The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Book of Genesis - Glenn Conjurske

The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Book of Genesis

by Glenn Conjurske

To those who have eyes to see, the book of Genesis must be one of the most wonderful things in existence. It has been often remarked by others that every major doctrine of the Bible is found in germ form in the book of Genesis—-and I may add, usually in the early chapters of the book of Genesis. And this in spite of the fact that Moses was certainly ignorant of many of those doctrines. The book is also full of the most beautiful types of “things to come,” though again, Moses was certainly ignorant of those things. He was equally ignorant of the fact that he was penning anything other than a historical account of things past. While Moses wrote a historical narrative of things past, the Spirit of God drew prophetic pictures of things to come. O, wonderful book! Where else shall we find, even in the Bible, a book which so evidently bears the impress of the hand of God?

But I have just examined the Polychrome Hebrew Bible, obtruded upon the world by the modernists about a century ago. The books are as elegantly printed as anything I have ever seen, as though the editors sensed that something was needed to make up for the emptiness of the contents. The Hebrew text is printed in various colors (too many of them to conveniently keep track of) to indicate the supposed sources of the narrative. Thus the entire eighteenth and nineteenth chapters of Genesis are red, except that 18:17-18 are purple, 18:19 green, and 19:26 blue. The entire twentieth chapter is blue, except that the last verse is purple, as is also the single word <?m (“thence”!!) in the first verse, and two words in verse 14 white. They see “editors” and “redactors” and “glossators” in every chapter, but they cannot see God. This may be likened to a man who stays a year under the kind roof of a hospitable and attentive friend, and sees goblins, ghouls, and ghosts in every corner, but never perceives the presence of his host. Was ever anyone so blind as a modernist?

But to those who have eyes to see I extend an invitation to look into the marvelous book, and find not only the hand of God, but the doctrine of God, in the doctrine of the Trinity. In Genesis 1:26 we find, “And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness.” Cultists and Jews can deny the doctrine of the Trinity, but these words stand in their Bibles as well as ours. The New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (1961) has “us—-our—-our,” the same as other Bibles. All four of the Jewish translations which I possess read, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” These are the versions of Isaac Leeser (1853), the Jewish Publication Society (1917), I. M. Rubin (1928), and Alexander Harkavy (1936). Leeser’s version is what might be called a compendium of Jewish scholarship, and was produced by him for the purpose of giving to English Jews a version which was not translated by men whose interpretation of the Bible was inimical to Judaism. Of that he says in his preface,

“In presenting this work to the public, the translator would merely remark, that it is not a new notion by which he was seized of late years which impelled him to the task, but a desire entertained for more than a quarter of a century, since the day he quitted school in his native land to come to this country, to present to his fellow-Israelites an English version, made by one of themselves, of the Holy Word of God. From early infancy he was made conscious how much persons differing from us in religious ideas make use of Scripture to assail Israel’s hope and faith, by what he deems, in accordance with the well-settled opinions of sound critics, both Israelites and others, a perverted and hence erroneous rendering of the words of the original Bible. Therefore he always entertained the hope to be one day permitted to do for his fellow Hebrews who use the English as their vernacular, what had been done for the Germans by some of the most eminent minds whom the Almighty has endowed with the power of reanimating in us the almost expiring desire for critical inquiry into the sacred text. So much had been done by these, that the translator’s labours were comparatively easy; since he had before him the best results of the studies of modern German Israelites.” He then cites a long list of Jewish scholars, ancient and modern, which he had used, and continues, “…he trusts that the foregoing catalogue of auxiliary works will prove that he has had at hand as good materials as can be obtained anywhere to do justice to his undertaking.” And further, “The translator is an Israelite in faith, in the full sense of the word: he believes in the Scriptures as they have been handed down to us; in the truth and authenticity of prophecies and their ultimate literal fulfilment. He has always studied the Scriptures to find a confirmation for his faith and hope; nevertheless, he asserts fearlessly, that in his going through this work, he has thrown aside all bias, discarded every preconceived opinion, and translated the text before him without regard to the result thence arising for his creed. But no perversion or forced rendering of any text was needed to bear out his opinions or those of Israelites in general.” Such was the man, and such was his translation. “An Israelite in faith,” of course, does not believe in the Trinity, yet by translating honestly the Hebrew text, his Bible must yet bear witness to it in the words, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Leeser, of course, must feel this, and so he adds a note on the word “us,” saying, “This phrase is employed here, as in other places, to express the purpose of the Deity to effect his will. This construction is called `the plural of majesty.”’ To this I will only say that God ordinarily expresses his purpose to effect his will by saying, “I will,” in the singular number. But I wish Mr. Leeser had told us where those “other places” are, for they are of course more to our purpose than they are to his, being of no difficulty to us, as they are and must be to him. The only other one I am aware of is in Genesis 11:7, of which more in its place.

Concerning this “plural of majesty” Matthew Poole writes, “It is pretended that God here speaks after the manner of princes, in the plural number, who use to say, We will and require, or, It is our pleasure. But this is only the invention and practice of latter times, and no way agreeable to the simplicity, either of the first ages of the world, or of the Hebrew style. The kings of Israel used to speak of themselves in the singular number,

2 Sam. iii.28; 1 Chron. xxi.17; xxix.14; 2 Chron. ii.6. And so did the eastern monarchs too, yea, even in their decrees and orders, which now run in the plural number, as Ezra vi.8, I (Darius) make a decree; Ezra vii.21, I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree. Nor do I remember one example in Scripture to the contrary. It is therefore a rash and presumptuous attempt, without any warrant, to thrust the usages of modern style into the sacred Scripture. Besides, the Lord doth generally speak of himself in the singular number, some few places excepted, wherein the plural number is used for the signification of this mystery” —-of the Trinity.

Concerning this supposed “plural of majesty” I remark further, this is mere affectation in kings, and should we impute this to God? But further, to whom was God speaking when he said, “Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness”? God alone was the Creator, and he made man “in HIS OWN IMAGE, in the IMAGE OF GOD created HE him: male and female created HE them.” (Gen. 1:27). HE is the sole Creator, and man is created in HIS sole image. So that even if we could grant this “plural of majesty,” it must yet remain that whomever he may have spoken TO when he said, “Let us,” he certainly spoke OF himself, when he said “our image” and “our likeness.”

But further, in Genesis 3:22 we read, “The Lord God said, Behold,the man is become as one of US, to know good and evil.” There is no question here of any purpose to effect his will, but a simple congnizance of a fact already accomplished. But we must observe further that God does not merely say “us” here, but “as ONE of US.” Of this another well says, “For though a king or governor may say us and we, there is certainly no figure of speech that will allow any single person to say, one of us, when he speaks of himself. It is a phrase that can have no meaning, unless there be more persons than one to chuse out of.”

And further, “The Jews are greatly perplexed with this passage. They endeavour to put it off, by telling us, God must here be understood to speak of himself and his council, or as they term it /yd tyb his house of judgment, made up of angels, &c. to which there needs no answer but that of the prophet, who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor?

The force of this verse, of course, may be evaded in many ways, as everything in the Bible can be, if we have a mind to it. Concerning this the same writer says, on a similar passage, “And though others may have attempted to conceal such evidence as this under an heap of critical rubbish, yet if we are to come to no resolution till those who dislike the doctrine of a trinity have done disputing about the words that convey it, the day of judgement itself would find us undetermined.”

Further along in the book, in 11:7, the Lord says, “Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language,” or, as it may be more literally translated, “Come, let us go down, and let us there confound” &c. We have here the twice repeated (in the Hebrew) “Let US.” And query, if this is nothing more than the “plural of majesty,” as unbelievers wish to tell us, to whom does God say “Come”? He is evidently speaking TO somebody, and says, “Come, let US go down.” And who was it that then went down to execute the judgement? Verse 8: “So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth.”

I turn to but one more thing, which is the type of the Trinity which we find in Abraham, his only-begotten son whom he offered up, and his servant, afterwards sent to procure a bride for his son—-all of them masculine, by the way. There are but few types in the Bible of God the Father. Most of the types concern Christ and his work. But Abraham is an obvious and indisputable type of God the Father. I wish here only to call attention to his name. It was first of all Abram, and was changed by God to Abraham. Now “Abram” means “High Father.” “Abraham” means “Father of a multitude.” God was first the High Father, and afterwards became the Father of a multitude. He became the Father of a multitude only by creation and redemption, but he always was, in his own nature, the High Father, for he always had a Son. In this we see not only the doctrine of the Trinity, but also of the eternal Sonship of Christ.

Nevertheless, we do not pretend that these verses are of themselves a conclusive proof or a clear revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity. No: they are only the germ of the doctrine which was afterwards to be revealed. The doctrine was not then known to Moses or to the Jews, but it was surely known to God, who intended from the beginning to reveal it in its time, and so stamped its impress upon the very beginning of the book of beginnings—-in germ form, ’tis true, in hints and pictures—-but still indisputably there.

Glenn Conjurske

Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
Pinterest
Email

Leave a Reply

0:00
0:00