Is the Concept of the Trinity Present in the Early Chapters of Genesis?

(a brief study)



By
Darren M. Slade
27 August 2013
Admittedly, the presence of trinitarian theology in the Old Testament is an appealing and
tempting concept. However, ascribing Christian beliefs to passages written centuries earlier is
anachronistic and likely the result of eisegetical readings. Christians who identify a triune God
in the Old Testament are often guilty of special pleading, where they expect to apply historical-
grammatical techniques in other passages but fail to account for their own departure with the
rules in these particular verses. This is the difficulty with Francis Schaeffers methodology.
While he finds scriptural evidence for the triune nature of God, his evidence can only come from
the New Testament or church tradition. Schaeffer must bypass the historical-grammatical
process in favor of a canonical reading. This is most clearly seen when he remarks, Certainly
the Bible, the Old and New Testaments together, makes a point of saying that the Trinity was
there.
1
Genesis, alone, does not make this assertion.
To begin, the term lhm is not exclusive to Yahweh or to deities in general. The
biblical writers used the noun to describe demons and other demi-gods (Deut. 32:17; cf. Ex.
22:20), angels (Ps. 8:5, ESV, NIV, KJV; cf. Heb. 2:7; 97:7; 138:1, LXX), beings present in the
divine assembly (Ps. 82:1, 6, NASB), and the preternatural spirits of deceased humans (1 Sam.
28:13; Num. 25:2, cf. Ps. 106:28; Isa. 8:19). Though there are disagreements, some interpreters
even apply lhm to human judges and arbiters (Ex. 21:6; 22:8-9; Ps. 82:1, NASB, NIV,
KJV).
2
Thus, the term is likely a general reference to spiritual beings, including ghosts, angels,
demons, ancestral deities, and Yahweh. Bill Arnold admits [lhm] has long been recognized


1
Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis in Space and Time (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 1972), 24; emphasis
added.


2
See, for example, A. J. Rosenberg, ed., trans., Samuel I: A New English Translation of the Text and Rashi,
with a Commentary Digest (New York: The Judaica Press, Inc., 1976), 232 and James Swanson, A Dictionary of
Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament), 2nd ed. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research
Systems, Inc., 2001), 466 .

that it can stand for godlike being or celestial spirit.
3
Philip Johnston confirms this lexical
understanding and relates that lhm is associated with beings residing in the spiritual realm.
4

Concerning the use of singular verbs in conjunction with the plural lhm, Hebrew
grammarians recognize that numerical qualities do not necessarily relate to quantity. In other
words, the masculine plural ending to lhm functions grammatically rather than numerically.
It is a plural of majesty or an honorific plural.
5
It is simply false to suggest that the honorific
plural did not exist in the Hebrew Old Testament. For instance, the masculine noun master in
Isaiah 1:3 is plural but refers to only one person. The same is true for other words, such as
crown (Zech. 6:14), tabernacle (Ps. 43:3), Behemoth (Job 40:15), Holy One (Prov.
9:10), and lord (1 Kings 1:43). In each of these examples, the noun refers to just one person or
object but functions as an intensified superlative.
6

Jack Scott suggests that lhm indicates a plurality of persons because it allows for a
trinitarian interpretation. The only evidence in support of this is the fact that lhm does not
occur in other Semitic languages.
7
However, Scott admits that the most accepted understanding
of lhm is a plural of majesty and even cites evidence that the honorific plural was present in
the Ancient Near East, especially among the Canaanites. Accepting a lexical interpretation


3
Bill T. Arnold, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 and 2 Samuel (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003),
374.


4
Philip S. Johnston, Death and Afterlife, in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, ed. Bill
T. Arnold and H.G.M. Williamson (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 218.


5
Lee M. Fields, Hebrew for the Rest of Us: Using Hebrew Tools Without Mastering Biblical Hebrew
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 105.


6
For other examples, see Christo H. J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naud, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical
Hebrew Reference Grammar (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 185-86 and 4 Key Trinitarian
Possibilities in the Opening Chapters of Genesis: Threads of the Trinity or a Tangled Theorem? (Word Document
of lecture, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, n.d.).


7
Jack B. Scott, 93c (lhm), in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris,
Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 1:44.

because it allows for a preconceived theological premise is poor rationalization. Here, the
evidence is made to fit the already determined conclusion. Likewise, the fact that lhm does
not appear outside the Hebrew Bible is an argument from silence and does not provide a
sufficient reason to conclude that the word contains a trinitarian concept.
Rather, Terence Fretheim explains that lhm does not have a triune God in view; the
noun is a reference to intensification or absolutization or exclusivity (say, God of gods).
8

Similarly, Bruce Waltke and M. OConnor reject a trinitarian interpretation and comment that
the noun is an honorific for the singular God.
9
Lee Fields concludes, Since Scripture clearly
teaches against polytheism, [lhm] is not a numeric plural.Responsible Bible students and
teachers never take a shortcut by using inappropriate evidence to get a desired conclusion, even
if the conclusion is correct.
10

In relation to the Spirit of God hovering over the primordial waters in Genesis 1:2, both
spirit (ra) and God (lhm) possess other semantic domains and can properly be
translated a mighty wind (cf. other instances where lhm may act as a superlative rather than
a proper noun, Gen. 23:6; 30:8; Jon. 3:3; Mal. 2:15), wind of God, or breath of God.
11
Even
if the Hebrew phrase is properly translated Spirit of God, it is unlikely that the original author
or audience would have understood the phrase as a reference to the third person of the Trinity.
Instead, the Old Testament consistently depicts Gods spirit as a manifestation of His divine


8
Terence E. Fretheim, (
e
lhm), in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 1:405.


9
Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1990), 7.4.3b.


10
Lee, 105.


11
Gordon J. Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-15 (Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher,
1987), 1:16. See also, 4 Key Trinitarian Possibilities in the Opening Chapters of Genesis: Threads of the Trinity or
a Tangled Theorem? (Word Document of lecture, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, n.d.).
power. In this case, the historical-grammatical analysis should have greater weight than reading
back into the text information obtained only through progressive revelation.
12

The same can be said for the plural pronoun us in Genesis 1:26. Though John Walton
suggests that this is a reference to the divine council, it is more likely that this is an act of self-
deliberation, especially since God is the only character mentioned thus far in the narrative.
While belief in a divine council was common in the Ancient Near East, the Genesis account has
not identified angelic beings that would sufficiently permit reference through a nondescript
pronoun.
13
A sudden introduction of other spiritual beings would diminish the theological
isolation of God as the sole player in creation. Likewise, other ancient myths also used
anthropomorphic language in divine deliberation just prior to creating humans. This best
explains why the text switches back to a singular pronoun in the next verse (his image). What
is certain is that the word us does not reference the Christian Trinity. This would be an
example of canonical anachronism rather than the communicative action intended by the
author.
14

Finally, the use of Genesis 3:15 as evidence for trinitarian theology would be an example
of proof-texting Scripture. Even if the text is a future prediction of the death and resurrection of
Christ, this says nothing of trinitarian beliefs nor is it listed as a possible interpretation in the


12
See John H. Walton, The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001),
76-77.


13
Ibid., 128-29.


14
See Kenneth A. Mathews, The New American Commentary: Genesis 1-11:26 (Nashville, TN: Broadman
& Holman Publishers, 1996), 1A:161-63.

major commentaries.
15
It is just as likely to hint at binitarianism, monarchianism, or Arianism
depending on the readers theological preconceptions about the Messiah.
16

With the ultimate Author in mind, exegetes must still maintain authorial intent as the
basis for proper interpretation. Otherwise, the implication would be that God intended to
communicate something completely different from what the biblical writers wrote. The
historical-grammatical approach dictates reading Scripture as purposeful communication without
hidden mystical meanings behind the surface text.
17
In other words, both the divine and human
authors intended to communicate in a manner consistent with the understanding of the original
audience. There is no evidence that the original readers would have derived trinitarian theology
from these four verses.
18




15
Cf. Wenham 79-81, Walton 225-26, and Mathews, 245-48.


16
Note that the lecture notes merely mention the Messianic tradition behind Gen. 3:15 but does not explain
its relationship to trinitarian theology, 4 Key Trinitarian Possibilities in the Opening Chapters of Genesis: Threads
of the Trinity or a Tangled Theorem? (Word Document of lecture, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, n.d.).


17
Walton, 82, 128-29.


18
Tremper Longman III, How to Read Genesis (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005), 21-22.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

4 Key Trinitarian Possibilities in the Opening Chapters of Genesis: Threads of the Trinity or a
Tangled Theorem? (Word Document). Lecture, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, n.d.

Arnold, Bill T. The NIV Application Commentary: 1 and 2 Samuel. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2003.

Fields, Lee M. Hebrew for the Rest of Us: Using Hebrew Tools Without Mastering Biblical
Hebrew. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008.

Fretheim, Terence E. (
e
lhm). In New International Dictionary of Old Testament
Theology and Exegesis, edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1997.

Johnston, Philip S. Death and Afterlife. In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books,
edited by Bill T. Arnold and H.G.M. Williamson, 218. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2005.

Longman, Tremper III. How to Read Genesis. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005.

Mathews, Kenneth A. The New American Commentary: Genesis 1-11:26. Vol. 1A. Nashville,
TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996.

Rosenberg, A. J., ed., trans. Samuel I: A New English Translation of the Text and Rashi, with a
Commentary Digest. New York: The Judaica Press, Inc., 1976.

Schaeffer, Francis A. Genesis in Space and Time. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 1972.

Scott, Jack B. 93c (lhm). In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, edited by
R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke. Vol. 1. Chicago: Moody
Press, 1980.

Swanson, James. A Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old
Testament). 2nd ed. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2001.

van der Merwe, Christo H. J., Jackie A. Naud, and Jan H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference
Grammar. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O'Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Walton, John H. The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001.

Wenham, Gordon J. Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-15. Vol. 1. Dallas, TX: Word Books
Publisher, 1987.