03. Plurality in the Divine Nature
PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE.
After the apostasy mankind were exceedingly prone to idolatry. The heathen, in every age, have paid their devotions to a variety of deities. Even the Hebrews, who were enlightened by divine revelation, and were taught the existence of only one God, often departed from this knowledge, and ascribed divine honors to objects of nature, and to works of men’s hands. When God communicated to the world a system of religion, it might well be expected he would guard the human mind against this error; that he would distinguish himself from heathen gods; that he would communicate nothing which would give the least countenance to a multiplicity of deities, or to idolatry. When God wrote the moral law on tables of stone, he commanded first, that they should have no other gods before him. The distinguishing characteristic of Israel was, that they worshipped one God. Moses, who was under divine influence, and wrote agreeably to the pattern shown him by the divine Being, guarded the doctrine of the divine will with the greatest care, lest Israel should blend with surrounding nations; fall into idolatry; and lose the knowledge of the true God. His language is, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” That these words might not depart from their minds, he required them to bind them upon their hands; and 4 20 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. that they should be as frontlets between their eyes. The other prophets adopted similar language. Christ supported the same sentiment, and the apostles copied his example.
Notwithstanding the unity of God is a prominent doctrine in the Scriptures; yet both the Old and New Testament contain many terms and phrases, which evidently convey an idea of plurality in the divine nature. The original word in the Old Testament, for the name God, is used in the plural number. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” This is the first time the divine name is used in the Bible; and it is used in the plural number, connected with a singular verb. When God was about to form man, he said, “Let t(s make man in our image, after our likeness.” After the apostasy of our first parents, “The Lord God said, behold the man is become as one of M5, to know good and evil.” When God looked down from heaven and beheld the tower, which the children of men builded, he said, “Go to, let us go down and there confound their language.” God speaking by the mouth of his prophet inquires, “Whom shall I send. Who will go for us?’ Other passages contain the name of God in the plural number.
God is jealous for the honor of his name. He will not give his glory to another. He will have no other gods before him. He has ever manifested the greatest abhorrence of idolatry. Why then did God reveal himself by a name of the plural number, when he knew that the heathen, and even his peculiar people were exceedingly prone to idolatry; and would greedily catch at every circumstance, which appeared to countenance their favorite worship? Why was the doctrine of one God guarded with such precision and circumspection; and the name of God expressed in the plural number, as if there were gods many? His name was first communicated in the plural number; and lest men should, from this circumstance, infer a multiplicity of gods, it was expressly declared that PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 27 the Lord God was one Lord; and that they should have no other gods. Moses was undoubtedly aware what use the people would make of the plurality contained in the divine name; and it is not probable he would have used this terra excepting under the sanction of divine authority.
Some have attempted to explain away the meaning of the plurality in the divine name by considering it an imitation of the royal style. But there is no evidence that kings applied to themselves the plural number in the days of Moses. We find no instance, in the sacred scriptures, of this royal mode of expression till about a thousand years after Moses wrote his history. Artaxerxes, king of Persia, in answer to a letter sent to him by his chancellor, scribe and the rest of their companions, says, “The letter which ye sent unto us, hath been plainly read before me.” Is it probable that God borrowed his titles. Majesty, most High, Prince, Sovereign, King, from earthly potentates? Is it probable that the Author of language is indebted to marks of royal honor for the formation of his own name, or for the mode of his expression.” Is it probable that the Creator copied the creature.” When it is considered how prone people were to deify works of art, animals, and departed spirits, it is easy to account for the origin of the custom of giving divine titles and divine honors to men in the most elevated stations. Repeated instances are found in history, in which men, who were distinguished for heroism, and more distinguished for vain conceit, pretended to be descendants of the gods; and assumed divine prerogatives. It was natural for them, when speaking in the first person, to use the plural number in imitation of the name of God. It is not a little surprising that Christian people should perpetuate this heathenish practice. But while it proves the power of example, it likewise proves that there is a certain plurality in the divine original, which gave rise to this custom.
28 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. In the New Testament the divine name is used in the singular number. When the individuality of divine plurality was distinctly revealed, the more obscure Hebrew mode of expressing the divine name ceased. If the name of God in the New Testament be not used in the plural number, a plurality of singulars is used, to which divine nature is ascribed. This gives a clearer view of plurality in God than the ancient Hebrew form of expression. The New Testament was to be circulated among the Jews for the purpose of converting them to Christianity. As they believed in only one God, no form of speech would unnecessarily be used by the writers of the Christian religion, which would convey to them the idea of a multiplicity of deities. As it was also to be circulated among heathen, it was necessary to use the greatest care in the choice of words, lest encouragement should be given to their idolatry. As the forms of speech used in the scriptures naturally suggest the idea of more gods than one, or of a plurality in the divine nature; and as the scriptures declare in the plainest and strongest terms that there is but one God, it follows that there is a plurality in his nature. The Hebrew language is remarkable for its simplicity, and for its significancy. Proper names, as well as the names of a genus and species, are often expressive of the nature or properties of the person or thing named. Various names are given to the Supreme Being; and each name is significant of his nature, office, or of some of his attributes. In the first verse in the Bible the Hebrew name of God is expressive of his power. When he is represented in the act of creation there is a striking propriety in giving him a name expressing his might. When God commissioned Moses to lead Israel out of bondage, he made himself known to him by a name signifying independent existence. At other times he revealed himself by names signifying government and excellence. From the peculiar significancy of Hebrew names.
PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 29 especially the names of God, an appropriate sense is undoubtedly to be given to the divine name, when used in the plural number. It is hard to conceive what appropriate sense can be extracted from this mode of expression, unless it be a certain plurality in the divine nature. The principal Jewish cabalistic authors, both ancient and modern, believed a plurality in the nature of God. In one of the most ancient Jewish books, a book said to be as ancient as Abraham himself, there is this passage. “They are three lights, an ancient light, a pure lights and a most pure light; nevertheless all these are only one God^ In another place, the same author, on the same subject says, “And know ye, the three high nominations all are united together; and never are divided.” Another cabalistic author observes, “The three highest no eye ever saw, and there is not there either separation or division.”* A passage in Deuteronomy, 6:4, offers its aid in support of the sentiment under consideration. In our translation it is, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord, our God is one Lord.” A modern Jew, who was a considerable critic in the Hebrew language translates this passage probably more justly. “Hear, O Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord is one.” After some explanation of this interpretation, the author adds, “Do not mistake me and think that there are three Gods of three different essences, neither one God without the plurality of persons; but yet there is one only God in nature and essence, are three distinct persons, all equal in power and glory; and coequal and coeval from all eternity.” The opinion of the Jewish rabbis is of no inconsiderable weight in this argument. They were expert in the Hebrew scriptures; and they well understood the idiom and the peculiar force of their own language. The different works of the Supreme Being, which are recorded in the sacred scriptures, form an argument in favor of a plurality in his nature. It is recorded that God created the world; that he gave a law to the human race; that the blood of God was shed to purchase his church;* and that those who are born again are born of God. Here are three distinct kinds of work, the formation and government of man, an expiation for sin, and a reparation of ruined human nature. God formed and published a law for the regulation of human life, and sanctioned it by threatening punishment for disobedience. The Son of God magnified and honored this law by humbling himself and bearing the sins of men in his own body on the accursed tree. The Spirit of God sanctifies the human heart, and restores unto it the divine moral likeness. If there be no kind of plurality, no kind of individuality in the divine nature, then the same, who threatened, made satisfaction to himself to support his own authority; the same, whose authority was violated, paid the ransom and gives willingness to accept its benefits. Should the supreme ruler of a nation adopt this method of government; should he suffer the evil consequences incurred by his rebellious subjects; and then restore them to his favor, would he support his authority? would he manifest disapprobation of rebellion? The same difficulties would seem to lie against divine government, if there were entire singularity in the divine nature. In the whole economy of redemption there is abundant evidence that there is a ground in the divine nature for mutual
* Acts 20:28Acts 20:28. There are found five different readings of this passage, beside that of the received text, which is ts thes, viz. ts kuris, ts xrists ts kuris thes, ts thes kai kuris, and ts kuris kai thes. VVetstein and Griesbach consider the evidence to be in favor of ts kuris. Wakefield, who was not disposed to give his aid to support the doctrine of Christ’s divinity, prefers the received reading ts thes; but he is careful to explain away all the natural meaning of the text. He states that Griesbach’s testimony respecting the Ethiopic version is “infamously false.” “The MSS. in which it” (i. e. ts thes) “is found amounts to fourteen, and it is quoted or referred to by a great many of the fathers.” See Middleton on the Greek article, pp. 227-232. In five exemplaribus legitur kuris kai thes. Beza. IllustrJs sententia deDeitate Christi, et unione duarum naturarum, quaunitribuitur proprietas alterius. Sanguis Jesu est sanguis Dei proprius, vi koinwnias; idiwmatwn. See Poole on the place.
PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 31 intercourse; for mutual contract, and for mutual fulfillment. One proposes, another accepts. One supplicates, another hears and answers. One sends, another is sent; and the whole is done with unity of design, unity of pursuit, and unity of nature. In the scheme of redemption there are three distinct offices; and they are filled by three of distinct and characteristic names. The Father sends the Son; the Son sends the Spirit. The Spirit purifies the heart. The Son makes expiation for sin, and intercession for sinners. The Father accepts what both have done. There is no foundation for saying that God may be one in all respects, and at the same time may fill three separate offices. It appears to be inconsistent that God in simple unity should act in different offices at one and the same time. It is inconsistent that one should negotiate with himself; that he should supplicate himself; mediate between an offending party and himself; and in a formal manner accept his own transactions. To avoid this inconsistency it appears to be necessary to admit a plurality in the Deity. It is equally absurd to account for the different offices in the scheme of redemption, filled by different ones of different names, by personifying particular attributes of the Deity. It is hard to conceive how the faculties of the human mind could hold intercourse with each other, and be distinct parties in any transaction. It is equally hard to conceive how individual divine attributes could separate themselves into different parties; negotiate with each other, and each fulfill its appointment. Wisdom could form a plan of salvation; but, without power, it could not carry it into operation. Power could effect any proposed design, but it could not project the method of its accomplishment. Benevolence could effectuate nothing without wisdom to devise, and power to execute. A single divine attribute, therefore, cannot fill any office in the work of redemption, nor perform the duties of such office. This hypothesis, then, does 32 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. not account for the appearance of plurality in the divine nature. The opinion and practice of the people in India, and in other parts of the East, serve to corroborate this sentiment. “The Hindus believe in one god Brahma, the creator of all things; and yet they represent him as subsisting in three persons; and they worship one or other of these persons throughout every part of India. And what proves that they hold this doctrine distinctly is, that their most ancient representation of the Deity is formed of one body and three faces. Nor are these representations confined to India alone; but they are to be found in other parts of the East.”* In this quarter of the world God created man, and made the first communications of his will. Here Christ was born; and nature, men and angels bore testimony to his birth. The Hindu history bears some striking features of the history of the gospel. In India there have been discovered vernacular writings, which contain testimonies of Christ. They mention a Prince, who reigned about the time of the Christian era. His history relates events, which bear a striking resemblance to the advent, birth, miracles, death and resurrection of the Savior. In this part of the world Christ published the gospel. Here the apostles propagated the glad tidings of salvation. But before their decease many of the churches of Asia, became exceedingly corrupt in sentiment and practice. Religion declined by degrees. People fell into idolatry. After a lapse of ages the same people, who were distinguished for Christian knowledge, became grossly ignorant and superstitious; and practiced idolatry, which was marked with indecency and cruelty. But in the midst of their ignorance and idolatrous practice there were found some vestiges of Christianity. Some events, which occurred when Christ was upon earth stood recorded; and some
* Buchanan.
PLURALITY IN THE L>1V1NE NATURE. 33 doctrines of the gospel were strikingly represented. Doctrines relating to the true God, they applied to their false gods. The doctrine of the atonement they used in their idolatry. Whence originated these rays of Christianity in this benighted quarter of the world.” Whence originated among them the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the atonement.’ These were not human inventions. These were undoubtedly relics of revealed truth, which had long been preserved amidst the rubbish of heathenish ignorance and superstition. These fundamental doctrines of Christianity, like the pillars of nature, have remained where they were first established. The ignorance, the wickedness, the imaginations of men have perverted these doctrines; but they never have destroyed them. How did these fundamental principles of Christianity find existence; how have they been preserved in the heart of heathenish Asia, if they were not planted there by their Author, and supported by his power? Let people, who have ever lived under the sunshine of the Gospel, and have so refined it, that they have robbed it of almost every divine feature, go to India, and from the three-faced idol of the poor Hindu, learn the doctrine of the Trinity.
Plurality in the divine nature is a mystery. Some pretend to discover mystery in every part of scripture. Others attempt to explain mystery; and consequently they explode it. In treating this subject it is necessary only to show that the doctrine of divine plurality is contained in the scriptures; and that it does not contradict the dictates of reason. Mystery signifies “something above human intelligence; something awfully obscure.” It is not surprising that the subject under consideration should be above human apprehension. It cannot be expected that a finite mind can comprehend the infinite Spirit. We do not understand the mode of our own existence. We do not understand the operations of our own minds. We do not understand the union of soul and body; and 34 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. how one affects the other. It is not within the limits of our understandings to know how two distinct substances, matter and spirit, constitute unity of person. But we know that we have existence, that we have mental exercises; that our bodies and souls are united; and that they constitute but one person. If we cannot comprehend our own existence, it cannot be expected that we can comprehend “the degrees or forms of the Deity.” The divine plurality is not a plurality of nature. If there were a plurality of divine natures, there would be distinct divine beings; there would be a multiplicity of deities. It would be a contradiction to say that several divine natures make but one divine nature; that several Gods make but one God. But it is not a contradiction to say the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God; and these three are one. The Creator, by the communication of reason made a partial revelation of himself. All his other revelations are coincident with this; or, at least, they do not militate against it. In his sacred word he makes known truths, which the utmost efforts of reason could never discover. But he discloses nothing, which contradicts the dictates of this power of the mind. In the works of nature there is mystery. In ourselves there is mystery. It is not surprising then that there should be mystery in the mode of the divine existence. A Trinity in Unity is this mystery. But this is not the only mystery in the divine nature. God’s eternity is above our comprehension While we believe the existence of this attribute, Ave form no adequate idea of it. We believe the self existence of the divine nature. But as we are acquainted with only a series of dependencies, we have no just conception of absolute independence. God hears our supplications. But we understand not how he perceives the voice of prayer without the organ of hearing. He perceives the operations of our PLURALITY L\ THE DIVINE NATURE. 35 minds. But we understand not how a Spirit is acquainted with the exercises, motives and feelings of other spirits. These are mysteries, and they are probably as far beyond our reach, as the doctrine of Trinity in Unity.
We have not an adequate idea of the plurality In the divine nature. We do not understand that ground of distinction in the Deity, by which one addresses others of the same nature; and all compose but one essence. The scriptures authorize us to believe this ground of distinction, and this bond of Union. But how this is without division and separation of nature, and without confusion of individuality is far beyond our deepest research. Omnipresence is an acknowledged attribute of the Deity. God Is in every place. In every part of creation he displays the infinitude of his attributes; and he does this without division or separation of himself- If it be rationally admitted that God is in every place, it is not contrary to rationality that he was in the man Christ Jesus.
Many, by attempting to explain and illustrate the doctrine of divine plurality, have rendered it more obscure; and have given it the appearance of absurdity. Because the divine Being speaks in the three persons, I, thou, he; because distinct offices, works and attributes are attributed to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is concluded there is ground in the divine nature for distinct personalities. As we have not distinct ideas of divine plurality, it is impossible to give distinct and appropriate names, which will justly designate the individuality. It is probable, however, that no term in our language would better mark the distinction in the divine nature, than the terra person. In our English Testament the word person is once applied to the Father; and several times it is applied to the Son. But in the original they are different words, and of different significations. But neither of them appears primarily to signify person. The original of the word person, applied to the Father signifies 36 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. self-existence or distinct substance. When it is applied to the Son, it signifies face or presence.
These instances, therefore, afford no argument for the term persons; and as many view the expression, when applied to one God, as a contradiction, it is preferable to adhere as closely as possible to the language of divine inspiration in representing a doctrine so mysterious. The greatest care needs to be used in the choice of terms to express our ideas of the divine Nature. If we have clear ideas of any truth, we can clearly communicate them. But when we have confused ideas of a doctrine, or no ideas at all, it is in vain to attempt to supply the deficiency by any selection of words. From the inspired writings we have a distinct idea that there is a plurality, a trinity in the divine nature. But when we pursue our inquiries respecting the mode of this three-fold substance, ideas fail and language also fails. The words plurality and Trinity are not found in the sacred writings. But as the divine name is repeatedly used in the plural number; as the appellations, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are given to the divine Being, it is conceived there is just ground for the use of these terms.
Some have attempted to illustrate this doctrine by comparing it with the union of the human body, soul and spirit; and likewise by comparing it with the three principal faculties of the human mind. These comparisons may go so far, perhaps, as to show that the doctrine is not contradictory or absurd. But they fall far short of illustrating the doctrine. The human body, soul and spirit have properties peculiar to themselves. What is predicated of one cannot be predicated of the others. Neither do these three constitute one essence. The understanding, will and affections are simple qualities of the mind. They not only sustain different offices in the human intellect, but they are entirely different. Some suppose there is no need of PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. 37 admitting any distinction in the divine nature; that he, who is the same in all respects, acts in different offices. But the divine law and the nature of the atonement do not admit this illustration.
It is in vain to draw comparisons from the material, or from the intelligent world for the explanation of the doctrine of divine plurality. There may be some points of contact in the comparison; but there is no parallelism between the creature and the Creator.
“Who in the Heaven can be compared unto the Lord; who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord?”*
* It is worthy of remark, that the same name of plural number, which is applied to God, (a^nSx) is also applied to Dagon, the god of the Philistines; to Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians; and to Moses. Another plural name of God (qijim) is also applied to individual men. The names of some individual things are expressed by nouns of the plural number. But does this prove that there is either no plurality in the divine Being, or that there is a plurality in human nature, or in particular things? This conclusion would be hardly logical. The first name in the Bible given to God is a noun of plural number. The same name is frequently given to him in the Old Testament. The idolatrous nations, which lived not very remote from the Jews, were undoubtedly acquainted with the name of the God they worshipped. They applied the same plural name to individuals of their deities; and when they applied other names, they sometimes applied them in the plural number. It was natural for them to give a name to their deities as honorable as that, which the Hebrews gave to their God. If there was an appropriate significancy in the plural number, when applied to the true God, it is not incredible that heathen should use the same number in giving names to their idols, designing to equalize them with him; as far as names could do it. Nor is it a striking peculiarity of the Hebrew language, that a name of masculine termination should be given to a goddess. For the Latin Deus and the Greek fliof, are used to signify both god and goddess. Besides, there were many idols of the same name, which justifies the use of the plural number. The divine name of plural number was given t« Moses. I have made thee a God, a-rha, to Pharaoh. Exodus 7:1. Sn, the root of this word, signifies, to interpose, intervene, mediate, CQVie or be between, for protection, prevention, &c. (Parkh. Lex.) There was great pertinence in giving a name, from this root, to Moses; because he interposed, intervened, mediated between the king of Egypt and God. As God in plurality interposed in behalf of fallen man for protection mid prevention; as the name of God, from this r«ot, was used frequently, if not generally, in the plural number, there was a propriety m applying to Moses this name in the same number. The name was not designed to be significant of the nature of the Hebrew leader, but to express his office and -work. A plural name of God is also given to Joseph by his brethren. But reasons similar to the foregoing will justify its application. This style is not peculiar to the Hebrew language. In the English tongue a similar dialect is used. Some of the names of God are applied to men; and the royal style is of plural number.
Names of plural number, applied to individual things, are not peculiar to the Hebrew language; nor do they invalidate the argument drawn from the plurality of the divine name. The same usage is known in our own language. Because some of our plural names are applied to singular things, it does not follow that there is not a peculiar significancy in the royal style. Because some Hebrew names of plural number are applied to individual things, it does not follow that 38 PLURALITY IN THE DIVINE NATURE. there is not a peculiar significancy in the plural name of God. Besides, those Hebrew plurals, applied to singulars, which have been offered to invalidate the argument of divine plurality, are of such a complex nature, or of such connection, that they appear to contain or imply a plurality. In Psalms 45:6, Psalms 45:7, the plural name of God is applied to the Son and to the Father. This, instead of proving that there is a plurality in each, serves to confirm the opinion that there is such a union between them, that the name of one may be applied to the other; and the plural name, embracing the Trinity, may be applied to the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; for one implies the other.
“The ancient idolaters in general called the material heavens, or their representatives Elohim although the heavens are eminently distinguished into fire, light, and spirit, and many actions or operations are immediately performed by one or two of these, yet, as the whole celestial fluid acts jointly, or all its three conditions concur in every effect; hence it is that the ancient heathen called not only the whole heavens, but any one of its three conditions, denoted by a name expressive of some eminent operation it performs, Elohim. For they meant not to deny the joint action of the whole material Trinity, but to give it the glory of that particular attribute.” Parkh. Lex. p.’20.
Alh signifies “a denouncing of a curse, a curse denounced either upon one’s self or others, or both, so an oath taken or given.” (Parkh. Lex. p. 18.) The plural of this word, applied to God, easily suggests the idea of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, entering into an oath, or covenant between themselves, and denouncing a curse on those, who continue not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Besides, the Son himself was made a curse. In this view, the plural noun, Elohim has peculiar significance and pertinence.