Truth Unites - Rabbi Tovia Singer is Wrong About the Trinity

Episode Date: August 12, 2023

In this video I respond to Rabbi Tovia Singer, who argues that the doctrine of the Trinity contradicts the Hebrew Bible and Jewish faith. See Rabbi Singer's Debate with William Lane Craig here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK2-VlSXrbQ Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai. SUPPORT: Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

In this video, I'm going to defend the doctrine of the Trinity from some of the criticisms given by Rabbi Tovia Singer. I remember when I was in high school, I got a series of cassette tapes from Rabbi Singer. I really enjoyed listening to them. He's very intelligent, very powerful speaker. Singer argues that the Trinity contradicts the monotheism of the Hebrew scriptures. I'm going to refer to what Christians called the Old Testament as the Hebrew scriptures for this video. And what I want to argue is that the claim that one God exists in three persons, not only does that not contradict the Hebrew scriptures, it clarifies and elucidates them. It resolves tensions that they create. It is actually the fulfillment of Jewish hope.

Before I dive into this, I'm back. This is my first video after coming back from a sabbatical from YouTube. I had a great time away, great time with my family. So thanks for those of you who prayed about that. and i'm really excited in about one month i'm going to share some big plans for truth unites for this fall i want to talk that through with my patrons first so a couple of weeks keep just stay tuned for that okay in an older debate with william lane crag here is how singer articulates his critique i'm an orthodox rabbi

we believe that the hebrew bible alone is divinely inspired and is absolutely trustworthy and therefore it is these texts that we look to to say What does God say about his nature? What is the Almighty share? And all you do is look at Deuteronomy, chapter 6, verse 4. You know, these are the first words that a little Jewish boy, a little Jewish girl, learn. Hero Israel, the Lord is God, the Lord is one. Why don't we have a clear text anywhere in the Hebrew Bible that gives us the Nicene Creed,

the very clear statement of a triune doctrine? It's found nowhere in the Hebrew Bible. Our salvation depends on worshiping God in truth. So in this video, rather than assume that the New Testament is scripture and argue from that, what I'm going to do is argue just from the Hebrew scriptures because Rabbi Singer and I agree that those scriptures are authoritative for our knowledge of God. And so I'm also going to steer away from philosophical arguments for the Trinity, and other arguments from the Trinity will stick just with the Hebrew Bible.

A bit later, Singer says this. Think about this from what that means from the time of Abraham until the time of the New Testament talking about 2,000 years or from the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai until Christianity of first century to about 1,300 years. The Jews, you can see, knew nothing about our Trinity. God warned the Jews throughout all these centuries, worship me in the truth. You admit that they would have no idea what that truth is. Abraham spoke to God. He didn't speak to a triunity. You believe that if you don't believe in the gospel, you don't have salvation. How is Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, saved without the Trinity?

Isn't it more likely? Isn't it clear that the Trinity was unknown to anyone? And it's a product of a Catholic church, which I frankly am surprised that Protestants follow. Now, the Trinity is part of the common heritage of both Roman Catholic Christians, Protestant Christians, but also various Eastern traditions of Christianity as well. My basic goal in this video is I want to alleviate concern among Christians who are wrestling with this, and basically show we have really solid reasons to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. I'll do that in just a moment, but let me show one final clip toward the end of their debate

where you can see how Singer articulates this critique quite forcefully. The Bible says clearly that God wouldn't play a trick on us, not tell us the truth of his nature, punish us for not worshiping improperly, and then going, ha-ha, I didn't really tell you, here's a Christian Bible 2,000 years later. I mean, honestly, how is Abraham saved? Why would God call him his friend if Abraham didn't worship the Trinity? If Daniel is God's friend, beloved Daniel chapter 9, why would God keep a secret from these great prophets of God?

No, I have basically two responses to Rabbi Singer. Number one, his critique gives too little allowance for progressive revelation. I'll define that in a second. And number two, the Trinity is not a contradiction of the Hebrew Bible, but it's a clarification and fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible. First, too little allowance for progressive revelation. Progressive revelation is just the idea that God doesn't reveal himself all at once. He doesn't dump the knowledge of himself wholesale down to like in one nanosecond, boom, there's everything you need to know. Rather, God's relationship with humanity works the way every other relationship we have works, and that is you get to know

somebody better over time. It's incremental and piece by piece. Now, this is very intuitive. This is very non-controversial. Rabbi Singer himself acknowledges the idea of progressive revelation as such later in that debate, though he strictures it so tightly that it excludes the Trinity. But here's what he asks at one point. I'll put these words up. Very interesting question here. Why don't we have any clear text anywhere in the Hebrew Bible that gives us the Nicene Creed, the very clear statement of trying doctrine? Well, now, the problem here is. here is the flattening of progression in Revelation. You wouldn't expect that degree of clarity prior to the New Testament witness. The Nicene Creed was formulated in response to various heretical

alternative beliefs for how to understand the New Testament witness. By the way, if you have something like an incarnation of God, it's not shocking that that's when you're going to get more clarity about God's triune nature, where one of those persons becomes incarnate. So, you're the Nicene Creed is subsequent to that huge changing event in redemptive history, the incarnation of the Son of God. To expect that degree of clarity that you get hundreds of years after that event way back at the beginning is kind of like asking, well, how was Abraham saved when he didn't have the Torah, the law? Or how was Moses saved when he didn't even know about the Davidic covenant? or how was David saved when he didn't have access to what the post-exilic prophets said?

One of the things William Lane Craig points out in their debate is people are saved based upon not an exhaustive knowledge of God, but a true knowledge of God. And a true knowledge of God is not the same as an exhaustive knowledge of God. People are saved by responding to what God has truly revealed at the time in history in which they live. Progressive revelation is not a trick, as Singer portrays it there, as though God is saying, I got you. That implies that the movement of progression is from false to true. But the movement of progressive revelation is not from false to true, but simply from less clear to more clear. Now, less someone doesn't like this idea of progressive revelation, let me just explain how this is unavoidable.

All Jews and all Christians believe in progressive revelation. And it takes place in significant areas of our theology. For example, consider our doctrine of the afterlife. It seems like it's pretty important information to know what happens when you die. And yet, there's shockingly little about that question in the earlier portions of the Hebrew Bible. So the common claim in higher critical scholarship is that there was no doctrine of the afterlife in the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, the law, and that the notion of an afterlife is a later development that evolves in three stages from no afterlife to a shadowy place called Shaul, the realm of the dead, and there's various views of that.

And then only with during the Babylonian exile toward the latter portion of what we call the Old Testament era, where you get contact with Zoroastrian thought, only then do you get the idea of heaven and hell, bodily resurrection, that kind of thing. that's why you only find that referenced in late Old Testament passages like Daniel 12 too. Even C.S. Lewis compared the state of early Jewish thought about the afterlife to his own pre-conversion state between 1929 when he converted to theism and 1931 when he converted to Christianity. Quote, my training was like that of the Jews to whom he revealed himself centuries before. there was a whisper of anything better or worse beyond the grave than shadowy and featureless

she-oh. Now, in my writing, what I've tried to argue is against this idea in the higher critical scholarship that the afterlife was completely unknown, and I point to early hints like the fate of Enoch to show that the progression here is significant, but it's also organic. It's not from total ignorance to brand new information, but it's rather from a murky, dim hope to a fuller realization. I like the metaphor of from a seed to a flower, because all the way at the front of the Bible, even before the flood story, we had this little clue in the very first genealogy where Enoch walks with God and he was not, for God took him. Now, the words he was not can't simply mean that God killed Enoch or something like that. In context, it's a commendation of him as a

of his walking with the Lord, and that's what we see in Hebrews 11-5, that basically he was taken up so that he should not see death. So if there's no doctrine of the afterlife in early Jewish thought, then where did Enoch go? Why did God take him? And there's other passages I try to point to as well. Psalm 49, 14, and 15 is one where I try to show that the idea of Sheol is not contradictory to the idea of heaven and hell. But nonetheless, there is undeniable progression. It's an organic progression, but from the seed to the flower, you know, it changes. It's not like a surprise, like a gotcha, but it's still a significant growth. And we all have to kind of deal with that. And it makes sense. You know, you wouldn't expect everything to come right away. Okay. Now, Rabbi Singer Strictures

what kind of progressive revelation is allowable at the six minute, 45 second mark of the video that I showed those clips from, if you want to check it out, link in the video description. And he's basically saying, well, progressive revelation can happen, but not with respect to God's commandments and not with respect to essential matters of salvation. But how does he know that? How does he know what where you can have progressive revelation and where you can't? I would say that trivializes the significance of the contributions of the later portions of the Hebrew scriptures. The fact is that from Joshua to Malachi, or if you order those books differently, everything after the Pentateuch, you get a massive amount of information about matters that do concern the saving knowledge of God and the

commandments of God. Just think about the wisdom literature. Think about the prophetical books and all that we learn. Think about what you learn about what it means to fear the Lord in the book of Proverbs. Think about all that Isaiah and Josea teach us about what it means to obey the Sabbath. Think about what we learn about idolatry, its nature, its tendencies, what it is, how to avoid it in books like kings and judges. Imagine if we didn't have Zechariah and Nehemiah and these books in the kind of post-exilic era about covenant renewal and how do we come back to the Lord after the disruption of covenant relationship with him, and on and on we could go. Progressive revelation is a valid category even within the Hebrew Bible. So here's the question.

How does that help us think about the Trinity? First of all, the Trinity is not a contradiction. It's at least not an explicit or obvious contradiction of the prior revelation of God's nature. That's what Singer is saying. He's quoting, you know, Deuteronomy 6-4, the Lord is one. But Trinitarianism is a species of monotheism. The Trinitarian believes the Lord is one. By the way, the word one, Echad there, doesn't require a unipersonal God or a God that's just one person. The same word is used to describe how a man and woman are one flesh in marriage in Genesis 2.23. So I'm not saying that Deuteronomy 6 teaches the Trinity. I'm just saying it's not necessarily incompatible.

You need to determine that from further considerations. The only absolute and clear contradiction would be if the Hebrew Bible said God is not three persons or God is one person. Or God is one person. But it doesn't say that. It just says God is one or one being or there is one God. A Trinitarian agrees with all those kinds of statements. Okay, but not just is it not contradictory. Here's the question.

Is this plausible? Can you see Trinitarianism as a kind of plausible, you know, seed to flower kind of relationship? Is it a plausible progression of the revelation of God? Yes. Yes, very much so. Here's why. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, we have hints. Well, more than hints.

We have little sound points that there is a kind of differentiation or some kind of plurality or some kind of complexity within the one true God. I'm not using the word complex there in a technical way. Let's just say differentiation or plurality within the one true God. And the New Testament revelation of God as a Trinity relates to those hints as a flower relates to a seed. It's like from when the sun starts to rise to the full noonday sun, you see more clearly. If you had explained the doctrine of the Trinity to thoughtful, informed

Bible reading saints throughout the Old Covenant era, as we call it as Christians, I believe they would have replied, oh, that explains a few things, or that explains a lot of things, rather than just rejecting the idea. Let me justify that. Let me give six examples. Some of these I've mentioned previously in a video I put out in response to Michael Lofton on No Salvation Outside the Church. I'll add a couple new ones here. Again, I want to clarify, the claim is not that these passages explicitly teach the Trinity. The claim is they are perplexing and enigmatic until you have the Trinity.

In other words, they're the seed and the Trinity is the flower. The Trinity is a resolving of tension, not a creation of tension. Six examples. Number one, there's this peculiar figure throughout the Old Testament, frequently called the angel of the Lord. He pops up all over the place, and he seems to be portrayed as a divine figure. For example, he receives worship. In Joshua 5, most people think this is the same figure called the commander of the armies of the Lord. And basically, not only does he receive worship, but the ground is made holy because of him such that Joshua has to take off his sandals.

This is a clear echo of God's revelation of himself to Moses in the burning bush in Exodus 3. There's lots of echoes between Moses and Joshua throughout the book of. of Joshua, showing Joshua is the new leader of God's people after Moses. And yet, this isn't just a straight up theophony either, because this figure is referred to as a man. He appears to come in a human-like form. He's got a sword in his hand. And he has the title, the commander of the army of the Lord, which seems to differentiate him from the Lord, because he's the commander of the armies of the Lord. So you say, who is this guy? Who is the angel of the Lord? or the commander of the armies of the Lord.

Well, some say it's an angel, and there's not just one view on this, even among Christians. There are plenty of Christians you can find who will say it's some kind of angel, but the Hebrew scriptures make it plain that only God is to be worshipped. So most Christians see this as some kind of pre-incarnate manifestation of the Son of God. I'll put up Matthew Henry's way of putting this. This is a very common view. At the very least, even if you reject that, there's some kind of plurality or differentiation within God. you get the Trinity, things like this are quite complex, or quite perplexing. And this is what we're

going to see with so many of these messianic passages. I'll put up number two is Psalm 110. Same kind of deal here. You have this kind of puzzling differentiation within God. I'm sure this passage really puzzled the rabbis. You know, you think of 1st Peter 1, where it talks about they're looking ahead, trying to discern the times. I'm sure this was one of those passages that Peter had in mind. Who is this figure differentiated from the Lord, yet nonetheless, Lord over David, verse one, and ruling the nations, verse two, and following. I won't pronounce the divine name here out of respect for Jewish viewers, but I'll just put up verse one with the two distinct Hebrew words used for Lord here on the screen so you can see

the differentiation. Who is this figure, who is the Adonai over David, and is portrayed as this kind of divine king priest through whom God will rule the nations and destroy his enemies? Well, Jewish interpreters frequently say that this is David himself, and that others would recite this Psalm to David. But David is the author of the Psalm. The burden of proof was on you to show that someone else is actually speaking these words. Furthermore, in verse 4, this figure is portrayed as possessing an eternal priesthood, which is very difficult to correlate with David. An eternal priesthood?

This is, of course, the argument Jesus himself makes. David calls him Lord, that is the Adonai in Psalm 110.1, so how is he his son? Third example, very similar. Zechariah 1210, this is a fun one. It must have been, again, very perplexing because in context, the speaker here is the Lord. He's the me who is pierced. And the Hebrew word for piercing here implies a piercing that results in death. So you just wonder, I mean, this is a tough passage. I wouldn't put all my eggs in the basket of this one passage. but I think it's a strong sounding note. There are lots of grammatical complexities going on here. I've talked in other places about how verse 11 is difficult, but the point for us right here is that you have the Lord pierced. How is God pierced?

Well, obviously, if you have a divine, crucified Messiah, that kind of makes sense, and that's what you see the New Testament making that connection in John 1937, as well as probably Revelation 1-7. And I think it's justified to see this because Zechariah actually often will have cryptic, messianic verses that are kind of embedded within. There's all kinds of complexities to prophecy. We won't really get in here into here. I'll put up a few other examples.

But the point is simply this. Until you have the idea of a divine Messiah who's crucified, once you get that idea, this passage makes perfect sense. Until you have that, it's very perplexing. Another prophecy of a divine Messiah is Isaiah 96, where among the titles by which the Messiah is lauded is El-Gibur or Mighty God. Now, Jewish interpreters will often say that this refers to King Hezekiah, because that's what the name means. Mighty God, or you could translate it, God strengthens. But this is a very forced way, I think, to get around the plain language, because in context, mighty God is one of four, appellations, not just telling us his name, but telling us his greatness and describing his reign

and his saving activity for God's people. Why would you have one title that tells you his name, and the other three are describing his saving activity? It just looks linguistically like the Messiah is called God. There's a great commentary on Isaiah that talks about these other translations that try to get around this. And he says, translations like God-like hero are linguistically improbable. sidestepping the implication that the Old Testament looked forward to a divine Messiah. Beyond that, with all due respect to Hezekiah, it seems pretty exaggerated to apply to him the title's everlasting father, or even Prince of Peace, especially in light of the terrible self-centeredness that Hezekiah shows in Isaiah chapter 39.

Is he really the Prince of Peace who basically provokes judgment of God upon future generations? Hezekiah was a great king, but he was a great king. He's not the everlasting Father, not the Prince of Peace. And he's certainly not the everlasting, the mighty God. Number five, Psalm 45, another messianic Psalm, another instance of a kind of differentiation within God. If God is one in a strict Unitarian sense, who is God's God? Now, this is, again, a difficult passage, and even some Christians interpret this as

strictly a reference to David's throne and scepter here. but it seems like God is the one addressed here in verse 6. Your throne, O God is forever, therefore God, your God. And in Hebrews 1, 8, 9, we have some, I would say we can take our cues from the New Testament for how to read this. I'm not assuming that for the sake of argument, but for Christians, you could certainly say that. But here, just from the Psalm itself, you're wondering, why is it speak to God and refer to His God? Well, Christians see this, of course, as a reference to the Son of God, the Messiah, Jesus Christ. If that's wrong, you have to find some other way to explain who is God's God or some other way to read the passage.

It's very perplexing without that. It's like a seed. You wonder, where is this going to, what is this going to blossom into? Last example, Micah 7.9, the prophet says he will bear the Lord's indignation until he, that is the Lord, pleads my case for me. The Puritans used this passage to explicate the doctrine of Christ's intercession. But in terms of strict Unitarian monotheism, to whom does God plead? Once again, perplexing until you get to the Trinity. It doesn't teach the Trinity, but it's the kind of thing that if you're a Jewish rabbi in

the 3rd century BC reading this, you're wondering, hmm, and then once you get the Trinity, say, ah, okay, the seed to the tree. There's other examples. We could talk about Proverbs 8 and the personification of wisdom. That's a fascinating one. Abraham's three visitors in Genesis 18. Again, when you have figures worshipped, you have to take that seriously. Other texts, I think Daniel 714 is a key one, but hopefully those few are sufficient to make the point that the Trinity is plausibly related to Jewish monotheism as its clarification and fulfillment rather than a contradiction to it. So to sum up, two claims here. we don't have to have the Trinity explicitly in the Hebrew Bible because Revelation is progressive. And number two, the Trinity does not contradict the Hebrew Bible. Rather, it's a clarification and elucidation and even fulfillment of the hope of the Hebrew Bible. Those of us who worship the Father of the Son and the Holy Spirit through the Revelation given in Jesus Christ have really good grounds for that belief, not only in the scriptures that come after the birth of Christ,

but even in the scriptures that anticipate the birth of Christ. All right, everybody, thanks for watching. Let me know what you think in the comments. Don't forget to subscribe to my channel, and I've got about, oh, I've planned out about seven or eight videos. I'm really excited to share. The next one will come out in just a couple of days. It's going to be a response video on Mary's Assumption, so that's coming out soon. I'm really excited about that.

So be on the lookout for those. Thanks, everybody.