became human (Christ), and made satisfaction for our sins. As a divine Person the Son proceeds only from the Father because He is the Father’s knowledge of Himself. The fruit of knowledge is love. The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father. The Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son, and so He proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Like the Son, the Holy Spirit also shares the same divine nature, the same divine Subject, but He is a distinct Person because He has His own internal act. He proceeded from both the Father and the Son, and is also sent to be - not the Redeemer of the world, - but the Sanctifier of the just.

I hope this brief explanation helps.

 

[Jozefo]

I think that the Trinity was known to the Apostles, and that it was passed on to succeeding generations of Christians. I agree, though, that the understanding and formulation of the mystery requires time. The doctrine was formulated very precisely in the early creeds, such as the Apostles Creed, the Athanasian Creed and the Nicene Creed.

In the 13th century, largely due to the work of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic Church developed a more refined and philosophical understanding of certain key concepts in the doctrine, particularly the distinction between “person” and “substance.”

In one of your posts you mentioned that the word “person” originally meant a theatrical mask. That is true, but that was a nominal definition, and that is not how the Church today understands the word “person” as used in the Trinity. A person (according to the philosophical understanding developed by St. Thomas) is **a free and intelligent subject **, and a subject is any substance that acts. A stone is a substance, but is not a subject - because a stone does not act. A bird, however, is not merely a substance, but is also a subject - because a bird can fly or be the author of its own acts. However, a bird is not a person because it is not a free or intelligent subject. Human beings, angels and God alone are persons because they are free and intelligent subjects, capable of initiating their own acts, and - because they are intelligent - are also responsible for their acts. However, each human being and each angel is one distinct person. From revelation we learn that in God there are three distinct persons that constitute but one divine subject.

The three divine Persons are distinct as persons because they have distinct internal acts. For example, the Father is the one who, by knowing Himself, begets the Son and who sends the Son into the world. The Son (not the Father) is He who has been sent, who became human (Christ), and made satisfaction for our sins. As a divine Person the Son proceeds only from the Father because He is the Father’s knowledge of Himself. The fruit of knowledge is love. The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father. The Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son, and so He proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Like the Son, the Holy Spirit also shares the same divine nature, the same divine Subject, but He is a distinct Person because He has His own internal act. He proceeded from both the Father and the Son, and is also sent to be - not the Redeemer of the world, - but the Sanctifier of the just.

I hope this brief explanation helps.

Thank you. I would like to add that I think there are living persons and dead persons. There can also be dead persons that are given a lifespan by their creator, so they’re said to have life, even though they are dead.

Adam’s became a dead person at the fall, even though he had the breath of life. I have something going on at the moment, but I think we could have a good conversation about this.

Seeya