International Journal of Systematic Theology

doi:10.1111/ijst.12222

Traces of the Trinity in the Old

Testament: From Individual Texts to the
Nature of Revelation
ARNOLD HUIJGEN *

Abstract: This article uncovers traces of the Trinity in the Old Testament.
Different from traditional exegesis, it is argued that alleged allusions to God’s
plurality in specific texts, and examples of personified agents such as the
Angel of the Lord, are less important and often inconclusive. The nature of
Old Testament ‘monotheism’, however, supports trinitarian logic, and
important traces of the Trinity are demonstrated in in-depth structures of Old
Testament theology: the anthropomorphic character of revelation, the second
commandment, God’s name as narrative self-identification and the tendency
of God’s coming to his people.

Introduction

This article discusses what may count as traces of the Trinity in the Old Testament
that are not in conflict with modern biblical studies, but rather fit in with
contemporary scholarly approaches to the Old Testament. It reflects the interface
between dogmatics and exegesis, with some attention to the history of
interpretation. However, developmental questions concerning the formation of
trinitarian dogma are not the focus of the present article, but rather the Old
Testament texts themselves and their indications of figures or structures that can
well be explained by later trinitarian theology, probably even better than by non-
trinitarian theology.
At first sight, a close relationship between the doctrine of the Trinity and the
Old Testament is far from evident under the conditions of modernity. Since the
Enlightenment era, biblical interpreters liberated themselves from the shackles of

* Theological University Apeldoorn, Wilhelminapark 4, Apeldoorn 7316 BT,

Netherlands.

C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

V
2 Arnold Huijgen

doctrinal theology and wished to hold on to the literal sense of Scripture,

understood as the historical sense beneath the text.1 Also, earlier systematic
theologians and historians of dogma regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as an
abstruse and impractical doctrine, even a Hellenization of the Christian faith, that
had no basis in the books of the New Testament, let alone those of the Old.2 In
light of this modern, historical-critical approach, patristic exegesis of Old
Testament texts and phenomena as indications of the Trinity seem naive and
anachronistic. Seeking early forms or preforms of trinitarian theology in the Old
Testament would run the risk of Christian imperialism and disrespect for Jewish
faith communities and their readings of the Hebrew Scriptures.3
However, the landscape in both systematic theology and biblical studies has
changed considerably since the early Enlightenment. In biblical studies, historical-
critical methods have been criticized for unjustly seeing history as a strictly linear
development,4 and for undermining the literal meaning of the text by delving for
multiple layers below the text.5 These historical methods have been complemented
by canonical approaches, which show an interest in both the final form of the
biblical text and in theological questions that span one or even both Testaments.6
Specifically for the doctrine of the Trinity, it has been argued that Trinitarianism is
an outgrowth of the idea of intermediary figures in Second Temple Judaism,7 or a

1 J.S. Semler, Versuch einer freiern theologischen Lehrart (Halle: Hemmerde, 1777), pp.
294–8. On the problematic nature of this enterprise, see Brevard S. Childs, ‘The Sensus
Literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem’, in Herbert Donner, Robert
Hanhart and Rudolf Smend, eds., Beitr€ age zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie.
Festschrift f€ur Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag (G€ottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1977), pp. 91–2: ‘what was intended as an attempt to free the text from the
allegedly heavy hand of tradition and dogma proved to be a weapon which cut both
ways. The effect was actually to destroy the significance, integrity, and confidence in
the literal sense of the text.’
2 Adolf von Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 3 vols., 2nd edn (Freiburg:
Mohr, 1888), p. 18; more recently, Karl-Heinz Ohlig, ‘Ein Gott in drei Personen. Die
griechische Komplizierung des j€udischen Monotheismus’, in Rudolf Laufen, ed.,
Gottes ewiger Sohn: Die Pr€ aexistenz Christi (Paderborn: F. Sch€oningh, 1997), p. 226.
3 See Manfred Oeming, ‘Vestigia Trinitatis? Vorahnungen der Trinit€at im Alten
Testament!’, Glaube und Lernen 17 (2002), p. 43.
4 C. Kavin Rowe, ‘Biblical Pressure and Trinitarian Hermeneutics’, Pro Ecclesia 11
(2002), p. 296.
5 Childs, ‘The Sensus Literalis of Scripture’, p. 92.
6 For example, Brevard S. Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985); R.W.L. Moberly, Old Testament Theology:
Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013);
Bruce K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and
Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007).
7 The most prominent defense of this position is Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ:
Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). See
Matthew W. Bates, The Birth of the Trinity: Jesus, God, and Spirit in New Testament
and Early Christian Interpretations of the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2015), pp. 19–26 for an overview of others.
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Traces of the Trinity in the Old Testament 3

matter of christological monotheism.8 This openness for doctrinal matters also

shows in the field of the Old Testament. While Claus Westermann could still claim
that the question of the relation of Trinitarian Persons could only arise after the
Old Testament had lost its meaning for the church, Brevard S. Childs argues that
the ‘church’s struggle with the Trinity was not a battle against the Old Testament,
but rather a battle for the Old Testament’.9
From the side of systematic theology, the twentieth-century high tide of
trinitarian theology showed a renewed interest in the non-speculative, biblical
character of this doctrine,10 and in the Church Fathers’ trinitarian exegesis of the
Old Testament.11 Besides, the days in which the doctrine of the Trinity was
regarded as a Hellenization of the gospel are long gone; it is now rather evaluated
as a safeguard against Hellenization of the gospel.12 Christoph Schw€obel has
claimed that the New Testament shows a ‘prototrinitarian grammar’,13 and David
Yeago argues that Nicene dogma does not impose readings on the New Testament,
nor deduces from the texts, but rather describes ‘a pattern of judgments present in
the texts’.14 Recently, Matthew W. Bates has shown how a prosopological or
theodramatic exegesis served both as a way for New Testament authors to read the
Old Testament in the light of the pre-existent Christ, and for Church Fathers to
interpret the Bible in a trinitarian framework.15

8 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on
the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008),
pp. 18–31 and passim.
9 Claus Westermann, ‘Das Alte Testament und die Theologie’, in Georg Picht and Enno
Rudolph, eds., Theologie – was ist das? (Stuttgart: Kreuz Verlag, 1977), p. 50; Brevard
S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on
the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), p. 376; see Rowe, ‘Biblical
Pressure and Trinitarian Hermeneutics’, p. 295.
10 Gijsbert van den Brink, ‘Social Trinitarianism: A Discussion of Some Recent
Theological Criticisms’, International Journal of Systematic Theology 16 (2014), pp.
332–6.
11 For an overview, see Christopher R. Seitz, ‘The Trinity in the Old Testament’, in Gilles
Emery and Matthew Levering, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 28–40.
12 Robert Jenson, The Triune Identity: God According to the Gospel (Eugene, OR: Wipf
& Stock, 1982), p. 33; Ingolf U. Dalferth, Jenseits von Mythos und Logos: Die
christologische Transformation der Theologie (Freiburg: Herder, 1993), pp. 86–91.
13 Christoph Schw€obel, ‘The Trinity between Athens and Jerusalem’, Journal of
Reformed Theology 3 (2009), p. 25.
14 David S. Yeago, ‘The New Testament and the Nicene Dogma: A Contribution to the
Recovery of Theological Exegesis’, Pro Ecclesia 3 (1994), p. 153.
15 Bates, The Birth of the Trinity. The term ‘prosopological exegesis’ refers to a
hermeneutical practice in the New Testament and the early church, that regards the
prophets as able to ‘overhear and report certain celestial conversations’, in which they
themselves participated (p. 5). This person-centred exegesis ‘contributed decisively to
the development of the concept of the Trinity, since it was this way of reading that
especially led to the consolidation of “person” language to express the three-in-one
mystery’ (p. 7).
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
4 Arnold Huijgen

But at this point, dogmatics and biblical studies seem to part ways again,
particularly where the Old Testament is concerned. On the one hand, it is likely
that there is a development, rather than a breach, between the New Testament and
dogma, a continuity in exegetical methods to interpret the Old Testament, and a
continuation of ideas from Second Temple Judaism. However, this leaves the
question of the relation between trinitarian theology and the texts of the Old
Testament open. Understandably, the discussion of the relation between dogma
and Bible has focused on the New, rather than the Old Testament. Often, Old
Testament texts function only when they are read backwards to uncover a meaning
in them that could only be found in retrospect.16 To prevent the possible objection
that this approach lets Christian interpretations overrule the actual texts, some
scholars either resort to a strong accent on divine inspiration of Scripture, or
stretch authorial intent to include divine intention, even in cases where the author
did not understand this divine intention.17 Others emphasize that the literal
meaning of the Old Testament texts themselves had multiple references: not only
the ancient, historical reference, but also future references.18 While these
procedures may be legitimate, the present endeavour is to seek traces of the Trinity
in the Old Testament itself, without resorting to multiple referentiality, but based
on the literal meaning of the text.19 There is reason to investigate whether traces of
the Trinity in the Old Testament can be found that are acceptable in the light of
contemporary biblical studies.
For this endeavour, it is important to define what one counts as ‘traces of the
Trinity’. In the course of this article, this term will be used to denote texts, aspects,
patterns or structures that provide the conditions of possibility for trinitarian

16 Seitz, ‘The Trinity in the Old Testament’, combines this reading backwards with a
discussion of patristic exegesis, but does not always distinguish the two. Notably, the
retrospect can be more subtle than simply ‘reading backwards’. Bates, The Birth of the
Trinity, pp. 41–84, for instance, discusses Old Testament texts (Ps. 2; Ps. 110), that are
emphatically referred to in the New Testament, and receive a christological meaning
through prosopological exegesis.
17 Bates, The Birth of the Trinity, p. 191: ‘the diverse scriptures are really a singular and
divinely authored Scripture, crafted with divine authorial intentions that are in principle
discoverable by a reader’. Also, the human author does not need to comprehend the
vision he received (p. 192, cf. pp. 82–4). While Bates demonstrates convincingly that
prosopological exegesis was practised in the early church, his argument for the validity
of this hermeneutic for today (p. 176) is less convincing, also because it comes at the
expense of the Old Testament on its own terms, and the original intention of the
authors. Bates aims at building in ‘critical controls’ to prevent arbitrary exegesis, by
emphasizing that text should not be limited to their original horizons. To my mind, this
should imply openness for biblical studies, including historical criticism, without
claiming to know the divine intention in Old Testament texts and contexts beforehand.
18 See Seitz, ‘The Trinity in the Old Testament’, p. 29: ‘the subject matter being
vouchsafed is richer than a single intentionality in time can measure’.
19 This literal meaning, of course, is not merely the historical reconstruction of layers
below the text; see Childs, ‘The Sensus Literalis of Scripture’; Bates, The Birth of the
Trinity, pp. 81–2; Seitz, ‘The Trinity in the Old Testament’, pp. 33–6.
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Traces of the Trinity in the Old Testament 5

theology by showing resemblance to the specific unity-in-diversity, tensions between

self-identification and self-differentiation, and relationality that characterize the
doctrine of the Trinity. So, the present article does not focus on history of religion or
developments towards dogmatic formulations, nor does it suggest that a full-fledged
doctrine of the Trinity can be found in either the Old or New Testament, for this
doctrine obviously is the result of later developments.20 Rather, the basic conviction
underlying the present essay is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not merely a
regulation of theological language but is based in the reality of God’s triune self:
God was already triune under the Old Testament.21 Although the Trinity is known as
Trinity only because of the incarnation, one may expect to find traces of the Trinity
in the Old Testament. These traces indicate that later trinitarian theology fits certain
Old Testament phenomena better than non-trinitarian theology. From a historical
point of view, such traces could be called ‘prototrinitarian’, to use Schw€obel’s
terminology, to underline that the doctrine of the Trinity had not been formulated yet
and cannot simply be read back into the Old Testament. But this terminology is not
used here, because from a theological point of view, God himself was already triune
under the Old Testament. The present focus is not on developmental issues. The
minimum option in this endeavour is that any theory of the Trinity should not be at
odds with the Old Testament, but Church Fathers and the subsequent theological
tradition have claimed numerous hints of the Trinity in the Old Testament. These
hints are put to the test here.
This article begins with an analysis on the micro level of individual biblical texts
that may or may not allude to plurality in God, then investigates intermediary figures
like the Angel of Yahweh, the nature of Old Testament ‘monotheism’ and, finally,
examines the depth structures of Old Testament revelation. Is it possible to offer an
account of traces of the Trinity that does not bypass biblical studies, but uses its results
to build a theological argument, by reading the Old Testament on its own terms?

Allusions to plurality in God

Some classical proof texts for the doctrine of Trinity can be retraced via scholastic
theology to the Church Fathers’ interpretations of allusions to plurality in God.22

20 For a discussion on prototrinitarian traces in the New Testament, see Arthur W.

Wainwright, The Trinity in the New Testament, 2nd edn (London: SPCK, 1969) and,
more recently, Hans-Joachim Eckstein, ‘Die Anf€ange trinitarischer Rede von Gott im
Neuen Testament’, in Michael Welker and Miroslav Volf, eds., Der lebendige Gott als
Trinit€
at. J€
urgen Moltmann zum 80. Geburtstag (G€utersloh: G€utersloher Verlag, 2006),
pp. 85–113.
21 Otherwise, Marcionism looms large. See Karl Rahner, ‘Der dreifaltige Gott als
transzendenter Urgrund der Heilsgeschichte’, in J. Feiner and M. L€ohrer, eds.,
Mysterium Salutis. Grundriss heilsgeschichtlicher Dogmatik, vol. 2 (Eindsiedeln:
Benziger, 1967), p. 341.
22 See, for example, Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2004), vol. 2, pp. 261–4.
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
6 Arnold Huijgen

Classic examples include Isaiah’s vision of the seraphs and the threefold
invocation of Yahweh (Isa. 6:1–3) and the three lines of the Aaronic blessing
(Num. 6:24–6).23 But the number three as such is too feeble a base to label these
texts as traces of the Trinity, and the question is whether these interpretations have
a solid basis in the text itself. As a humanist, Calvin weeded out these traditional
‘proof texts’ for the doctrine of the Trinity as unconvincing in themselves and
therefore providing argumentative ammunition to his anti-trinitarian opponents.24
However, three categories of allusions to plurality in God have a firmer basis
in the text itself. First of all, the plural reference in the creation account: ‘Let us
make mankind’.25 It is noteworthy that God discussed the creation of humans with
himself, using the plural. Most ante-Nicene Church Fathers interpret this plurality
as an indication of the Trinity. Irenaeus, for instance, states that God addresses
Logos and Wisdom, that is, Son and Spirit.26 But even Calvin agrees that this is the
only Old Testament proof text for plurality as reference to the Trinity that passes
his scrutiny.27 However, the seeming plurality may indicate many others things
which, from a purely exegetical point of view, are not less likely than an allusion
to the Trinity. God might have consulted a heavenly assembly, for instance, like
the one found in Psalm 82. Nor is it improbable that the plural in Genesis 1:26 is a
majestic plural.28 Multiple interpretations are possible, and the trinitarian one is
weak. Besides, even if this text were an indication of some sort of plurality in God,
the nature of this plurality would still be undecided.
Sonship texts form a second category of possible allusions to plurality in God.
Examples include 2 Samuel 7:14 and particularly Psalm 2:7, in which David or the
Davidic king is pictured as God’s son.29 The New Testament refers to these texts
to substantiate the claim that Jesus is the Son of God.30 This does not mean that
pre-Christian Jews would have read these texts in ways that anticipated later
christological readings.31 But there is an ambiguity surrounding the king as ‘son of
God’ which was a fertile breeding ground for later trinitarian reflections. There is

23 Georg Kretschmar, Studien zur fr€ uhchristlichen Trinit€atstheologie (T€ubingen: Mohr

Siebeck, 1956), pp. 64–8; Benedict Thomas Viviano, ‘The Trinity in the Old
Testament: From Daniel 7:13–14 to Matt 28:19’, Theologische Zeitschrift 54 (1998),
pp. 193–209.
24 For example, John Calvin, Comm. Jes. 6:3, in W. Baum, E. Cunitz and E. Reuss, eds.,
Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt Omnia, 59 vols. (Brunswick: C.A. Schwetschke,
1863–1900), vol. 36, p. 126. Cf. A. Baars, Om Gods verhevenheid en Zijn nabijheid.
De Drie-eenheid bij Calvijn (Kampen: Kok, 2004), p. 646.
25 Gen. 1:26. Cf. Gen. 3:22; Ex. 15:15; Gen. 11:7.
26 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., IV, 20, 1. Cf. Justin Martyr, Dial., 62.2.
27 John Calvin, Comm. Gen. 1:26, Ioannis Calvini Opera, vol. 23, p. 25.
28 Andreas Wagner, Gottes K€ orper. Zur alttestamentlichen Vorstellung der
Menschengestaltigkeit Gottes (G€utersloh: G€uterloher Verlagshaus, 2010), pp. 170–2.
29 T.N.D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite
Kings (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1976), pp. 259–75.
30 For example, Acts 13:33; 2 Cor. 6:18; Heb. 1:5.
31 N.T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (London: SPCK, 2013), p. 693.
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Traces of the Trinity in the Old Testament 7

ample debate in biblical studies concerning the status of this ‘son of God’. Based
on influences from Egyptian ideas on kingship, the king’s position was close to
God’s, although even in ancient Egypt, ‘the king was never thought to be on a par
with the gods of the pantheon’.32 Meanwhile, the Old Testament emphasizes that
God’s son is human,33 and other instances of sonship, such as Israel as a whole
being God’s son, confirm the human nature of the son of God.34 On the other hand,
king David receives a more than merely human status in the Psalter: Psalm 89
ascribes the same characteristics to David, the ‘firstborn son’ as to God.35 In the
course of the Psalter, the servant of Yahweh receives an ever more central place in
his reign, but in the final redaction, the role of David is downplayed, and attention
is deflected away ‘from human kingship in Israel to the enduring kingship and
kingdom of Yahweh’.36 So, David is both human, and more than merely human.
Although it seems to be a New Testament innovation that the Messiah is not
merely human but also divine, the ambiguity of the Old Testament did not exclude
this reading. Besides, in later parts of the Old Testament, there is a development
towards openness for a divine sonship: the ‘Son of man’ in Daniel 7:13–14 may
well be a divine being.37 Still, however these texts are to be interpreted, the traces
found point more towards the possibility of a christological interpretation than
towards a trinitarian one.
The story of the three men that came to Abram (Gen. 18) is the most classical
example among the allusions to plurality in God. As such, it is a favourite
potentially trinitarian passage of the Church Fathers.38 The text shows an

32 Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine,
Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), p. 22.
33 Hermann Spieckermann, ‘Macht und Ohnmacht: die theologische Dimension der
Vater-Sohn-Relation im Alten Testament’, in Michaela Bauks, Kathrin Liess and Peter
Riede, eds., Was ist der Mensch, dass du seiner gedenkst? (Psalm 8,5). Aspekte einer
theologischen Anthropologie (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008), pp.
503–13.
34 See Martin Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of
Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976).
35 Ps. 89:28. Cf. Knut H. Heim, ‘The (God-) Forsaken King of Psalm 89: A Historical and
Intertextual Enquiry’, in John Day, ed., King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient
Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (Sheffield: Bloomsbury,
1998), pp. 314–15.
36 Gerald H. Wilson, ‘King, Messiah, and the Reign of God: Revisiting the Royal Psalms
and the Shape of the Psalter’, in Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller Jr, eds., The Book
of Psalms: Composition & Reception (Leiden: Brill, 2005), p. 402.
37 Markus Zehnder, ‘Why the Danielic “Son of Man” is a Divine Being’, Bulletin for
Biblical Research 24 (2014), pp. 331–47. For extensive discussion and literature, see
John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1993), pp. 304–10.
38 See Kretschmar, Studien zur fr€ uhchristlichen Trinit€
atstheologie, pp. 82–90; Marie-
Odile Boulnois, ‘“Trois hommes et un Seigneur’: lectures trinitaires de la theophanie
de Mambre dans l’exegèse et l’iconographie’, in Frances M. Young, M.J. Edwards and
P.M. Parvis, eds., Studia Patristica 39 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), pp. 193–201.
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
8 Arnold Huijgen

oscillation between the singular and the plural: Yahweh (singular) approaches
Abram (Gen. 18:1), but when Abram looks up, there are three men (Gen. 18:2).
Abram addresses the one, asking that he will not pass his servant by (Gen. 18:3),
but then they (plural) answer (Gen. 18:5). In Second Temple Judaism, this textual
characteristic was noted: Philo’s explanation of this passage is remarkably triadic,
although he still regards it primarily as an epiphany of the Logos.39 Later Church
Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen show a shift towards a more
fully trinitarian interpretation of Genesis 18 and other passages.40 In the church,
the trinitarian interpretation of Genesis 18 has since prevailed.41 Meanwhile, a
Reformer like Luther already expressed doubt about the trinitarian reading of this
text,42 and modern exegetes have abandoned it altogether. The easier and more
probable explanations from a historical-grammatical perspective are textual
variation, or a movement between internal and external perspectives.43
In sum, possible traces of plurality in God are inconclusive from an exegetical
point of view. Obviously, theologians should not beforehand be denied their
trinitarian interpretation because of dissenting exegetes, but, from a theological
point of view, mere plurality is a feeble basis for trinitarian theology. The question
is whether there are clearer, more convincing, and perhaps profounder, traces of
the Trinity in the Old Testament.

Personifications and agents of God

A second strand of possible traces of the Trinity concerns personifications, or

hypostasized agents, of God, such as his Wisdom, Word and Spirit. This includes
intermediary figures between God and humans, such as the Angel of the Lord and

39 Viviano, ‘The Trinity in the Old Testament’, p. 202. Justin Martyr also reads Old
Testament theophanies primarily from a christological, not a completely trinitarian,
perspective; see Bogdan G. Bucur, ‘Justin Martyr’s Exegesis of Biblical Theophanies
and the Parting of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism’, Theological Studies 75
(2014), pp. 34–51.
40 Bogdan G. Bucer, ‘Clement of Alexandria’s Exegesis of Old Testament Theophanies’,
Phronema 29 (2014), pp. 77–8. For Origen on Isa. 6, see Bogdan G. Bucur, ‘“I Saw the
Lord”: Observations on the Christian Reception History of Isaiah 6’, Pro Ecclesia 23
(2014), pp. 309–30, esp. pp. 315–16.
41 This is witnessed by the famous icon by Andrej Rublev, in which the Trinity is
depicted as communing with one another. See Frederica Mathewes-Green, ‘The Old
Testament Trinity’, in Timothy George, ed., God the Holy Trinity: Reflections on
Christian Faith and Practice (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), pp. 83–90. Interestingly,
the interpretation that the ‘Logos to be incarnate’ was present in Old Testament
theophanies, rather than a fully trinitarian interpretation, remained vivid in
hymnography and iconography: Bucur, ‘“I Saw the Lord”’, p. 322.
42 Christine Helmer, ‘Luther’s Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the Old Testament’, Modern
Theology 18 (2002), pp. 59–60.
43 See, for example, Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, Word Biblical Commentary, vol.
2 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994), p. 51.
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Traces of the Trinity in the Old Testament 9

other angels.44 The possible link with the Trinity would be the fluctuation between
identification with God and differentiation from God, which would cohere with the
self-differentiation of the triune God. The patristic tradition backs this
interpretation. The interpretation of Lady Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22–36, for
instance, served a crucial function in christological and trinitarian discussions in
the early church. The eternal character of Wisdom, begotten before creation, would
indicate the eternal Son, although Irenaeus identifies Wisdom with the Spirit rather
than the Logos.45
The question remains to what extent Wisdom and Spirit truly are persons, or at
least: traces of (trinitarian) personality. A closer look at biblical data concerning
the Old Testament Spirit (ruach) of Yahweh, for instance, indicates that its spheres
of activity include, first, creation and creativity. The Spirit not only hovered over
the waters of creation, but also ‘filled’ Bezalel and Oholiab, builders of the
tabernacle.46 Second, the Spirit of Yahweh’s activity includes leadership and
empowerment, particularly in the historiographic books of the Old Testament.
People are anointed with the Spirit, and the Spirit comes upon people to enable
them to lead the people of Israel.47 Third, prophetic inspiration, to speak the word
of the Lord in a specific context, is another sphere of activity belonging to the
Spirit of Yahweh.48 All three spheres fit a fully-fledged pneumatology well. Still,
as John Walton notes, the Spirit of the Lord is neither emanation nor
personification of the Lord. He, or it, ‘is not a separate entity from Yahweh, but
represents a modified level of divine agency’.49 This ambiguity of ‘almost
personality’ and impersonal power is no contraindication but can even be
interpreted as a stronger indication of trinitarian traces, since the same tension
between personality and power characterizes the Holy Spirit.
Divine agency through the Spirit is not so much about personality in a strict
sense as it is about relationality. God acts and interacts with humans to such an
extent that he can even fill them with his Spirit; that is, he truly connects with
humans. This relationality is not merely a matter of alleged personification, or

44 Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish
Monotheism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 17–18 also identifies exalted
patriarchs and principal angels as areas of interest in Second Temple Judaism. Since
these do not concern the Old Testament itself, these are left out of the present research.
It falls outside of the scope of the present article to enter the complicated history-of-
religions discussion.
45 Justin Martyr, Dial. 61; Origen, De Princ. I.4.4; Athanasius, Contra Arianos II.51.3,
51.6. See Peter Widdicombe, ‘A Trinity of Delight: Proverbs 8:30–31 and its
Theological Interpretation in Patristic Thought’, Theoforum 42 (2011), pp. 119–33.
46 Gen. 1:2; Ps. 104:30; Ex. 31:1–6.
47 For example, Jdg. 3:10; 11:29; 1 Sam. 16:13.
48 For example, Isa. 11:2; Ezek. 11:5; Zech. 4:6. See the contributions in David G. Firth
and Paul D. Wegner, eds., Presence, Power and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God
in the Old Testament (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2011).
49 John H. Walton, ‘The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Spirit of the Lord in the
Old Testament’, in Firth and Wegner, Presence, Power and Promise, p. 60.
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
10 Arnold Huijgen

identification of the Spirit of Yahweh but digs to a deeper, structural level of Old
Testament theology. Spirit, Wisdom and Word indicate God’s communicative
actions to establish and maintain relations with humans.
A similar argument concerns the malak Yahweh, the ‘Angel of the Lord’,
arguably the most quoted possible trace of the Trinity in the Old Testament. This
Angel is both distinct from and identified with the Lord.50 The clearest exemplary
text for this phenomenon is the narrative of the Akedah in Genesis 22, Abraham’s
would-be sacrifice of Isaac. First, God himself addresses Abraham (Gen. 22:1), but
later on in the narrative, the Angel of Yahweh not only speaks on behalf of Yahweh
(Gen. 22:11) but also as if he were Yahweh himself, promising Abraham God’s
blessing in the first person singular (Gen. 22:16–17). The combination of
differentiation from and narrative identification with God is remarkable. Robert
Jenson elaborates on this example to substantiate his bold claim that the Trinity itself
is in the Old Testament.51 Similar instances, also quoted by Jenson, include the
Angel of the Lord addressing Hagar in the wilderness with a divine promise (Gen.
16:10), after which Hagar confesses that she actually saw God himself (Gen. 16:13),
and Genesis 31, in which Jacob tells his wives that the Angel of the Lord appeared
to him in a dream, introducing himself by saying, ‘I am the God of Bethel’ (Gen.
31:13). This ‘doubled identity’, according to Jenson, hints at the Trinity.52
But there are two problems regarding identification and personification.
Exegetes point to the fact that rather than ‘the’ Angel, the better translation could
well be ‘an’ Angel, or even ‘a messenger’, since malak indicates various sorts of
messengers, most of whom are not angelic per se. The malak also behaves as a
messenger when his speech goes back and forth between differentiation and
identification. By speaking on behalf of their senders, messengers act as extensions
of their personalities. So, when a messenger uses the first person singular, this does
not imply any identification on an ontological level.53 For instance, this is evident
in Genesis 44, when Joseph’s messenger speaks. When Joseph’s brothers respond
to Joseph’s message by stating their innocence, the messenger replies: ‘Whoever is
found to have it [the cup] will become my slave’.54 Just as in many other instances
in the ancient Near East, the messenger represents his lord, so he ‘is’ his lord. This
is no doubled identity but an ancient Near Eastern extension of a single identity.
In sum, both the ruach and the malak Yahweh are primarily functional
extensions, or representations, of Yahweh, not identifications on an ontological level
and probably not real personalizations, as exegetes emphasize. But it is important to

50 For an overview, see Hermann R€ottger, Mal’ak Jahwe, Bote von Gott: Der Vorstellung
von Gottes Boten im hebr€ aischen Alten Testament (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1978).
51 Robert W. Jenson, ‘The Bible and the Trinity’, Pro Ecclesia 11 (2002), pp. 329–39;
Robert W. Jenson, ‘The Trinity in the Bible’, Concordia Theological Quarterly 68
(2004), pp. 195–206.
52 Jenson, ‘The Bible and the Trinity’, p. 332.
53 A.S. van der Woude, ‘De Mal’ak Jahweh: Een godsbode’, Nederlands Theologisch
Tijdschrift 18 (1963), pp. 1–30.
54 Gen. 44:10. Cf. Jdg. 11:12–13. See Van der Woude, ‘De Mal’ak Jahweh’, pp. 7–8.
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Traces of the Trinity in the Old Testament 11

note that the very alternative ontology-functionality, which is often used in this
discussion, is questionable. For ontology is not per definition non-functional, and
functionality may have ontological consequences. In fact, the deeper level, where a
logic of communication and relationality is at work, is more relevant. Appearances
of the malak Yahweh serve a communicative function,55 and the ruach is a strong
transformative power that transcends natural powers by creating and recreating these
powers and by using them for God’s purposes. These relational, communicative and
transformative characteristics are at the heart of the doctrine of the Trinity, at least in
relational accounts of the Trinity. In this sense, the Spirit of Yahweh and the malak
Yahweh show traces of the Trinity – the former more than the latter.
Concerning personalizations, another angle needs to be considered. Matthew
Bates has pointed to the fact that the New Testament and the Church Fathers
interpreted certain Old Testament conversations as giving insight into the interior
divine life. ‘Trinitarian dogma arose in essential ways via a particular person-
centered way of reading the Jewish Scripture in the earliest church.’56 This shows
particularly in the classic text, Psalm 110, in which Yahweh addresses ‘my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand.”’57 Not only does Jesus identify himself as the Christ with
Psalm 110, according to the synoptic Gospels,58 but pre-Christian interpretations
also focus on who the addressee is to whom God speaks in Psalm 110.59 The text
itself raises this kind of questions and is thus a focus of person-centred exegesis.
Still, Bates’ argument regards interpretations of the Old Testament, rather than the
Old Testament itself, and although he notes that it is methodologically acceptable
to consider later data in the interpretation of earlier texts,60 his argument is
developmental rather than an analysis of the text of Psalm 110 itself. Nonetheless,
trinitarian interpretations fit Psalm 110 well, and the text of Psalm 110 shows at
least some communication of Yahweh with a ‘person’ who received a highly
exalted and privileged place. On the level of the Old Testament itself, it remains
open whether this communication of God implies divine personality. Much
depends on the way these kinds of texts are embedded in theological substructures
in the Old Testament. This brings us to the next section.

Nature of Old Testament ‘monotheism’

Is trinitarian theology compatible with the nature of Old Testament monotheism?

The minimal acceptable answer is that the question about traces of the Trinity is
not at odds with Old Testament monotheism. The maximum answer is that the

55 See Schw€obel, ‘The Trinity between Athens and Jerusalem’, p. 33.

56 Bates, The Birth of the Trinity, p. 41.
57 Ps. 110:1.
58 Mk 12:35–7 and parallels. See Bates, The Birth of the Trinity, p. 53.
59 Bates, The Birth of the Trinity, pp. 59–60 refers to the Dead Sea manuscript 11Q13, in
which Gen. 14:18–20 is interpreted in the light of Ps. 110.
60 Bates, The Birth of the Trinity, pp. 56–9.
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
12 Arnold Huijgen

nature of monotheism in the Old Testament tends towards trinitarian theology,

maybe even more than it does towards stricter forms of monotheism in Judaism
and Islam.61 Both answers are explored here. The first is necessary, the second
useful for the present argument.
The vast debate on monotheism in its various forms dates back to the
Enlightenment,62 when this philosophical term was coined to classify religions in
subsequent evolutionary stages towards the rational, natural religion of deism.63
The antonym of monotheism thus conceived was polytheism, which was
commonly regarded as an earlier, more primitive stage.64 Presently, the question of
the potentially violent nature of monotheism fuels the monotheism debate.65 As
such, the Old Testament, particularly the book of Deuteronomy and its related
literature, would articulate a stricter form of monotheism.
But Old Testament monotheism differs from philosophical and evolutionary
ideas of monotheism. In his study of Deuteronomy, the biblical book commonly
regarded as the grand charter of monotheism, Nathan MacDonald concludes that it
comprises no such thing as monotheism, at least not as commonly defined.66 Not
only is the reality of the Old Testament too complex to be comprised under the
header of the term ‘monotheism’, but the entire thrust of the Old Testament, and of
Deuteronomy in particular, cannot be placed on a scale between polytheism and
monotheism, nor on a scale between universalism and particularism. The Old
Testament does not deny the existence of other gods, but it forbids Israel to serve
these gods, as in the first commandment. Accordingly, the Old Testament does not
focus on monotheism but monolatry. When it affirms that Yahweh is one, it does

61 Karl Rahner, ‘Einzigkeit und Dreif€altigkeit Gottes im Gespr€ach mit dem Islam’, in
Schriften zur Theologie, 16 vols. (Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1954–84), vol. 13, p. 129 states
that the doctrine of the Trinity is a radicalization and explanation (Radikalisierung und
Verdeutlichung) of Israel’s monotheism.
62 For an overview of the debate from a biblical-theological point of view, see Konrad
Schmid, ‘Differenzierungen und Konzeptualisierungen der Einheit Gottes’, in Manfred
Oeming and Konrad Schmid, eds., Der eine Gott und die G€ otter: Polytheismus und
Monotheismus im antiken Israel (Z€urich: Theologischer Verlag, 2003), pp. 11–38. For
a systematic-theological point of view, see Magnus Striet, ed., Monotheismus Israels
und christlicher Trinit€
atsglaube (Freiburg: Herder, 2004).
63 Christoph Schw€obel, ‘Monotheismus: IV. Systematisch-theologisch’, in Gerhard
M€uller, ed., Theologische Realenzyklop€ adie, vol. 23 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1994), p. 257.
64 For terminological and methodological clarifications concerning monotheism, see
Thomas H. McCall, Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic
Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2010).
65 See Thomas S€oding, ed., Ist der Glaube Feind der Freiheit? Die neue Debatte um den
Monotheismus (Freiburg: Herder, 2003); and Peter Walter, ed., Das Gewaltpotential
des Monotheismus und der dreieine Gott (Freiburg: Herder, 2005).
66 Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ‘Monotheism’ (T€ubingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2003), p. 209. Already fifty years ago, C.J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability
of Yahweh in the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1966), pp. 142–9 avoided the term
‘monotheism’ and used ‘incomparability’ instead.
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Traces of the Trinity in the Old Testament 13

so not in the sense of numerical oneness but in the sense that he is unique,
incomparable, and above all: he is the only God for Israel.67 This, then, is the sense
of the Shema: because God is ‘one’, that is: unique, Israel must serve him with all
of their hearts and powers (Deut. 6:5). God’s oneness is not primarily opposed to
polytheism, but to covenantal disloyalty and idolatry. In this context, the insistence
of the first commandment that Israel should not have other gods is not primarily a
claim concerning the ontological status of other gods, but a soteriological claim.
Only Yahweh is the God who liberates Israel.
This soteriological bent in monotheism is not unique to Deuteronomy. God’s
uniqueness is not understood in a Hellenistic way as non-wordliness, simplicity
and numerical oneness, but the soteriological perspective means that more
theological energy is invested in warding off idolatry than in warding off hints of
plurality from God. Divine uniqueness does not exclude distinctions within the
divine identity.68 That secures the minimal answer to the question: the quest for
traces of the Trinity is not at odds with Old Testament ‘monotheism’.69
But there is also the maximal answer. Aspects of Old Testament ‘monotheism’
better fit later trinitarian theology than stricter forms of monotheism. For the
unicity and uniqueness of the God of Israel is a historical reality, revealed with a
soteriological purpose. He is the only God for Israel, his people’s sole liberator,
the God of the Exodus. In this history of Israel God shows that he is the only one
for Israel, but also how he is this one: as the God who identifies himself by the
history he engages in with his people. The one God is the God of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob, indeed, the God of Israel. For Deuteronomy, ‘Yahweh’s oneness,
indeed Yahweh himself, is not conceivable without Israel.’70 He defines himself in
history through his deeds.
This historical, soteriological, lively monotheism is unique to Israel’s God.
The Old Testament does not present mythologies or cosmogonies like
contemporary Near Eastern cultures, but it pictures God as the God of history.71
This self-revelation of God in and through history is characteristic of the later
doctrine of the Trinity. It differs essentially from, for example, Arius, who warded
off any aspect of the created order, including history, from God himself.72

67 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, p. 86.

68 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, p. 17 makes a similar claim for Second Temple
Judaism; cf. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, pp. 619–33.
69 For the present argument, it is not necessary to decide whether or not the term
‘monotheism’ should be adapted, differentiated or abolished altogether. See Schw€obel,
‘Monotheismus’, p. 258 for some positions in this debate.
70 MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ‘Monotheism’, p. 215.
71 Note that this does not mean that the Old Testament understanding of history matches
modern understandings of history. See Claus Westermann, ‘The Old Testament’s
Understanding of History in Relation to that of the Enlightenment’, in James T. Butler,
Edgar W. Conrad and Ben C. Ollenburger, eds., Understanding the Word: Essays in
Honor of Bernhard W. Anderson (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985), pp. 207–19.
72 See Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition (London: Darton, Longman and
Todd, 1987), p. 231.
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
14 Arnold Huijgen

In addition, the opposition of particularity versus universality does not apply

directly to Old Testament monotheism. Because there is only one living God, as
opposed to the idols of the nations, there is a universalizing tendency in the Old
Testament: God’s blessing of Israel has a tendency towards the nations.73 So, the
particularity of God’s covenant with Abram and Israel is not opposed to
universality, but is exactly aimed at universality. The logic of relationality crosses
the logic of an opposition between the universal and the particular. The God of
Israel is the God of the world, and his relation to the world is a relation of love. So,
Old Testament ‘monotheism’ implies the exclusion of other gods (whatever their
ontological status may be), but it ultimately aims at the inclusion of other nations.
The alternative between the soteriological and the ontological is also put in a
new perspective. While the claim that Yahweh is God is primarily soteriological, it
also has ontological implications.74 The ontology implied in Old Testament
‘monotheism’ is a relational ontology: God is who he is in his relation to Israel
even while he does not coincide with the history of Israel but remains
transcendent. This is a similar logic to trinitarian theology, particularly when the
doctrine of the Trinity is understood in relational terms.
In sum, far from being a contra-indication for searching for traces of the
Trinity, the specific ‘monotheism’ of the Old Testament itself likely shows such
traces. Still, this needs to be put in perspective of the entire nature of God’s
revelation under the Old Testament.

Nature of revelation

Four aspects of Old Testament revelation in particular show traces of the Trinity:
its anthropomorphic character, the implications of the second commandment, the
revelation of God’s name and an eschatological tension.
First of all, the Old Testament keeps two realities together: both that God
cannot be identified with any aspect of created reality, and that simultaneously he
is really present in this world. This twofold relation between God and the world is
not merely a paradox but a unity in diversity, kept together in an eschatological
tension. For instance, God’s glory (kabod ) fills the temple Solomon built while, at
the same time, Solomon confesses that the heaven of heavens cannot contain

73 In Gal. 3:8, 14, Paul interprets Gen. 12:3 as a promise that the blessing bestowed on
Abraham will ultimately also comprise the nations. Gen. 12:3 poses an interpretive
crux, however. It could well mean, as Rashi interprets, that Abraham will become an
object of admiration for the nations. Still, leading modern Jewish commentators also
interpret the text as depicting God’s concern for the whole world. See R.W.L. Moberly,
The Theology of the Book of Genesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009),
pp. 141–61.
74 MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ‘Monotheism’, p. 215. Cf. J.G.
McConville, Deuteronomy, Apollos Old Testament Commentary 5 (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 2002), pp. 140–1.
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Traces of the Trinity in the Old Testament 15

him.75 God both really resides in the temple and really resides in heaven. His
humility defines the nature of his transcendence, and his transcendence defines the
nature of his humility. This tension is further increased in the New Testament
when God becomes human while remaining God. The doctrine of the Trinity seeks
to safeguard this tension without dissolving it.
So, the tension present in trinitarian theology parallels the tension between
God’s transcendence and God’s condescendence in the Old Testament. The
importance of safeguarding this tension is shown particularly when it is considered
what would happen if only one side of the tension remained. When the reality of
God’s lowliness is denied a tendency to deism becomes apparent because the
reality of God is defined by distinguishing him from the world. So, God could not
really interact with the world: any interaction would have an ‘as-if-character’.76 He
would become the highest Being in the hierarchy of being, who could mediate his
presence, but it would become almost impossible to picture his personal
communication and responsiveness toward humans.77 On the other hand, when the
reality of God’s transcendence is denied, and only God’s presence in this world
remains, this tends to identify God and history, or even to make God a part of the
world. So, the inner logic of the Old Testament, in which God is both really
exalted and really present in this world, matches the presuppositions of trinitarian
theology.78
The importance of this match is highlighted in the abundant use of
anthropomorphisms in the Old Testament. For Old Testament authors, it is
obviously unproblematic that God came down to see the tower of Babel, to smell
the scent of an offering, and that he has eyes and ears, and can even be described
with bodily language.79 In later history these expressions were conceived as
problematic because of a philosophical context in which God’s non-worldliness,

75 1 Kgs 8:11, 27.

76 The idea of divine accommodation has often been used in the metaphysical tradition as
a hermeneutical strategy: by defining God’s lowly actions as accommodations, God
himself could be kept at a distance from actual revelation. See Arnold Huijgen, Divine
Accommodation in John Calvin’s Theology: Analysis and Assessment (G€ottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 264–71, 342–5.
77 Cornelis van der Kooi, As in a Mirror: John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God:
A Diptych (Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 200, 307.
78 This does not mean that this is the only possible interpretation, since Jewish
interpretation has taken the textual dynamics and the tension between God’s
transcendence and God’s condescendence very seriously, though of course not in a
trinitarian fashion. See Johann Maier, Geschichte der j€udischen Religion. Von der Zeit
Alexander des Grossen bis zur Aufkl€ arung mit einem Ausblik auf das 19./20.
Jahrhundert (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1972), pp. 162–70; Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Judaism:
History, Belief and Practice (London: Routledge, 2003), pp. 349–56. An extensive
discussion of Jewish approaches lies beyond the scope of the present essay, however.
79 For example, Gen. 11:5; 8:21; Ps. 93:9. Cf. Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God
and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp.
135–6.
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
16 Arnold Huijgen

incorporeality and spirituality defined him.80 This separation of God and

materiality also rendered the relation between God and history problematic. While
the Old Testament pictures God’s repentance as his change of course in response
to certain events,81 this was problematic for the metaphysical tradition. So, while
1 Samuel 15 states both that God actually repented and that he cannot repent,82
traditional exegesis tended to rule out God’s repentance in favour of his non-
repentance. This is understandable in a metaphysical conception of God as the
highest being in a hierarchy of being in which the one is more than the many. A
trinitarian logic, however, keeps together that God is both exalted, and truly
engages in the history of his people.
The flip side, and the second aspect to be discussed here, is that God cannot
unqualifiedly be identified with any part of creaturely reality. This is the essence of
the second commandment, which forbids making any image of God. While an
image would make it possible to localize and even manipulate the godhead, God
cannot be affixed to a creaturely reality without further qualification. Obviously,
God does employ creaturely realities to perform mediating, and representative
functions, the malak Yahweh, for instance. But he is always more than the
historical representation of his presence.83
The positive meaning of the second commandment lies in God’s freedom as
the God of history. He is ‘the living God’,84 who cannot be fixated in an image,
which would bring him within human reach. Rather than being identified with an
image or any material aspect of reality, Yahweh defines himself by his words and
his deeds in favour of his people.85 Instead of the cultic images in other ancient
Near Eastern religions, God is not just any part of reality. Rather, history and the
covenant are the places where God reveals himself.
The theological intuition underlying the second commandment is similar to
the one in the doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine also serves to safeguard God’s
self-identification in history, particularly in the history of Jesus Christ. The image
of the living God is this person Jesus Christ, whose history defines his identity, and
his identity defines his history. Moreover, this theological reality implies a moment
of transformation. When God comes down, repents or in other ways deals with
humans historically, he transforms this history too. Without this transformative
history aimed at God’s communion with humans, the tension between God’s

80 This criticism is found in H.M. Kuitert, Gott in Menschengestalt. Eine dogmatisch-

hermeneutische Studie u€ber die Anthropomorphismen der Bibel (Munich: Kaiser,
1967).
81 For example, Gen. 6:6; Jonah 3:10.
82 1 Sam. 15:11, 29.
83 In this sense, the so-called extra-calvinisticum in Christology is a means to ward off
violation of the second commandment.
84 For example, Ps. 42:2; Jer. 10:10.
85 J€urgen Werbick, ‘Trugbilder oder Suchbilder: Ein Versuch €uber die Schwierigkeit, das
biblische Bilderverbot theologisch zu befolgen’, in J€urger Werbick, ed., Die Macht der
Bilder (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1998), p. 11.
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Traces of the Trinity in the Old Testament 17

immanence and God’s transcendence would still remain, at best, protobinitarian:

God is both high and low. But this being high and low is aimed at and driven by
transformation. It is not static but, instead, dynamic, salvific and transformative.86
This transformative power, aimed at bringing God and humans together, and then
keeping them together, is a trace of the Spirit of God, the Spirit of communion.
Third, God reveals himself in the Old Testament not as a ‘being’, but in his
name. In the archetypal Old Testament revelation, Yahweh reveals his name to
Moses from the burning bush.87 Unlike ‘being’, the name is no category; neither
can a name be defined. It is not general but specific, not substantial but personal; it
is relational, and communicative, because this name functions as an appellative.
God can be called and addressed through his name.88 A name presupposes a
context of communication and relations. By self-identifying through giving his
name, God reveals himself as relational, as a person for persons. He initiates
personal communication.
God’s name is not a different sort of image. It cannot be misused for
manipulation or divination. For when God reveals his name, he also enshrouds it.
The name God reveals to Moses is mysteriously self-referring: ‘I am who I am’.
God’s name is both revealed and hidden. The Dutch Reformed theologian Kornelis
Heiko Miskotte calls this ‘the nameless name’.89
But this self-referring name is not meant to keep God’s people, Israel, from
discovering its meaning. Rather, they learn its meaning not through semantic
analysis or divination, but through walking in the ways of God’s covenant. After
the revelation of his name to Moses, God writes his name in the subsequent history
of the Exodus of his people. Yahweh is the God of Israel who delivers them from
the land of Egypt. In this way, God reveals himself as the living God of history, of
Israel and of freedom.
Thus, the Old Testament knows of no abstract problem of God’s immanence
versus God’s transcendence. What comes closest to God ‘immanence’ is his name
given to Israel, his self-identification with the people, and his actions to set them
free.90 These realities form traces of the Trinity in the Old Testament, which are
not merely based on various texts or on an artificial interpretation but on broader
structures in the Old Testament.
Finally, there is a tendency in the relationship between God and his people, a
pattern of human failures and new divine initiatives, directed towards the future.

86 Cf. Seitz, ‘The Trinity in the Old Testament’, p. 31.

87 Ex. 3:14.
88 Christian Link, ‘Die Spur des Namens. Zur Funktion und Bedeutung des biblischen
Gottesnamens’, in Die Spur des Namens. Wege zur Erkenntnis Gottes und zur
Erfahrung der Sch€ opfung. Theologische Studien (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag,
1997) pp. 37–66.
89 K.H. Miskotte, Wenn die G€ otter schweigen: Vom Sinn des Alten Testaments (Munich:
Kaiser, 1963), p. 128.
90 Christian Link, ‘Trinit€at in israeltheologischer Horizont’, in Welker and Volf, Der
lebendige Gott als Trinit€at (G€utersloh: G€utersloher Verlagshaus, 2006), pp. 215–28.
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
18 Arnold Huijgen

Therefore, it is an eschatological dynamic. While God had liberated Israel in the

Exodus, Israel grumbled time and again. And while the Spirit, as the agent of
transformation, empowers the kings of Israel, these kings fail more often than not.
God even abandons king Saul, the first king of Israel. Before the time of the kings,
in the book of Judges, this pattern appears time and again: the transformation of
the people is temporary at best.91 The so-called deuteronomistic historiography
and the prophets tell a story of catastrophe and trauma, both for the people and for
God.
In this history Israel develops as God’s covenant partner in the world. An
important moment is the introduction of the Davidic kingship. The Davidic king
counts as the son of God (2 Sam. 7). Compared to the rest of the ancient Near East,
the Old Testament uses this sonship imagery sparsely. But the relation between
God and David (and subsequent Davidic kings) is special, and intimate. Because of
the unction with the Spirit of God the king counts as God’s chosen one.92 As God’s
mandated one he stands between God and the people, spreading blessing and
prosperity (Ps. 72). But most of the kings do not serve God as they should. The
exile signifies the seeming bankruptcy of the Davidic dynasty. Still, God promises
a new dawn for his people in the land under a new David. So, the Old Testament
creates a dynamic of catastrophic trauma and unfulfilled expectation.
The tendency of the history between God and humans cannot neatly be
summarized as God moving ever closer to humans, while certain humans come
ever closer to God, like stalactites and stalagmites in a cave.93 It would, therefore,
be an overstatement to regard God in the Old Testament as deus incarnandus,94
although God uses far-reaching strategies to relate to his people. The incarnation is
a novel fact of the New Testament, and in the resurrection, Jesus the Messiah is
shown to be the ‘personal embodiment and revelation of the one true god’.95
Still, the incarnation forms the ultimate answer to the catastrophes of the Old
Testament. The many failures of the Old Testament act as its preparation.
Ultimately and finally, God himself steps into the rupture between God and
humans. This eschatological pattern in the relation between God and humans is
driven by the transformative power of the Spirit. This eschatological depth
structure of the Old Testament is a trace of the Trinity.

91 For example, Jdg. 2:11; 3:7, 12.

92 Pss. 78:70; 89:4, 21.
93 Contra Oeming, ‘Vestigia Trinitatis?’, p. 51.
94 Reginald G. Fuller, ‘The Vestigia Trinitatis in the Old Testament’, in Craig A. Evans
and Shemaryahu Talmon, eds., The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical
Intertextuality (Leiden: Brill, 1997), p. 505.
95 See N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2003), p. 731; cf. pp. 719–36.
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Traces of the Trinity in the Old Testament 19

Conclusion

The previous discussion has demonstrated that traces of the Trinity are not so
strongly attested in individual Old Testament texts and are often ambiguous on the
level of personalizations and personal phenomena. The classical proof texts
Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 18, for instance, do not show traces of the Trinity when
these are interpreted contextually. In the Wisdom, the Word and the Spirit of
Yahweh, however, a fluctuation and oscillation between identification with
Yahweh and differentiation from Yahweh becomes clear that shows a similar
structure to the mutual self-distinction that characterizes trinitarian relationality.96
Meanwhile, these trinitarian hints in the Old Testament mostly remain ambiguous:
they can be interpreted from the perspective of trinitarian theology, but they can
also point in another direction. This applies not only to the mentioned instances of
self-differentiation, but also to the son of God in Psalm 2, the royal priest in Psalm
110 and the son of man in Daniel 7. Notwithstanding later Christian interpretations
of these texts, the actual Old Testament texts and contexts ambiguously suggest
special positions for the persons mentioned: on the one hand, the human character
of these persons is stressed, but on the other hand, the son of man in Daniel 7 may
well hint at a divine being. This ambiguity at least does not defy trinitarian
interpretations, and the New Testament’s use of these texts strongly supports such
interpretations. However, on the level of the Old Testament itself, these texts are
not the most explicit traces of the Trinity.
On the other hand, the seemingly strongest argument against traces of the
Trinity in the Old Testament, namely Old Testament monotheism, actually does
not defy trinitarian theology but rather supports it. Since Old Testament
‘monotheism’ is focused on Yahweh’s uniqueness in his saving relation with Israel
rather than on numerical oneness, it even shows some traces of the Trinity itself:
the one God is the God of Israel. The historical character of Yahweh’s relation
with Israel shows that he engages in the world while remaining transcendent.
God’s way with Israel is the most important trace of the Trinity in the Old
Testament. He binds himself to Israel in the covenant and really interacts with his
people. He is the living God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who identifies
himself through his historical deeds. That this history not only indicates, but
reveals who God is, matches the doctrine of the Trinity: the Christ event reveals
who God is, exactly, in crucifixion, resurrection and Pentecost. Meanwhile, he is
not defined by separation from the material world, but acts freely in it, without
being identified with any aspect of creaturely reality. He is both the author of his
history with Israel, and the most important actor in that history. This duplicity
witnesses to the relation between the Father and the Son.
Traces of the Spirit are found primarily in the soteriological-eschatological
drive in the Old Testament, which cannot be reduced to a schematic tension

96 See Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematische Theologie: Band 1 (G€ottingen: Vandenhoeck

& Ruprecht, 1988), pp. 335–47.
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
20 Arnold Huijgen

between transcendence and immanence. It matches the structure of God’s self-

revelation in the New Testament. While the Old Testament witnesses to a history
of failure and catastrophe, preparing for God’s ultimate answer in Jesus Christ, the
Spirit is the agent of transformation who gives new impulses in history,
particularly through opening vistas on the future. He is the Spirit of hope, the Spirit
of God’s promises. God is the coming one, not only in the New Testament, but
also in the Old.
Earlier research has shown how traces of the Trinity were found in the New
Testament, and in pre-critical exegesis. But even under the conditions of post-
Enlightenment, historical-critical approaches of the Bible, traces of the Trinity
show in the Old Testament, particularly in its depth structures and in the nature of
God’s revelation.

C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

V