Why did God not openly reveal Trinity to Jews?

[ricmat]

Just to go a bit off topic. I’ve learned a lot about Catholicism on these boards. Before I came here I assumed that Jews and Christians shared a much greater common understanding of the Scriptures. But I think I was mistaken. It is apparent to me that our belief systems are very different, and the fact that we look to common texts does little to change that.

I never realized how focused Christians were on using the Tanakh (OT) as a way of proving the NT. I now look at the common scriptures like a telescope. We may both use the same telescope. But we point it in completely different directions are we see completely different things.

And to top things off, the Protestants argue with Catholics (and each other) about what both the OT and NT scriptures mean

I’ll go even further off-topic for a minute. Instead of arguing scripture (where I’m a novice), could we talk about some big picture sorts of questions (where I’m still a novice unfortunately)…

If you look at [the Christian perspective on] the history of the Jews from Abraham (and back to Adam) all the way to the time of Christ, its a profound and beautiful journey. God revealed himself to the Jews, became their God and their king, gave them the divine law in writing, gave their rulers the wisdom of all the earth, as well as wealth, glory, influence, and power.

Then things changed.

1. The Ark of the Covenant, the holiest item in all of Jewish history, which contained the law, the manna, and the staff of Aaron, disappears never to be found again. Why?
2. 500 or so years later, the temple is destroyed (with most of Jerusalem), never to be rebuilt again. Why?
3. The predicted warrior messiah never appears, despite many opportunities to help out his people. Why?
4. This may be ignorance on my part but…during the BC period, the Jews always had a central authority, an anointed one - either a tribal leader, or national leader, or judge, or king. I don’t believe there has been such a figure for at least 2000 years. Why?

Perhaps my own ignorance is responsible for my ability to reach some obvious (for me) conclusions on the above items.

1. As the moving of the Ark from Mt. Sinai to Jerusalem signaled a new era, so does the loss of the Ark. God would enter into the lives of his people in a different way.
2. Similarly, the destruction of the temple signaled a new way to worship God. The old temple and the form of worship it supported, like the old Ark was just not needed any more. And unlike the old temple, where there was only one place to worship, there would now be many places to worship (as well as many more peoples doing the worshipping).
3. The warrior messiah never appears because a war is not needed to save humanity from physical oppression, but rather redemption from the slavery of sin.
4. There is no central authority (God’s right hand on earth so to speak) within Judaism because the baton has been passed…to the Church.

The Church is the new Jerusalem (hence, no spiritual need for the old one). There is no single temple, because the bodies of the Church members are all temples from whom God speaks in words and actions. There is no Ark to hold the Law, the bread from Heaven, or the staff of the high priest because Jesus was all of these things incarnate and as Arks ourselves, we contain these things via the Eucharist presence.

OK…now that I’ve got that out, we can go back to arguing about what “spirit” really means

 

[leonie]

My guess is that the ancient Hebrews did not yet have a fully-developed concept of only one God. Given the varied cults of false gods in Israel, it seemed that the people still conceived that while there was only one God of Israel, there were other, true gods that were in charge of other nations.

It was only after the Exile that polytheism was stamped out among the Israelites once and for all, and is clearly evidenced from the latter part of the book of Isaiah (“I am the LORD, there is no other”).

If God were to have revealed his triune nature prematurely, that may have only served to confuse the ancient Jews even more, and polytheism may still have flourished. It had to take centuries for the notion that there is only one God to stick in their heads. Once that was clear, then the Triune nature can be revealed in due time.

I heard Fr. Mitch Pacwa say this very thing at a conference once. He said the “fullness of time” included things like this emergence from Polytheism, the stability of the Roman empire, and Greek foundation of philosophy.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Just to go a bit off topic. I’ve learned a lot about Catholicism on these boards. Before I came here I assumed that Jews and Christians shared a much greater common understanding of the Scriptures. But I think I was mistaken. It is apparent to me that our belief systems are very different, and the fact that we look to common texts does little to change that.

I never realized how focused Christians were on using the Tanakh (OT) as a way of proving the NT. I now look at the common scriptures like a telescope. We may both use the same telescope. But we point it in completely different directions are we see completely different things.

Yes, indeed. I too thought that there were more similarities in interpretations than there actually is. To go with your telescope analogy, you could also say that we are looking at the same exact thing through an entirely different lens. But I always enjoy your posts Valke, and even though we greatly differ on interpretations, I still value your perspective greatly.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Perhaps God did not openly reveal the Trinity because he wanted the Israelites and also ourselves to develop Faith in him. (BTW, I believe the Trinity is revealed in the OT but not openly as you have said)

Lets put aside the Mystery of the Trinity for a moment. Look what happened to the Israelites after GOD worked great signs and wonders throughout their history, like especially crossing the red sea for example. They soon forgot the God that saved them.

So the question is, would revealing the Trinity in an open fashion, really make a difference?

I’m not sure it would have made a difference. I certainly don’t want to imply that I think God made a mistake in how He revealed Himself. I just just like to ponder, sometimes, how and why He did things in the manner that He did. I’m a little surprised no one has come here yet and said “He did it that way because that is what He willed”… which is true. But God always knows best, and is always one step (or a million) ahead of us. I’d just like to gain a deeper understanding of the “why” if there is one

Faith is key.

Yes, we need to have faith that the Trinity exists as revealed by Jesus Christ. Though we (Christians) will all agree that we will never fully understand. At the same time, we cannot say that the Jews don’t have faith (though, as noted, in biblical times they occasionally lost their way). Nowadays, the Jews I converse with have every bit as much faith in God as I do–yet they still do not see the Trinity. I suppose that at this point in time, Tradition comes into play as much as faith. I believe that is why Valke will read a verse and come to one conclusion, while I will read the same verse and come to an entirely different conclusion.

To Valke–hope you don’t mind me using you for an example… you are the only Jew with whom I have had any ongoing dialogue.

 

[chosen_people]

This is just speculation on my part, but I’ve always wondered if it had something to do with the prevalence of polytheism. It seems like God needed to stress His oneness in contrast to the polytheism of paganism. Once belief in His oneness was established and ingrained, then His triune nature could be revealed without confusion.

Without intending any disrespect, from a Jewish perspective the above quote is extremely ironic.To them the concept of Trinity is a step back from purist monotheism. G-d coming down from heaven to walk the world in human form would have been seen as rooted in Greek and Roman mythology. These feelings would have been reinforced by early Christianity setting religious holidays to coincide with (and eventually to replace) pagan festivals. The placing of G-d in human image in a place of worship and bowing down to it seemingly paganistic.From their point of view, its not that them that were unable to grasp the concept of Trinity in a pagan polytheistic world but rather that Christians were unable to embrace strict monotheism in such a world.

 

[ricmat]

…From their point of view, its not that them that were unable to grasp the concept of Trinity in a pagan polytheistic world but rather that Christians were unable to embrace strict monotheism in such a world.

Christians ARE, and always have been strict monotheists. The Triune nature of the one God is a mystery. So say we all.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

The ancient philosopher Democritus came up with the idea that all matter is composed of atoms so small they could not be seen. This was a tremendous breakthrough in physics, even though many other scientists of Democritus’ day denied the theory. It took several thousand years for Democritus’ theory to be advanced by the notion that the atom can contain three parts … proton, electron, neutron. This would have been unfathomable even to Democritus because in those days such complexity was unfathomable. Likewise, God saw ahead that his *Oneness *should be fully comprehended by men several thousand years before men could be prepared to accept Three Persons in One God.

 

[chosen_people]

huh? Not really, Ruwach when used in conjection with God is almost always properly translated as Spirit. The only exceptions I know offhand a few times its used as whirlwind for judgment, but the other times in relation to God its translated properly as Spirit. The Hebrew Elders who translated the Septuigent understood this by their actions. Are you claiming that wind should be used? How about in Judges too? how about in In Kings? This phrase is used over and over and over throughout the OT…Do you change it in all cases to ‘wind’? Some would sound really silly, like the times with Samson, Gideon or Saul//let alone how interesting 2nd Chronicles would get

I had a JW knock on my door a use a similar faulty argument

Arguing that the word “spirit” should be used to translate the hebrew word “ruach” by refering to other places that Christian translators used the word “spirit” instead of “wind” somewhat begs the point. You would however be correct in asuming that many Jewish translations also use the word “spirit” for the hebrew “ruach” although no Jewish reader would see such a spirit as the “Holy Ghost” of the Trininty.

You inadvertently gave me a much better example for the point I’m trying to make as to Christian translations of the bible from hebrew to english in your referrence to a “JW” who knocked on your door. I presume you mean a “Jehovah Witness”.

The name of G-d in hebrew is made up of the three hebrew verbs: “was” “is” “will be”. This combination demonstrates that G-d is eternal, always “was”, always “is” and always “will be”. No Jew in reading the name of G-d in hebrew would attempt to pronounce His name but would substitute the word “Lord”. Christian translators to english of the hebrew bible, unaware or uncaring to Jewish sensibilities and beliefs, translated the name of G-d to be pronounced as “Jehovah” or Yahweh".

Okay, so now we know that Jews have a concept of an “Eternal G-d”. We come to the very first word in the bible which in hebrew is “bereisheet”. The literal translation of this word is “In the beginning”. However if G-d is eternal how could there be a “beginning”? G-d always “was”. If there was a “beginning” there could not be an “Eternal G-d”. A Jew in reading this first word would not view it as the beginning of G-d who is eternal and always was but rather “the beginning” of the creation of the world by G-d.

Now to the point of my “faulty argument”. Christianity and indeed the members of this forum see places in the hebrew bible as supporting Christian dogma. My point is that such an argument can only have validity if a strict jewish interpretation of the hebrew bible leads inevitably to such support.Those who believe that such support can be found, must by necessity also adhere to the importance of accuracy in translation from the hebrew and also have an understanding of Jewish concepts. The alternative, reinterpeting the hebrew bible in hindsight on the basis of later dogma, can invariably find countless places of support in the hebrew bible according to said dogma, but such reinterpertation can have little validity. Such dogmatic reinterpertation can lead to any conclusion and find endless support according to the precepts of the dogma used for reinterpretation.

On a lighter note, although we all say we read the bible, I’m not always sure we’re paying strict attention.
I would like to demonstrate with two simple bible questions:
a) what is the fruit that Eve gave to Adam in the Garden of Eden? (please name the chapter and verse on which you base your answer)

b) how many cows (female) were on the ark?

hint: if you rush to answer you’ll probably get it wrong

 

[Valke2]

Yes, indeed. I too thought that there were more similarities in interpretations than there actually is. To go with your telescope analogy, you could also say that we are looking at the same exact thing through an entirely different lens. But I always enjoy your posts Valke, and even though we greatly differ on interpretations, I still value your perspective greatly.

Thank you. Same here.

 

[Valke2]

To Valke–hope you don’t mind me using you for an example… you are the only Jew with whom I have had any ongoing dialogue.

<<<<the lone jew in the wilderness

 

[Baraq]

Chosen people,

Your so called ‘strict interpretation’ of Hebrew must have changed over the years considering what the elders translated into Greek in the Septuigent. As for your guessing game, I wont give it much thought…lets see clean animals were by 7s(cows are clean), unclean be 2s…We dont know what fruit it was, and Im afraid to think what talmudic sages who think Eve slept with the serpent would want the fruit is…they would probably say something like a mandrake to validate their unsupported assumptions

 

[Valke2]

On a lighter note, although we all say we read the bible, I’m not always sure we’re paying strict attention.
I would like to demonstrate with two simple bible questions:
a) what is the fruit that Eve gave to Adam in the Garden of Eden? (please name the chapter and verse on which you base your answer)

b) how many cows (female) were on the ark?

hint: if you rush to answer you’ll probably get it wrong

Cows would be clean animals. So I’m guessing 7.

Torah doesn’t say which fruit. But I’d put my money on fig.

 

[spauline]

i’m sorry, I haven’t read the entire thread, but I would agree with the persons who, amongst other things, stress that the “Oneness of God” must first be made completely clear before we move into the “Trinity”. Else, because of tendency toward polytheism, it would have been likely God’s People would end up being like Mormons.

Here is an excerpt from an essay that I wrote that deals with this question in part, if it might perhaps help:

…
This then raises the whole question of why God first gives the OT Covenant and then the NT Covenant.

The short answer is, the ultimate Revelation that comes in Christ is so deep and mysterious and complicated that if God would’ve attempted to give the whole Catholicism in the very beginning, there is little chance it could properly be understood. We have to remember that humans are limited by the physical immaturity of their brains. They are not like angels, who are pure spirits, who can arrive at truths much faster and easier than humans. We as humans are distracted by our materialistic surroundings. For example, the angels could’ve probably figured out the Divergence Theorem of the Calculus in their very early stages of the “contemplation” of the natural truths, and yet, this theorem is not discovered in human history until after thousands of years of mathematical development. This illustrates that man must necessarily grow in maturity, not only intellectually but also religiously. Toward that point, we then have that in the early stages of salvation history, man is very immature both intellectually and religiously, and the sufferings brought on by the Fall, coupled with a near total scientific cluelessness, means that man tends toward PAGANISM, which usually involves the associated POLYTHEISM. Hence, since man has very little understanding of his surroundings, religion and science get mixed up, and so man ends up making “gods” responsible for natural laws, as well as in the spiritual realm, largely also because of his inability to understand suffering. (for more on my website, see here).

Can you then imagine, in this context, God trying to communicate to man that there is only ONE God, who is pure spirit, all-powerful, all-good, but that He has become a Man, a Man being fully God and fully Human, that whereas God is ONE in Nature, He is THREE in Persons? It would seem impossible, then, for man to grasp this, and he would inevitably confound the truths with the associated paganism and polytheism.

It is for this reason that God would need to introduce a PREFIGURING Revelation, and one that would begin to teach SPIRITUAL realities in and through foreshadowing things from the MATERIAL world. Hence, we have typology:

Water symbolizes cleansing from sin, animal sacrifice prefigures the sacrifice of God Himself for sin, the Promised Land of Israel pointing to the ultimate homeland, Heaven. Etc. However, it seems that given human nature being what it is, it will be inevitable that the People of the Prefiguring Covenant will take it as though it is an end in and of itself. They will be looking for a political solution, when in reality, they “miss the point.”. The ultimate problems of life cannot be solved politically. The ultimate problem is spiritual. They fail to recognize the true meaning of the Fall in Genesis. They see the consequences as PHYSICAL death, when in reality, that is just the *secondary *consequence. The real and root consequence is SPIRITUAL death, and a death that, if not healed becomes eternal once the threshold of physical death is crossed.
…

catholicmeditations.org/subSites/apocalypse/why_pret_fut.php

 

[chosen_people]

Chosen people,

Your so called ‘strict interpretation’ of Hebrew must have changed over the years considering what the elders translated into Greek in the Septuigent. As for your guessing game, I wont give it much thought…lets see clean animals were by 7s(cows are clean), unclean be 2s…We dont know what fruit it was, and Im afraid to think what talmudic sages who think Eve slept with the serpent would want the fruit is…they would probably say something like a mandrake to validate their unsupported assumptions

I presume you mean the Septuagint and not the Septuigent

Once again you have inadvertently provided the perfect example to the point I was trying to make. Not only did the translation to greek from the hebrew engender normal problems of translation from one language to another but there arises the question whether later revisionist translators interposed their own beliefs in interpreting the text (see for instance Aquila as opposed to Symmachus or Theodotion).

I don’t understand the basis for your claim that talmudic sages thought that Eve slept with the serpent and therefore probably thought the fruit was mandrake

Relying on the book of talmudic legends (sefer ha’aggada) - Bialik and Ravnitzky ( hebrew lang. - 1987) there is in fact a discussion about the fruit. One rabbi claims it was wheat which astonishes the others as presumably we’re talking about a tree; others suggest grapes (wine); an etrog (a large lemon looking fruit used ritually by Jews during the festival of Suckoth) another suggests figs (the fig leaf?). The discussion ends when the last rabbi puts forth that G-d will never reveal the name of the fruit out of respect for the dignity of Man lest a man stand by the tree and be reminded that this is the tree which led to the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.

In another place one rabbi points out that G-d having created Eve by necessity had to create satan ( a comment that if made today wouldn’t win him many friends in the feminist movement)

I was unable to find a talmudic legend or parable about Eve sleeping with the snake. It seems your repeating some made up antisemitic hogwash. If you have a source please let me know. From your disdainful comments about talmudic sages I presume that you belong to a Christian sect that is ferverently anti Christian zionist.

 

[ricmat]

Here is an excerpt from an essay that I wrote that deals with this question in part, if it might perhaps help:

catholicmeditations.org/subSites/apocalypse/why_pret_fut.php

Thank you spauline. That’s a wonderful essay

 

[chosen_people]

i’m sorry, I haven’t read the entire thread, but I would agree with the persons who, amongst other things, stress that the “Oneness of God” must first be made completely clear before we move into the “Trinity”. Else, because of tendency toward polytheism, it would have been likely God’s People would end up being like Mormons.

Here is an excerpt from an essay that I wrote that deals with this question in part, if it might perhaps help:

catholicmeditations.org/subSites/apocalypse/why_pret_fut.php

It has been repeatedly suggested in this forum that G-d did not reveal the Trinity to the Jews because of the complexity of the concept and the seeming inability to grasp the Trinity in a monotheistic framework

With all due respect this thesis seems somewhat illogical for the reasons stated below:

1. The concept of absolute pure monotheism totally devoid of any physical manifestation (be it in image or in human form) is an infinitely more complex and more advanced concept for the human mind to grasp than the outward manifestations of the Trinity in the Roman world. The only complexity of the Trinity is in integrating seemingly pagan non monotheistic manifestations and concepts into a monotheistic framework. From an intellectual point of view the natural progression is from the outward framework of the Trinity which would have been familiar to pagan believers of roman mythology to understanding its integration into a monotheistic framework and not the reverse.
2. All Christians today are decended from former pagans, Jews who were forcibly converted and Jews who willingly converted. The true growth of Christianity came with the conversion to Christianity of former pagans. Their integration of the Trinity concept from pagan beliefs to a monotheistic framework would have the natural progression set out in paragraph 1 and coincided with the gradual development of the Trinity concept in the early church.
3. Jews have been called many things but they do not lack intelligence. If pagans could be made to grasp the Trinity concept in a monotheistic framework than surely Jews, able to accept pure monotheism, could have grasped the Trinity concept. In fact, the Trinity concept was developed by Jews who left Judaism and became Christians. The rejection of the Trinity concept by the Jews is therefore not because of lack of intellectual development or Jewish inability to grasp the Trinity concept in earlier times.
4. Jewish rejection of the Trinity is based on their beliefs that it is contrary to their purist monotheism. If you accept the premise that purist monotheism had to be developed before the Trinity could be understood and accepted ,you must also accept that G-d in making his covenant with the Jewish people was infusing in them beliefs that would bring about the rejection of the Trinity by them (as opposed to pagans who had no such monotheistic beliefs). In contractual terms holders of this belief accuse G-d of acting in bad faith.

In making these points I do not wish to argue Christianity and Judaism but rather the arguments set forth in this forum as to why G-d did not openly reveal Trinity to the Jews. Your comments would be welcome.

 

[spauline]

It has been repeatedly suggested in this forum that G-d did not reveal the Trinity to the Jews because of the complexity of the concept and the seeming inability to grasp the Trinity in a monotheistic framework

With all due respect this thesis seems somewhat illogical for the reasons stated below:
…

I’m sorry, if i have worded things bad. I do not mean to say that the Jews reject the Trinity because they are intellectually inferior. If That’s how it sounded, i’m sorry for that. For Einstien was a Jew, and probably smarter than I am, I have a mere masters degree in applied math, and I am a gentile and Catholic. I don’t think religion is merely something that involves only the intellect. It obviously involves the whole human person, including their environment, psychology, life experiences, emotional wounds, etc. So I do not at all mean to say Jews reject the Trinity because there is an intellectual inferiority.

Secondly, Trinity is NOT based on paganism, it is based on the concept of LOVE. If there was one verse that summarized Catholicism, I would have to say it would be “God is LOVE!”. LEt me explain. There are, in one way to look at it, Four levels of happiness. First level is material pleasures and possessions. Second level is egotistical accomplishments (like straight A’s in school, winning the Super Bowl, leading business to success). The third level is intimate relationships of LOVE with other human beings. For example, when men are on deathbed, you never hear them say I wish I would have had more brewskies and watched more sports games with my buddies. No, they say, I should’ve spent more time with my kids and wife. So then intimate relationships of LOVE are SUPERIOR even to winning the SUper Bowl. But so then, what is the ultimate level: intimate relationship of LOVE with GOD. Love means to intimately know a person, what they have done in love, but also how they have found meaning and purpose, how God has worked in their life, and what truths they have known. So then, we are created with intellect (to KNOW) and will (to LOVE). To use these two faculties of soul is the ultimate source of happiness. For it is giving that we receive. We should seek not so much to be consoled, but to console, to be entertain, as to entertain. So then the gift of self one to another, to know intimately and to love intimately, is the meaning and purpose of all existence in humanity.

But then, what’s this? If giving and receiving love is the foundation and source of all happiness, who was God “loving” before the respective creations? If God is only ONE in PERSON, then he was loving himself, which would seem to be infinite narcicism. But so then here is the meaning and appropriateness of the Trinity: God is ONE in Nature, which is to exist, but He is not One in Person. For the love of God is so limitless and overflowing, that from eternity, it BEGETS and image of itself, but that is fully God, and the knowledge and the Love between the Father and the Son is so unimaginable, it becomes a third Person, the Holy Spirit. So then this is not paganism. Not by any means. This is about love.

Did you see the movie in the 80’s called Starman? In it, the alien played by Jeff Bridges expresses that in his creation, there is no sexuality. But asexual reproduction is certainly not as beautiful as sexual reproduction. But so then God has deliberately created us sexual as a very catechetical reality of the Trinitariann love that exists within God’s One Nature. So then, human sexuality can never be fully understood by someone who does not believe in the Trinity?

But how to communicate this to the intial people of God? Impossible. It will be corrupted by pagan tendencies. So then God’s One nature must be ground in first. then, once that is settled, the Trinity can be introduced without general problem of pagan corruption.

I pray that God bless you, chosen one.
love,
scott

 

[spauline]

Thank you spauline. That’s a wonderful essay

you’re welcome, and thank you, ricmat.

 

[Eliza10]

I was reading Valke’s Trinity thread and it brought to mind something that I have wondered over the years. Why do you suppose that God did not openly reveal the Trinity to the Jews…either through Abraham or Moses, etc? It seems to me it would have saved a lot of grief later on down the road. …

Something that Valke said kind of struck a chord with me. He said the Old Testament is actually anti-Triune and that it focuses on the “God is one” factor… I began to think that possibly God did not reveal the Trinity to the early Patriarch’s [because]… He wanted it to be known, first and foremost that He is one. Then, over time, He would reveal Himself further.

…

Pardon me for not reading all the replies to this - someone may have already said this. My thought is that I would really be surprised if all the great Jewish theologians of the past and present did not find the Trinity in their theology. It would be a really unpopular theological point to dwell on at the present time, certainaly since the Incarnation. But I find it really hard to believe that this was not known before since it was an eternal truth then as now.

I can see how focusing on the “One” of God is important as the base concept of understanding, but, so many of the Jewish theologians went deep.

I wonder what the great Hillel had to say on the topic?

 

[Valke2]

Pardon me for not reading all the replies to this - someone may have already said this. My thought is that I would really be surprised if all the great Jewish theologians of the past and present did not find the Trinity in their theology. It would be a really unpopular theological point to dwell on at the present time, certainaly since the Incarnation. But I find it really hard to believe that this was not known before since it was an eternal truth then as now.

I can see how focusing on the “One” of God is important as the base concept of understanding, but, so many of the Jewish theologians went deep.

I wonder what the great Hillel had to say on the topic?

Rambam addressed this. One of his 13 priciples of faith is that God is incorporeal. Another is that GOd is one and unique. One is that there “will bo no other Torah.”

I’ve never read anything about Hillel discussing the subject.