Part of Dale Tuggy's stump speech is that he objects to Christians finding "hints" of the Trinity in the OT. He thinks that's special pleading. They begin with their dogma, then cast about for prooftexts.
I'd simply point out that Christians aren't doing anything exceptional when it come to the Trinity. Christians have always taken the position that OT theology is less developed than NT theology. That's a given. Although there's continuity between OT theology and NT theology, in many cases you won't find full-orbed NT theology in the OT. Rather, you'll find adumbrations of NT theology in the OT.
That's because, unlike Buddhism, Christianity is a religion of events as well as ideas, and God didn't do everything at once. Biblical revelation is progressive in large part because theology runs in tandem with redemptive events. Doctrine provides a theological interpretation of redemptive events.
So it's not as if Christians use one basic methodology for relating OT theology to NT theology in general, but switch to something completely different when it comes to the Trinity and the Incarnation. Rather, it's the same methodology throughout.
If I may quote someone, the Trinity isn't a problem. It's a solution to a problem, i.e. what we see in the texts.
ReplyDelete"Solution" - in the sense of a speculative attempt to explain certain texts - sure! That's exactly what Trinity theories are. But being *an* explanation is one thing, and being overall *the best* explanation is quite another. Even the shoddiest conspiracy theory is *an* explanation of certain facts.
DeleteDale, even Jews prior to the coming of Jesus saw a proto-Trinitarianism in the text of the Old Testament. You may really, really want Trinitarianism to be false for whatever reason, but it explains all the texts, both Old and New.
Delete"Proto-trinitarianism" - pray tell, what is that? If it entails trinitarianism, my point stands. If it does not, I'm not sure how it is relevant to what we're discussing. BTW - I really would prefer that trinitarianism be true (and biblically defensible). My quest to find a plausible and biblical way to understand the required language was impelled by that desire for a good number of years. But since then, I've realized that there needs to be further reformation in this area. About explanations - if you're like most interested in this topic, you've probably basically only heard one in any detail. From that perspective, that one explanation looks indispensable. Detailed consideration of rival theories changes your perspective though.
DeleteYes. Take Zechariah 12:10. How do you pierce an immaterial God? The trinity makes sense of that verse.
DeleteAndrew - there are two issues here. First, the original meaning of Zech 12:10. Why would you think that is talking about *God* being pierced or killed? (If that is what you think.) Then there's the application to Jesus in John 19:37. We know from many other examples that the NT authors think that OT predictions can have two meanings and two fulfillments (e.g. Immanuel). But John presents Jesus as crucified, not God - look at the whole chapter in John. Honestly, there doesn't seem to be a difficulty here for unitarian Christian views. If there's something about scripture that only a Trinity theory can solve, this isn't it.
DeleteThere is no such thing as a "unitarian" Christian. What is this thing of which you speak?
DeleteNo Jew sensitive to Judaism’s own classical sources, however, can fault the theological model Christianity employs when it avows belief in a God who has an earthly body as well as a Holy Spirit and heavenly manifestation, for that model, we have seen, is a perfectly Jewish one. A religion whose scripture contains the fluidity traditions, whose teachings emphasize the multiplicity of the shekhinah, and whose thinkers speak of the sephirot does not differ in its theological essentials from a religion that adores a triune God. 61 Note that the Christian beliefs that Judaism rejects are not specifically theological in nature. The only significant theological difference between Judaism and Christianity lies not in the trinity or in the incarnation but in Christianity’s revival of the notion of a dying and rising God, a category ancient Israel clearly rejects. 62 – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 135-136
Delete"Why would you think that is talking about *God* being pierced or killed? (If that is what you think.)"
DeleteYou are checkmated Dale. The whole of Zechariah 12 is the God of Israel speaking. You cannot pierce an immaterial God unless he takes on a body.
This article gives a jab to unitarianism:
Deletehttps://rationalchristiandiscernment.blogspot.com/2019/01/romans-109-proves-jesus-is-god-almighty.html
"adumbration" - That word always makes me chuckle. I only ever see it in this context, when people are looking for something that sounds smarter and less conspiratorial than "hint." :-P In response to the post, I don't object to and have never objected to the idea of progressive revelation. Being a Christian, of course I affirm it. So objecting to it is no part of my objection to claims of "finding" a triune god in the OT. Gesturing at it is irrelevant to these disputes. My main objection would be that God did not reveal himself as triune in OT times because (1) he's a competent revealer, and (2) as best we can tell no one believed God to be tripersonal in that era! That's an objection that I think no one has overturned. Of course, if the idea of a tripersonal God were actually in the NT, that would strengthen the case somewhat. But as it stands, we have this and that sort of odd passages in the OT, and one hypothesis is that it's all God hinting at being triune (or at least multipersonal). Other hypotheses explain the various phenomena in more plausible ways - as even many trinitarian scholars agree.
ReplyDeleteSo Dale is telling us that "adumbration" was coined by Trinitarian apologists. In English usage, it only occurs in Trinitarian discussions. Has Dale ever consulted the Oxford English Dictionary on the history of the word?
Delete"Of course, if the idea of a tripersonal God were actually in the NT..."
DeleteIt is. Matthew 28:19.
Mr Dale,
DeleteI am genuinely interested to know the Unitarian explanation for the very many OT passages used by Trinitarians to argue for the concept of an embodied, multipersonal God. e.g. The angel of YHWH passages; YHWH eating and having His feet washed in Genesis 18; the YHWH sending YHWH passages; the mixing up of singulars and plurals at Genesis 1, Genesis 11 and various other places; and so on.
Would you happen to have written any article or posted a video along these lines?