Blog

The late Dr. Michael S. Heiser has been a huge influence on me as a Bible student. He and John Walton independently showed me just how insanely interesting The Old Testament in particular, and The Bible as a whole, can really be. Unfortunately, The Lord took him to Heaven in 2023. But his organization, The Michael Heiser Foundation, has started up a new podcast called “The Divine Council Worldview Podcast”. So far, the podcast has 69 episodes, and I am 26 episodes in. I discovered biblical scholar Ronn Johnson because of this podcast. I love the podcast and I can tell that Johnson has just as much passion for studying and teaching The Bible as Dr. Heiser did. He co-hosts the biblical scholarship portion of the podcast with Pastor Mike Chu. The episodes tend to rotate between seminary lessons ^[1]I mean that in a good way, I swear! and a portion where two friends (Mel and Rich) of the late Heiser host the episodes of The Divine Council Worldview podcast that focus on mission work and evangelism. These episodes are just as enjoyable to listen to as it shows how this stuff isn’t just nerdy intellectual academic stuff, but has real practical application to evangelism and the Christian life, especially when you’re evangelizing non-Christians who aren’t atheists, but actually do worship gods. I find Johnson to be a sort of kindred spirit because, despite being highly knowledgeable about scripture and even have a degree, he works at a bank! And so, I don’t feel so bad being a Dollar General cashier who also has a deep knowledge of apologetics, theology, biblical scholarship, a knowledge base that gets bigger and bigger the longer I study. So, don’t think that I dislike the guy when I say the things I’m about to say. No, I really like the guy and I can see how he and Heiser would have been buddies.

In this article, I want to respond to one of those disagreements. Ronn Johnson doesn’t really hold to the Two Powers In Heaven idea, that we genuinely have a two person Godhead in The Old Testament. He’s going to argue that all of these appearances of what we think is a humanoid manifestation of Yahweh is really just an agent of Yahweh. And he’s going to argue that it was commonplace for people who were sent by others to speak as if they were the sender. And so, when The Angel Of The Lord speaks as though He’s Yahweh, that doesn’t necessarily mean we have a theophany or an appearance of the pre-incarnate Christ. I don’t want to get too ahead of myself, but I don’t think Johnson is taking all of the biblical data into account. Thus, the First-Person-Speaking-Agent view has inadequate explanatory scope. I will address what Johnson said mostly in episodes 25 and 26 which deal with expositing Genesis 18 and 19. This is because Genesis 18 and 19 are one continuous story and what happens in chapter 19 really makes this theophany more special than one might initially suppose.

Genesis 18 and The Lord Appearing To Abraham

In, Episode 25 of The Divine Council Worldview Podcast, Johnson and Chu continue their series through the book of Genesis. Genesis 18 is the topic of the episode. In Genesis 18, the Lord appears to Abraham as three men near the great trees of Mamre. Abraham, with great hospitality, rushes to welcome and serve them. One of the men, whom most interpreters take to be the Lord in human form, promises Abraham and Sarah that they will have a son within the year, despite Sarah’s old age. Sarah, overhearing this from inside their tent, laughs in disbelief. The Lord questions her laughter, and she denies it out of fear. As the men prepare to leave, the Lord reveals to Abraham that He is on His way to investigate the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham then pleads with the Lord, negotiating to spare the cities if a certain number of righteous people can be found there, starting from fifty and eventually bargaining down to ten. This bleeds into the narrative of Genesis 19 in which we actually read about the cities being burned up, angels evacuating Lot and his family, and an interesting choice of words in Genesis 19:24.

After going through the narrative, Johnson goes over four possible options as to what could be going on here. I’ll quote him below;

“Well, let me finish with the last verse of [Genesis] 18 ‘The Lord went his way when he had finished speaking with Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place [so in the video version you got two guys turning and walking away from each other one being Yahweh okay] so the Lord appeared to Abraham in 17:1, 18:1 and now, here, throughout this story what are the options when it comes to Yahweh appearing? I have four options, Mike, and I wrote these out on the fly as though I’m trying just to remember how this conversation has gone through those who have read Mike’s works and those who have, you know, studied commentaries and such throughout the history. When it comes to Yahweh appearing, here are the four options that I’m aware of;

1: Yahweh himself in the sense that he leaves Heaven, the dimension of Heaven (or what we call heaven), and comes into bodily form. It’s the traditional view of a theophony.

The problem as stated that way to view number one is that… are we saying that God is actually not locatable anywhere else in the universe except in that one six-foot human figure? When expressed that way, most theologians get antsy if not uncomfortable. So, again, view number one, no one really takes that. Where Yahweh vacates all dimensions of existence and locates himself specifically and only in a six-foot figure. So I don’t sense number one is very common when you really get into it.

2: There are two Yahwehs, one who remains in another non-physical dimension and one who takes up residence at times in our physical world. I know when I say “Two Yahwehs”, those who know Dr Heiser’s work will hear that in his writings. This is a Jewish view in the sense that Alan Segall and others have gone down the path of saying that Yahweh in their world could exist in two modes at one time. So, in story, in other words, you’d take, going back to 18:17-21 Yahweh said as though he’s talking from heaven, since Abraham will have known him then, you get to 21. “I will go down now” and then in 22, though you have “Abraham stood still before Yahweh.” So the two Yahweh view would work within that story. Verses 17 through 21 would be one Yahweh and then the other Yahweh would be in 22.

3: This is a pre-incarnate Jesus. That when it says Yahweh here, this is what would be a second person of the yet unknown Trinity. Speaking as the same essence of Yahweh though as a different person than Yahweh. Now that would be, and here’s where Mike would probably put his hand up again and say ‘That’s me.’ because this is a Christian view of version number 2. You can do the version number 2, the two Yahweh thing, and stay completely Jewish. You don’t have to think in Christian terms at all. In the third view, which I just gave, now you’re bringing in the possibility of the second person of the Godhead to be that second Yahweh, so number three here is kind of a Christian view of number two. …

4: And this the only other option I’m aware of (if there is more let me know), but following through here’s the fourth option, following through on the ancient understanding of agency. Or how human and divine messengers function in the ancient world. This would be a messenger, possibly a divine being who, when speaking uses the first person ‘I’ for Yahweh while not being Yahweh. So, in this sense, the word “appeared” would get used this way as well, so that now in this view Yahweh appearing would be another way of saying a an agent of Yahweh whether it be a human or a divine being, was there in front of Abraham.” ^[2]Ronn Johnson, Mike Chu, “The Divine Council Worldview Podcast”, Episode 0:25: Genesis 18 and Abraham’s Three Heavenly Visitors”, September 16th 2024 –> … Continue reading

Those who have read my article series responding to The WatchTower Pamphlet ^[3]Which is now a small book as part of the Cerebral Faith “Blog Book” series. “Making A Case For The Trinity: Responding To A Jehovah’s Witness Pamphlet.” will know that I take the third view, technically speaking. When exegeting the relevant Two Powers text, I talk as if I hold to the second view. But that’s because the second view is how I think the original author and audience would have understood them. As Ronn Johnson would say, that’s what I see when reading The Bible “from left to right.” But, I don’t just read The Bible from left to right. I read it wholistically, because every book from Genesis to Revelation comes from God. (2 Timothy 3:16-17). And so, technically speaking, view 3 is what I hold to. It’s only looking back after the cross, after Jesus, that we look back and are justified in holding the third view. And Johnson is quite right in saying that hardly anyone holds to view number 1. That would be to reduce God from being a Maximally Great Being to just another lowercase G god. Yahweh is transcendent to the universe. Yahweh is omnipotent (Genesis 1:1, Jeremiah 32:17, Job 42:2, Psalm 115:3, Matthew 19:26), omniscient (Psalm 139:1-4, 1 John 3:20, Hebrews 4:13, Isaiah 46:10, Matthew 10:29-30), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-12, Jeremiah 23:23-24, Acts 17:27-28, 1 Kings 8:27), and the Creator of all things other than himself (Genesis 1, John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-17), and morally perfect (Mark 10:18, Psalm 100:5, Psalm 34:8, James 1:17, Romans 8:28). Yahweh is uncreated (Psalm 90:2). This is what makes Him “The God Of gods” and worthy to be worshipped over and above all other elohim (Psalm 95:3, Psalm 97:9, Psalm 136:2). ^[4]By the way, there is an argument for the existence of God that gets you all of these omni attributes. It’s called The Modal Ontological Argument for God’s existence. I’ve written … Continue reading And so, any view that would impugn any of his divine attributes must be rejected. View 1 impugns God’s omnipresence, and thus, Johnson is right to reject that view himself as are most theologians.

Johnson’s Case For The Agent Representative View

Johnson however, favors view 4. Let’s look at his arguments for his conclusion. “I like, number four, that Yahweh appears and it implies agency. And here’s my defense, if I can just give it to you quick. In Leviticus 9:4, you have this verse. ‘Also, a bull and a ram is a peace offering to sacrifice before Yahweh, and a grain offering mixed with oil, for today, the Lord will appear to you.’ Leviticus 9:4. Then reading on, “so they brought what Moses commanded before the tabernacle of meeting, and all the congregation drew near and stood before Yahweh.” Same language as we just had, this appearing language.] Verse 6, ‘Then Moses said, This is the thing which the Lord commanded you to do, and the glory of Yahweh will appear to you.’ Same word there, appear. So you go from Yahweh appearing to the glory of Yahweh appearing, as though the reader at least, is given the impression that the Shekinah counts as Yahweh in some way. Then 23, Leviticus 9 still, ‘Then the glory of Yahweh appeared to all the people, and fire came out from before Yahweh.’ So again, just that back and forth between before Yahweh or before the glory of Yahweh, as though the reader is equating one with the other. When the men of Israel are told on four occasions in Torah to come to, ‘appear before Yahweh’ three times a year, that’s in Exodus 23:17, 34:23, Deuteronomy 16:16, and Deuteronomy 31:11  four times. We have that same idea of all the males coming three times a year to appear before Yahweh. 

Same as in 16:42 and 20:6. In that court case, and I’d recommend anyone to look at this because it’s pretty clear to me, and it’s very direct, in Deuteronomy 19 verse 17, then both men of the controversy shall stand before Yahweh, quote, or comma, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. It just seems the text is trying to say that when you stand before Yahweh, comma, you’re standing in a sense before the priests and the judges, as though that’s appositionally trying to define what it means as to stand before Yahweh.” ^[5]From Ronn Johnson, Mike Chu, “The Divine Council Worldview Podcast”, Episode 0:25: Genesis 18 and Abraham’s Three Heavenly Visitors”, September 16th 2024 –> … Continue reading

To reiterate his argument in my own words, we have grounds that when we read Genesis 18:1 that “And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day.” It doesn’t have to mean that God took on a humanoid form. Because you have several passages of scripture where people are said to appear before The Lord or The Lord appeared to them, and in those contexts, it clearly doesn’t mean that Yahweh was manifested in some form. Something can be a stand-in for The Lord, and, therefore, Genesis 18:1 could mean that a messenger (angel) appeared to Abraham and spoke on Yahweh’s behalf. Yes, he speaks in the first person, but as Old Testament scholar John Walton said in The NIV Cultural Background Study Bible, “In the ancient world direct communication between important parties was a rarity. Diplomatic and political exchange normally required the use of an intermediary, whose function was similar to that of ambassadors today. The messenger who served as the intermediary was a fully vested representative of the party he represented. He spoke for that party and with the authority of that party. He was accorded the same treatment as that party would enjoy were he there in person.” ^[6]Craig S. Keener and John H. Walton, eds., NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible: Bringing to Life the Ancient World of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), 44. In fact, Johnson quoted Walton in this very same place when making the case that The Angel Of The Lord who appeared to Hagar in Genesis 16 was not a humanoid Yahweh, but just an angel who was speaking in this agent representative sort of way ^[7]Ronn Johnson, Mike Chu, “The Divine Council Worldview Podcast”, Episode EP022: Genesis 16 and the Angel of the Lord” August 4th 2024, –> … Continue reading.

And so, now we get to my response. So in light of what Johnson has said, what is wrong with taking “The Lord” in Genesis 18 as a mere agent of Yahweh as opposed to Yahweh himself? Well, it seems to me that Dr. Johnson is focusing very heavily on two things (1) The first-person language of the humanoid figure, and (2) The language of “Appearing”.

I think one could get away with a merely agent-representative view if these were the only aspect of this and other Angel Of Yahweh texts that we had. But the problem is that it isn’t simply that this person sent by God speaks as though he is God (although I do think the first person language should have some evidential value in identifying the speaker), but that the narrator himself outright tells you that this is Yahweh. When the narrator is identifying the person for you and is recording the person speaking as though He is Yahweh, how else am I supposed to take the text than to assume that somehow Yahweh has manifested in human form? I mean, let’s look at specific places of the text to see what I mean;

Genesis 18:10-15 (ESV, words in bold for emphasis) “The LORD said, ‘I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son.’ And Sarah was listening at the tent door behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years. The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah. So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, ‘After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?’ The LORD said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?’ Is anything too hard for the LORD? At the appointed time I will return to you, about this time next year, and Sarah shall have a son.’ But Sarah denied it, saying, ‘I did not laugh,’ for she was afraid. He said, ‘No, but you did laugh.'”

We are told that The Lord was saying these things to Abraham and Sarah. The narrator doesn’t say “The messenger from The LORD said ‘…” and then proceed to have him speak as Yahweh. Not only that, but near the end of the conversation, it’s The Lord that says “I will return to you, about this time next year,”. The Lord will return. But since God is omnipresent as we know from other passages, this would make no theological sense. Unless what is meant is that the humanoid manifestation of Yahweh would return next year. This would be like how we can talk about Jesus “coming back again some day” despite the fact that He told us He would be with us always to the end of the age (Matthew 28:20), because, as God The Son, He is omnipresent in His divine nature (John 1:1-3), but his human nature is not. Now, I’m not saying God was a human in this passage, merely that He appeared to be human. God would not take on a true human nature until 4 B.C. Reading on in the passage, we continue to have “The Lord said”, “The Lord said”, “The Lord said”, without any indication that this man is just a mere representative. (Verses 17-20).

This is highly unusual. Everywhere else in The Bible, when someone is merely speaking on behalf of God, but is not God Himself, his identity is pretty clear. We don’t read of human prophets or created angels speaking as God with the narrator calling them “The Lord”. Unless I am forgetting some biblical passages that do, to my memory every time a human prophet or divine messenger speaks for God, either the narrator himself or the speaker in the narrative says things that pretty clearly shows that they are just speaking on God’s behalf. Think about the angelic appearances to Zechariah and Mary in the Gospel of Luke, for instances. This is in Luke 1. It is obvious to any reader that this isn’t a theophany. The speaker is identified as Gabriel and, what’s more, he doesn’t even speak in the first person as though he is Yahweh. We read, for example, “In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, ‘Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!’ But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.’” (Luke 1:26-33, ESV) The angel is identified as “Gabriel”, and when Gabriel speaks, he speaks as though God is a completely separate entity from himself. Gabriel doesn’t say things like “Mary, you have found favor with me. You shall conceive in your womb and bear a son.” or “And he will be great because He is My son.” or “And I will give to him the throne of his father, David.” No. It’s third person language all the way down and Luke doesn’t call him “The Lord” in the narrative text. “In the sixth month, The Lord was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth”. The same is true of Gabriel’s appearances to Zachariah narrated before this appearance.

Numbers 22:22-37 is one place I am inclined to take this as just a regular angel. Although the same language “The Angel Of The Lord” is used as it is in places where I’m not inclined to take it as a regular angel, nothing this entity does particularly identifies Him as Yahweh in human form. Gabriel in The New Testament is also called “The Angel Of The Lord”, and so, this title can be applied to message giving created beings from the heavenly realm. The one thing this angel says that might make us think otherwise is what he says to Balaam after he beat his donkey three times. “I have come out to oppose you because your way is perverse before me.” Earlier in the passage, Balaam had wanted to go with the King of Moab to curse Israel in exchange for some handsome rewards. Balaam said he couldn’t unless God told him to, so he went to God twice (because, you know, maybe he’d change his mind). The third time he said “Go” and that’s when we have this angel and talking donkey incident. It was The Lord’s anger that burned in Numbers 22:22, but should it really be surprising that the angel says “I have come out to oppose you because your way is perverse before me.” After all, if this is a good angel sent from God, presumably, he is on God’s side and agrees with God’s moral code and decisions. It would be like if I stood outside of an abortion clinic and said to one of the doctor,s “I have come out to oppose you because your way is perverse before me.” or something like that. I love what God loves and hate what God hates. I don’t suspect the celestial beings in Heaven are any different. There’s no reason to take this as anything other than the appearance of an ordinary angel.

In Daniel 8, 9, and 10, the prophet Daniel had several angelic encounters and visions. An angel named Gabriel appeared to him to explain prophetic visions and provide him with understanding about future events. I won’t quote this lengthy section of scripture here, but if you read the passage, it is abundantly clear that this messenger is not Yahweh. You have no reason to think so.

When human prophets preach in God’s name, either in the historical narratives or in the prophetic literature, you have no reason to think that these aren’t just humans speaking on Yahweh’s behalf. Not only does the narrator not blur their identity, but in their recorded dialogue, they preface their prophesies with the famous “Thus saith The Lord” formula. Meaning “This is coming from God, not me!” At no point does the author of Exodus blur the identity of Moses and Yahweh, nor does 1 Samuel blur Samuel’s identity with Yahweh’s, nor does the book of Jonah paint Jonah as Yahweh. “So the Lord fleed to tarshish” That would be a strange narrative indeed!

The text as it reads seems perfectly clear that Yahweh and two “men” had lunch with Abraham, and then they walked and talked about burning Sodom to a crisp. Why you would try to disambiguate between the man and Yahweh doesn’t seem to have any textual basis, but seems to be motivated on other grounds. I really hate resorting to psycho-analysis, because it’s the arguments for certain view that matter, not any ulterior motives which may or may not exist. The only reason I’m bringing it up is because I think Mike Chu did!

Cheapening The Real Incarnation?

Mike Chu said “…but I also know folks like you and also other scholars who have pointed out that they’re uncomfortable with the idea of the angel of the Lord being a pre-incarnation of Jesus, because for some of them, they would see it as a cheapening of the actual real incarnation that we see in the New Testament. And so when I hear that pushback, I can sympathize, I understand as I get it, like you’re trying to guard something that is really precious, that is really miraculous and from cheapening it in any shape or form from Old Testament text.” ^[8]Time stamp 1:15:05 of Ronn Johnson, Mike Chu, “The Divine Council Worldview Podcast”, Episode 0:25: Genesis 18 and Abraham’s Three Heavenly Visitors”, September 16th 2024 … Continue reading

If I heard Chu correctly, then Johnson has verbally expressed discomfort with this view in the past, possibly in private conversation with Chu. But at the very least, other scholars have expressed discomfort because, he says, it cheapens the real incarnation of God that happens in the gospels. While I can kind of understand where they are coming from, I think this fear is misguided. If interpreters like Dr. Michael S. Heiser, Douglas Van Dorn, Allen Segall, Peter Allix, (not to mention myself) are right concerning the identity of this angel, then what we have here is more akin to what the Docetists said was going on with Jesus. God merely appears as a man. But he is not truly human. He can appear to have a physical, humanoid form that can walk, talk, and eat food. But it’s all for show. It’s a mere avatar. It’s a suit that God can put on and take off whenever he wants to. By contrast, in the incarnation, The Word truly became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1-3, 14, Philippians 2:5-8). God became a true, flesh-and-blood human being. He developed in the womb of Mary, passed through her birth canal, nursed at Mary’s breasts, cried when he needed to be fed or changed, he went through puberty, got hungry and thirsty. And ultimately, he died (but was resurrected). This was no mere avatar. This was not just for show. The second person of The Trinity was (is) just as human as I am, yet without sin! (Hebrews 4:15). When Jesus was hungry after fasting for 40 days in the wilderness (see Matthew 4), he was truly physically weak and truly desired food. His stomach truly ached with hunger pangs. This is what made Satan’s temptation to turn stones into bread so alluring, why it was a real temptation that he couldn’t, just easily brush them away like they were nothing. ^[9]The question of whether Christ’s divinity undermines His triumph over temptation is understandably a troubling one. However, I think that the Neo-Apollonarian model of philosopher Dr. William … Continue reading

I don’t think the Logos appearing as a human pre-incarnation cheapens the incarnation at all. This would be like saying that The Holy Spirit’s temporary descent on people like Samson cheapened the permanent indwelling that happened after Pentecost. It’s similar, but not the same thing. Perhaps we could say it was a mere shadow of what was to come.

Other Places Where We Cannot Plausibly Reduce The Figure To A Mere Representative

Genesis 18 is not the only place where a humanoid Yahweh is present.

Example 1: Genesis 22:1-9 – You Have Not Witheld Your Only Son From ME.

Genesis 22:1–9 tells of Abraham taking Isaac to Mount Moriah to be sacrificed at the command of Yahweh. What follows is in verses 10-18;

“And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. And the angel of Yahweh called to him from heaven and said, ‘Abraham! Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here I am.’ And he said, ‘Do not stretch out your hand against the boy; do not do anything to him. For now I know that you are one who fears God, since you have not withheld your son, your only child, from me.’ And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked. And behold, a ram was caught in the thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it as a burnt offering in place of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place ‘Yahweh will provide,’ for which reason it is said today, ‘on the mountain of Yahweh it shall be provided.’ And the angel of Yahweh called to Abraham a second time from heaven. And he said, ‘I swear by myself, declares Yahweh, that because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only child, that I will certainly bless you and greatly multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is by the shore of the sea. And your offspring will take possession of the gate of his enemies. All the nations of the earth will be blessed through your offspring, because you have listened to my voice.” (emphasis mine)

Of this passage, Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser writes “The … reader … knows that the source is not Yahweh per se, but the angel of Yahweh. The word translated ‘angel’ here is the Hebrew word mal’ak , which simply means ‘messenger.’ The next observation is very important. The Angel speaks to Abraham in verse 11, and so is distinguished from God. But immediately after doing so, he commends Abraham for not withholding Isaac ‘from me.’ There is a switch to the first person which, given that God himself had told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22:1–2), seems to require seeing Yahweh as the speaker. Many scholars would say that this is due to the Angel being Yahweh’s mouthpiece, standing in Yahweh’s place as it were. But that idea is conveyed only later in the passage when (v. 16) the angel prefaces his words with ‘declares Yahweh.’ In verse 11 there is no such clarification. The wording of the text blurs the distinction between Yahweh and the angel by swapping the angel into the role of the person who initially demanded the sacrifice as a test—Yahweh himself (Gen 22:1–2). Consequently, the biblical writer had the opportunity to make sure Yahweh and the angel were distinguished, but did not do so.” ^[10]Heiser, Michael S.. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (p. 136). Lexham Press. Kindle Edition.

Example 2: Exodus 23:20-33 – Yahweh Switches Between First and Second Person Plurals When Talking About Himself and His Angel

In Exodus 23:20-33, we read

“See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him. If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you. My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out. Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces. Worship the Lord your God, and his blessing will be on your food and water. I will take away sickness from among you, and none will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a full life span.

I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run. I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way. But I will not drive them out in a single year, because the land would become desolate and the wild animals too numerous for you. Little by little I will drive them out before you, until you have increased enough to take possession of the land.

I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, and from the desert to the Euphrates River. I will give into your hands the people who live in the land, and you will drive them out before you. Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods. Do not let them live in your land or they will cause you to sin against me, because the worship of their gods will certainly be a snare to you.” (NIV)

Of this passage, Matt Foreman and Douglas Van Dorn write “This angel is described in terms intimately connected with Yahweh himself. In vs. 21, God tells the people, ‘Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression.‘ The people are to obey the voice of the angel … because, amazingly, God says that this angel holds the prerogative over forgiveness, has authority to ‘pardon’ or ‘not pardon’ their sins an authority that usually belongs to God alone (see Mark 2:7, ‘Who can forgive sins but God alone?’)! …The angel has this amazing authority, God says, because ‘my name is in him.‘ This is a remarkable statement! … God’s name is a powerful expression of his being and character. When God first appeared to Moses in the burning bush, God had revealed his special name. …. Throughout the Old Testament, God’s name becomes a representation of God himself, almost a personification of God himself. God’s name was an expression of his Person. Then, in vs. 22, it says, ‘But if you carefully obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.’ There is a unified connection between the voice of the angel and what God says. …” (emphasis in bold added) ^[11]Van Dorn, Douglas,Foreman, Matt. The Angel of the LORD: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Study (Kindle Locations 401-423). Waters of Creation Publishing. Kindle Edition. Foreman and Dorn go onto say “As the text continues, God continues ‘to move back and forth between what he will do and what the angel will do,’ as Ryken explains. It goes on in vs. 23, ‘When my angel goes before you and brings you to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, and I blot them out…’ Vs. 25 is most remarkable, ‘You shall serve the LORD your God, and he will bless your bread and your water, and I will take sickness away from among you.”’ Notice the change of subjects! Amazingly, the angel is now apparently called ‘Yahweh your God’! In other words, there is a blurring here of identity. The way the angel is described becomes virtually inseparable from Yahweh himself.” (emphasis in bold added). ^[12]Van Dorn, Douglas,Foreman, Matt. The Angel of the LORD: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Study (Kindle Location 423). Waters of Creation Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Notice that is isn’t merely the repetitious switch from first and third person when God talks about Himself and this angel. That alone might be insufficient to establish their unified identity. Although, again, I do take it to be strong evidence as most messengers of God aren’t talk about this way in scripture, as I have already argued. But especially potent here is that God says “My name is in him”. As Dorn and Foreman said in the quotes above, Yahweh’s name is not just the Tetragrammaton. It is an idiom to denote the presence and power of Yahweh. And in some cases, “The name” of Yahweh almost becomes a way of referring to Yahweh Himself, in personified terms. Here’s one verse that demonstrates this;

Proverbs 18:10 (ESV) “The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous man runs into it and is safe.”

The righteous aren’t running into a group of Hebrew letters that spell out “YHWH” or “El Elyon” to be kept safe. It is The Lord who keeps the righteous safe, through His power, love, and wisdom. ^[13]Compare with my take on Psalm 91 in my recent essay “Psalm 91: Your Battle Anthem Against The Devil.” Dr. Michael S. Heiser has some good material on what he calls “Name theology”. Check the footnote for some free resources ^[14]Dr. Michael S. Heiser, “The Name Of The Lord Is His Presence”, January 31st 2022, YouTube.com –> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wni5PbfVeI, and Dr. Michael S. Heiser, … Continue reading

Example 3: Judges 6:2-24 – Gideon Meets Two Yahwehs

In Judges 6:2-24, we read

“The angel of the Lord came and sat down under the oak in Ophrah that belonged to Joash the Abiezrite, where his son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress to keep it from the Midianites. When the angel of the Lord appeared to Gideon, he said, ‘The Lord is with you, mighty warrior.’ ‘Pardon me, my lord,’ Gideon replied, ‘but if the Lord is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonders that our ancestors told us about when they said, ‘Did not the Lord bring us up out of Egypt?’ But now the Lord has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian.’”’ The Lord turned to him and said, ‘Go in the strength you have and save Israel out of Midian’s hand. Am I not sending you?’

‘Pardon me, my lord,’ Gideon replied, ‘but how can I save Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family.’ The Lord answered, ‘I will be with you, and you will strike down all the Midianites, leaving none alive.’ Gideon replied, ‘If now I have found favor in your eyes, give me a sign that it is really you talking to me. Please do not go away until I come back and bring my offering and set it before you.’ And the Lord said, ‘I will wait until you return.’ Gideon went inside, prepared a young goat, and from an ephah of flour he made bread without yeast. Putting the meat in a basket and its broth in a pot, he brought them out and offered them to him under the oak.

The angel of God said to him, ‘Take the meat and the unleavened bread, place them on this rock, and pour out the broth.’ And Gideon did so. Then the angel of the Lord touched the meat and the unleavened bread with the tip of the staff that was in his hand. Fire flared from the rock, consuming the meat and the bread. And the angel of the Lord disappeared. When Gideon realized that it was the angel of the Lord, he exclaimed, ‘Alas, Sovereign Lord! I have seen the angel of the Lord face to face!’ But the Lord said to him, ‘Peace! Do not be afraid. You are not going to die.’ So Gideon built an altar to the Lord there and called it The Lord Is Peace. To this day it stands in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.” (NIV, emphasis in bold underlining added)

Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser comments on this passage saying;

“This is a fascinating passage. In verse 11 the angel sits down under the oak tree for the conversation. He makes his visible presence known to Gideon in verse 12. There is no indication that Gideon considers his presence at all strange. Gideon’s disgruntled reference to Yahweh in verse 13 makes it clear he doesn’t know the man is Yahweh. The reader, however, knows that, since the narrator has Yahweh taking part in the conversation (vv. 14–16). The scene is reminiscent of the burning bush except that both Yahwehs have speaking roles. This serves to put the two characters on the same level to the reader. That tactic is by now familiar—putting both figures on par to blur the distinction. But in the case of Judges 6, the writer also makes them clearly separate. That there are two clearly separate Yahweh figures becomes more dramatic after verse 19. Gideon asks the man (who is logically the angel of Yahweh) to stay put while Gideon makes a meal for him. The stranger agrees. When Gideon returns, he brings the meal to the tree (v. 19). The narrator has the Angel of God receiving it. Again that’s logical, since the angel had sat there at the beginning of the story. Now comes the shocker. The angel of Yahweh burns up the sacrifice and then leaves (v. 21). But we learn in verse 23 that Yahweh is still there and speaks to Gideon after the Angel’s departure. Not only did the writer blur the distinction between the two figures, but he had them both in the same scene.” ^[15]Michael, S. Heiser, “Who Is the Angel of the Lord and What Is the Name of Yahweh?”, November 22, 2017 — https://blog.logos.com/name-yahweh-angel-lord/

Now, of course, Johnson might want to explain the first-person language in the mouth of The Angel Of The Lord as this being an agent speaking on behalf of the one who sent him. The problem is though, that, again, the narrator himself blurs the distinction of their identity for us. When this figure turns to Gideon, the text says “The LORD turned to Gideon”. It is the LORD who is doing the turning. Again, we never have a human prophet or a created angel described in the narrative in ways that would make us think this is God, when it really isn’t. If the person not only speaks in ways that make it sound like He’s God, but the narrative explicitly tells you “This is The Lord God” multiple times, how else are we supposed to take that? Moreover, there is a point in which I’d ask Johnson and those who follow his train of thought “What evidence would be sufficient for you?” What would the text have to say to make you go “Yes, this is definitely a humanoid Yahweh who is distinct from a disembodied Yahweh?” Because aside from the first person language of the speaker and the narrator telling you “This guy? He’s the Lord. The Lord turned and walked over there. The Lord sat down. The Lord did this. The Lord did that.” I’m not sure what hypothetical features of the text would be sufficient to falsify Option 4. ^[16]It reminds me of when I try to convince Calvinists that all the universal language referring to God’s love and atoning death on the cross are truly universal. What would the text have to say to … Continue reading And again, why don’t we have clear-cut examples of Samuel or Isaiah or Gabriel being called “The Lord” in the narrative text and speaking as if they are Yahweh? The author of 1 Samuel, for example, could have blurred the identity of the prophet Samuel with Yahweh and have him say things in the first person when rebuking Saul or anointing David, for examples. I think the best explanation is that instances like Genesis 18, Genesis 22, Exodus 23, and Judges 6 are bona fide examples of a humanoid Yahweh. And what is shocking from a “left to right” reading perspective is that this implies a two-person Godhead – You have two distinct persons who are both the one God of Israel – long before a single jot or tittle of The New Testament was penned!

And this, then produces a high antecedent probability when we revisit passages like Genesis 16. In a prior episode of The Divine Council Worldview Podcast, Johnson gave his view that this angel is not only not Yahweh, it’s not even one of the good guys. He said that this was an evil angel. While I think that Johnson’s Agent-Representative view could apply to Genesis 16, since the first person language is the only feature of the text that might make you think otherwise, when we take all of these other examples into perspective, examples which are pretty difficult to explain away, that sets a high antecedent probability that the figure who spoke to Hagar in Genesis 16 was also this special theophanic manifestation of Yahweh. If we let scripture interpret scripture, then I think seeing The Angel Of The Lord as the same guy in Genesis 18, Exodus 23 and Judges 6, et. al. is very plausible.

Ronn Johnson’s Exposition Of Genesis 19:24

While Genesis 18, taken in isolation, would give us a theophany, it wouldn’t really do anything to show a two person Godhead theology. We only get that if we combine what we read in Genesis 18 with what we read in Genesis 19. Genesis 19 is exposited by Johnson and Chu in episode 26 of The Divine Council Worldview Podcast. Again, I really like this podcast, and it’s quickly becoming one of my favorite Christian podcasts, and there’s a lot of interesting discussions there. I do recommend it. And this episode in particular had a lot of interesting things, some of which I hadn’t thought of before such as the bizarre case of Lot seemingly willing to hand his daughters over to a gang rapey mob. For our purposes here, we don’t need to review any of that. Rather, I want to zero in on Johnson’s comments concerning the desruction of Sodom and who exactly is responsible for it.

First, Johnson pointed the audience’s attention to Genesis 19:12-14, which says (ESV) “Then the men said to Lot, ‘Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city, bring them out of the place. For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it.’ So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters,” (emphasis mine)

And so, the text clearly does have the angels saying that they would be the ones to destroy Sodom. And yet, later on in the passage, The LORD is the one said to destroy it. Well, which is it? The answer is The Lord, but Johnson’s view seems to be drawing on this concept of agent causation, where the agent stands in the representative position on the one who sent him. And he bolsters his point by appealing to Daniel 4, where the decree for Nebuchadnezzer to lose his sanity and live like an animal for a few months was “by the decree of The Watchers”, and yet The Lord is the one said to have done it. ^[17]Ronn Johnson, Mike Chu, The Divine Council Worldview Podcast, EP026: Genesis 19 & the Destruction of Sodom”, September 23rd 2024, –> … Continue reading Of course, this is Divine Council 101, that God has a council of divine beings who he occasionally consults to get their opinions, cast their votes, and He lets them participate overall in the governing of the cosmos. Yahweh God ultimately gets the veto on everything because He’s sovereign and omniscient (He wouldn’t go with a plan He knows wouldn’t work), but he does let his council members participate.

The problem though is that we already have strong precedent for seeing one of the three men as a humanoid manifestation of Yahweh. A disputable view that depends on a disputable view is very tentative. A lot of this argumentation is building off of what Johnson already previously argued concerning this human figure not being Yahweh, but merely Yahweh’s agent. Since I’ve already given some good reasons to doubt that, and to think there is a “Yahweh on Earth”, that is going to set a higher antecedent probability for a Two Powers reading to follow. But what about the fact that the biblical text clearly does have created angels taking credit for the oncoming destruction? I would answer by merely saying this is a false dichotomy. Yahweh could, through his own divine power, be raining down fire and brimstone, but the angels could also be using their own supernatural abilities as well. It would be like pitting the interpretation that Jesus fed 5,000 people against the interpretation that the disciples fed 5,000 people. Jesus caused the food to multiply, but his disciples discriminated the food. There’s participation with Yahweh, and that’s not at all unexpected on a Divine Council Worldview.

Ronn Johnson later said “I remember in one of the conversations between me and Mike, and I think he even had it in a book somewhere. You have this strange word or strange line where it says in 24, ‘Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah, sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.’ There may be this idea of a two-Yahweh view. What, again, this just is a conversation between friends, but to me this is just a Hebrew way of talking. In 1 Kings 10, you have this line about Solomon, 1 Kings 10:13, ‘And King Solomon gave the queen of Sheba all she desired, whatever she asked, besides what Solomon had given her.’ Well, you just said that. In other words, you can sometimes repeat the name of the person in the story. One other one, it’s even more clear to me, is still Solomon. 1 Kings 8:1. And as I read this, this is almost literal word for word in Hebrew as well. ‘Now Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel, to King Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark.’ So again, Solomon assembled the elders to King Solomon. How many Solomons are in the story? Only one. But the way Hebrew works is sometimes you can say, Ronn went and got the cup of coffee and brought it to Ronn. It’s not, it’s just how Hebrew works. So to me, the 19:24 Genesis story doesn’t mean there’s two Yahwehs…” ^[18]ibid.

This is a forceful point. I want to make it clear to the reader that I don’t think Ronn Johnson’s agent view is silly or stupid, or just really wild and out there. It does carry a level of plausibility. The problem here, is that it less plausible than the view that I, Michael Heiser, Douglas Van Doorn and others take; namely that Yahweh has appeared in human form, and that there is a separate Yahweh in Heaven. And the implausibility comes from a lack of explanatory scope. When a view in any academic field is said to have adequate explanatory scope, it means it can explain all the data or pieces of evidence in need of explanation. Other views might be able to account for some, maybe even half of the pieces of evidence, but it can’t account for all of it. There’s still missing pieces left over. And any view that can account for every piece of evidence is to be the preferred explanation. So, when I debate non-Christians about the case for the resurrection of Jesus. ^[19]And for those who want to hear my arguments for the historical truth of Jesus’ resurrection, I have two books on this topic; one that argues from a Minimal Facts Approach and the other that … Continue reading, I would say that something like The Wrong Tomb Theory could account for the historical fact of the empty tomb, but it doesn’t explain why the disciples, Paul, and even Jesus’ previously skeptical brother James believed that they saw the risen Jesus with their own eyes. This could account for one of the historical facts, but it leaves a lot unexplained.

So in this case, we’ve already presented good arguments for thinking the speaker in Genesis 18 truly is Yahweh. Genesis 19:24 speaks as if there are two Yahweh’s in the scene. “Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven.” (ESV). The Lord drew something from another person called The Lord; fire and brimstone. The Lord from The Lord. Now, if this grammatical argument was all we had to go on, it would be a flimsy case indeed. We could imagine the humanoid Yahweh just raining down fire and brimstone like a Pokemon on the battlefield using Draco Meteor. And as Johnson said, we have oddly phrased passages in scripture that don’t require us to, say, see two Solomons in the scene. However, the argument from grammar is not the only piece of evidence that needs accounting for.

In support of a Trinitarian understanding of the text, we can turn our Bibles to the book of Isaiah where through the prophet, God recounts the Sodom and Gomorrah event. “Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, who will not regard silver; And as for gold, they will not delight in it. Also their bows will dash the young men to pieces, and they will have no pity on the fruit of the womb; Their eye will not spare children. And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, The beauty of the Chaldeans’ pride, will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.” (Isaiah 13:17-19, NKJV, emphasis mine)

God is speaking here. He refers to Himself in the third person when speaking of the time He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. This is what we would expect if Yahweh were two persons in the account. A Yahweh on Earth and a Yahweh in Heaven.

In Jeremiah 50:40, we read “As God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighbors,’ says the Lord, ‘So no one shall reside there, Nor son of man dwell in it.” (NKJV, emphasis mine)

Once again, God is speaking here. He refers to Himself in the third person when speaking of the time He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. This is what we would expect if Yahweh were two persons in the account. A Yahweh on Earth and a Yahweh in Heaven. I think we have to ask: is it really a quirk of grammar that there seem to be two persons in view every time the scriptures refers back to the Sodom event? Once is weird, twice is an unusual coincidence, but three times ought to make us think something more is going on here than a quirk of language. Let’s pretend we had a passage or two in scripture where King Solomon referred back to his gift giving to the queen of Sheba saying, “I will lavish on you all that you desire, whatever you ask, just as King Solomon lavished gifts on the queen of Sheba when she came to visit.” (1 Hypotheticals 1:5, Evan Standard Version) Ok, now you not only have the grammar in 1 Kings 10:13, but you also have Solomon referring to himself in the third person in 1 Hypotheticals 1:5 . This would surely cause us to suspect that maybe there were indeed two men named Solomon in the verse. It isn’t unusual even today for a father to give his son his own name. We might conclude we have a Solomon Jr. in the account. Of course, no such verse exists. I made it up, but the illustration shows that if we have two more verses where God, the one who fried Sodom, refers back to the event and does not use the first person, then that adds to plausibility that there are indeed two persons identified as Yahweh in the account. Johnson might object that the word “Elohim” which is translated as “God” does not always have to mean capital G “God”, but can refer to lowercase g “gods”. And so, Yahweh is simply referring to the work of his angels. The problem is that Jeremiah 50:40 proceeds from “elohim” with the Hebrew word “mahpekah” which is a feminine singular term. ^[20]Bible Hub, “4114: Mahpekah” –> https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4114.htm Since it is a singular term, this means it very likely refers to a singular elohim, which would explain why most English translations go with “God” not “gods”. ^[21]When it comes to the word “Elohim”, the structure of the word is plural. We have words like this in English. “Sheep”. If I just say “Sheep”, you don’t know … Continue reading

There is also a case to be made from the early patristic interpretations. Genesis 19:24 was a common text used by early Christians to show the distinction between the Father and the Son. This is what Justin Martyr said in his written debate with Trypho; “Therefore neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man, saw the Father and ineffable Lord of all, and also of Christ, but [saw] Him who was according to His will His Son, being God, and the Angel because He ministered to His will; whom also it pleased Him to be born man by the Virgin; who also was fire when He conversed with Moses from the bush. Since, unless we thus comprehend the Scriptures, it must follow that the Father and Lord of all had not been in heaven when what Moses wrote took place: “And the Lord rained upon Sodom fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven.” ^[22]Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 127 Earlier he had said, “I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things— above whom there is no other God— wishes to announce to them … If I could not have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of those three [men who met Abram at the Oaks of Mamre in Gen 18] is God, and is called Angel, because, as I already said, He brings messages to those to whom God the Maker of all things wishes [messages to be brought].” ^[23]Justin Martyr, “Dialogue With Trypho”, page 56.

About these two references, Douglas Van Doorn and Matt Foreman write, “The importance of this needs to be apprehended. Justin is using a verse where he sees two Yahwehs, saying that one of them is the Second Person of the Trinity. This is not a NT proof-text but goes back to the very first book of the Bible, which is what you would expect when trying to prove the deity of Christ to a Jew. It also follows perfectly with what we saw the passage do as it shortened ‘The Angel of the LORD’ to simply ‘The LORD.’ If the Fathers are correct, then the author of Genesis knew a Second Yahweh. He knew different Persons to be the LORD. Moses was a Monotheist, but not a Unitarian. Neither were the Patriarchs. For as Vos said, the Angel is the most important form of revelation in their days. They interact with the Angel on a regular basis.” ^[24]Foreman, Matt; Dorn, Doug Van. The Angel of the LORD: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Study (p. 34). Waters of Creation Publishing. Kindle Edition.

And then, of course, you have Philo, who wasn’t even a Christian, seeing two Yahwehs in this passage. Now, granted, Philo was a heavily Hellinized Jew and there is very little evidence that He knew Hebrew. Nevertheless, Philo can’t be charged with motivated reasoning (i.e just wanting to defend The Trinity) like Justin Martyr could.

At the end of the day, I don’t think Genesis 19:24 is the strongest Two Powers text one can appeal to in The Old Testament. No, that crown would have to be worn by Daniel 7:13-14 where The Son Of Man who rides the clouds, and is given an everlasting dominion, is worshipped by people all over the world, and is given glory and sovereign power approached “The Ancient Of Days”. But I think a good case can be made that there are two Yahweh’s there based on everything I’ve said so far.

Finally, you have the antecedent probability of there being two Yahwehs in the text on the basis of Two Powers being established in other places of the canon (e.g Judges 6, Daniel 7:13-14). Reading The Bible wholistically (not just left to right), we have a higher likelihood of Philo’s and Justin Martyr’s (and Michael Heiser’s and Douglas Van Dorn’s) interpretation being correct.

Final Thoughts

I think that when all of the biblical data is taken into consideration, we do have a two-person Godhead in the Old Testament. And I do think Genesis 18-19 is a text that can rightly support an Old Testament Binatarianism. But even if Two Yahweh’s couldn’t be drawn from Genesis 18-19 (which I think it can), at the very least, I don’t think we can get away from this being a theophany. From the perspective of a Christian Apologist, I don’t think we should forfeit the idea of a Binatarian GodHead in The Old Testament so easily. Now, if it’s not in the text, it’s not in the text. The Trinity doesn’t suffer because it can easily be demonstrated from The New Testament at the very least, and The Bible is progressive revelation. We wouldn’t even need 27 more books if God was done speaking after 2 Chronicles. Nevertheless, it seems to me that a good case can be made that God being two persons in one essence is a feature of The Old Testament. In fact Allen F. Segal’s work, “Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism,” argues that the “two powers” view was held by more than just Philo and was a significant enough phenomenon to be condemned as heresy. Early Christians like Justin Martyr saw a GodHead in The Old Testament and used that as an apologetic when evangelizing Jewish people. I think the reason why the early church could get on board with the idea that Jesus was God, and that God was three persons so early on, was that this wasn’t the radical paradigm shift that people make it out to be. The idea of God being two was already an idea floating around and accepted by some, so all the disciples would have to do to modify their doctrine of God is just say that The Second Power became a human, that human was their rabbi, and if there’s Two Powers, then there could be Three Powers. And maybe The Holy Spirit that came upon Samson (Judges 15:14) and hovered over the waters of creation (Genesis 1:2) isn’t just an emanation of God’s power, but is a person in His own right. Thus, for the apostles and the early church, Jesus did bring about a modification in their doctrine of God, but it would not have been as big of a paradigm shift.