Chapter XII:
CHAPTER XII: WHICH EMBRACES THE REMAINING ARGUMENTS THAT CAN BE PRODUCED FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT FOR AFFIRMING THE MYSTERY OF THE TRINITY
The distinct classes of statements of the Old Testament in which the mystery of the Trinity is presented.
§ 153. These are the four principal foundations that we cite from the Old Testament to affirm the mystery of the Trinity. In addition, that this entire treatment may be more perfect, we shall divide each and every statement cited from the Old Testament for the Trinity into two classes according to the observation of blessed Luther and Dr. Chemnitz. The first proves the plurality of persons; the second, the trinity of persons in God. The passages of the first group prove the Trinity mediately and indirectly, while those of the second do this immediately and directly.
To the first class belong: (I) Those passages in which Scripture speaks about God in the plural. Passages of this kind can be subdivided into three groups: (1) In some a singular verb is connected with a plural noun, where the latter expresses a plurality of persons and the former the unity of essence: “In the beginning 
” [“God (plural) created (singular)”] (Gen. 1:1). 
, “The Lord God [plural] did not cause [singular] it to rain” (Gen. 2:5). 
Elohim, “God [plural] spoke [singular] with Abraham” (Gen. 17:3). 
Elohim [“God (plural) said (singular)”] (Gen. 35:11), and a little earlier in v. 9: 
[Elohim] “And God [plural] appeared [singular] to Jacob.” “Who is there of all flesh who has heard the voice of 
[God (plural)] speaking [singular] out of the midst of the fire?” (Deut. 5:26). “What one nation on earth is like Your people Israel to whom 
God [plural] went [singular]?” (1 Chron. 17:21).
(2) In some a plural verb is added to a plural noun to denote more expressly the plurality of persons: “And it happened when 
Elohim caused me to wander from my father’s house” (Gen. 20:13). “He called the place 
[“God of Bethel”] because there 
Elohim were revealed to him” (Gen. 35:7). (Calvin in his Comment. and, following him, Socinus in Defens. animadv., p. 132, take both passages to refer to angels. But God had been the author of that pilgrimage for Abraham, Gen. 12:1; and God Himself had appeared to Jacob along the way, and it was for Him also—and not for angels—that Jacob built the altar. Gen. 35:1: “God says to Jacob: ‘Arise, go up to Bethel … and make there an altar to God who appeared to you when you fled from the face of Esau.’ ” Eniedinus is not afraid to say: “Because Abraham was wandering among those heathen nations, he accommodated himself to those nations in this manner of speaking to catch their favor.”) “Who is like Your people Israel, one nation on earth, because of whom 
God went up?” (2 Sam. 7:23).
(3) In some a plural participle used in place of a substantive noun or a plural adjective is attributed to God:
What is all flesh that it should hear the voice of
the living Elohim?” (Deut. 5:26)
You will be unable to serve Jehovah because
Elohim holies He; He is a jealous God. (Josh. 24:19)
No one said, “Where is
God, my Makers, who gives songs?” (Job 35:10)
Surely
Elohim [are] judges on earth. (Ps. 58:[11])
Let Israel be glad
in its Makers. Let the children of Zion rejoice in their King. (Ps. 149:2)
(“Trust
in the mighty [plural] Lord [singular],” Isa. 26:[4]. Epiphanius cites this passage against the Anom., but
can also be an adverb in the construct state, as Pagnini and Arias translated it—“until forever.”)
Thus saith the Lord,
your Makers and your Shaper. (Isa. 44:2)
, Your Makers [are] your husbands. Jehovah Sabaoth is His name. (Isa. 54:5)
, The Lord God, He is truth,
the living [plural] Elohim and the King of the age (or eternal King). (Jer. 10:10)
You pervert the words of Elohim Chaiim, the living God, Jehovah Sabaoth,
our Lords. (Jer. 23:36)
§ 154.31 We explained earlier the exceptions our adversaries have brought out against these passages.
(II) Those passages in which God speaks about Himself in the plural: “
Let Us make man in Our image” (Gen. 1:26). (We explained earlier the statements of the fathers by which they demonstrate that this form of speaking must be referred to the plurality of persons and the exceptions of our adversaries by which they try to weaken the evidence of this passage.) One of our people, having followed Pererius (in Genes., bk. 4, p. 155), adds the passage Gen. 2:18 (“Let Us make a helper for man”), but in the Hebrew this is singular: 
, “I will make . …”
“Behold, Adam has become like one of Us” (Gen. 3:22). Calvin, Comment.: “Christians elicit the doctrine of the three persons from this passage, but an argument of this sort is not at all strong because here ‘Adam’ is included in the word ‘us.’ ” However, note: (1) The use of the plural number. (2) The partitive expression, “has become like one 
of Us.” (3) The relationship with the preceding words. Jehovah Elohim, God, who is one in essence and three in persons, said, “Behold, man has become like one of Us.” However, those whom He addressed surely were those whom He addressed in Gen. 1:26: “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness,” where the consultation of plural persons regarding a purely divine work and the use of a plural verb and pronoun show that this must be taken as a reference to plural and indeed divine persons. “God” has to do with the deceitful promise of the serpent in Gen. 3:5 (“You will be like Elohim”), which becomes clear from the words added—“knowing good and evil.” “In that entire third chapter Jehovah alone is speaking with our first parents. There is no mention of angels except at the end of the chapter, and that ‘Us’ does not include Adam because it is the opposite term.” (4) The confession of Calvin himself, for he admits that in the other passages in which God speaks about Himself in the plural, the mystery of the Trinity is indicated. But the nature of this passage is exactly the same as that of the others. (5) The testimony of the other Calvinists. In his Comment., observ. 33, Piscator calls this “the most obvious witness of the plurality of persons in the essence of God, namely, of the Holy Trinity.” (6) The consequence of absurdity. For the partitive “one of us” cannot be referred to Adam nor to the angels without absurdity. (7) The explanation of the Targum
Hierosolymitanum: “And the word of the Lord God said: ‘Behold, Adam is like one of Us.’ ” (See Justin, Dial. cum Tryph.)
“Come, let Us go down and confuse their language” (Gen. 11:[7]). Philo (
) says that God spoke to the angels not as protectors but as punishers. Again, Eniedinus judaizes: “God could have caused this confusion of languages through one or more angels, just as the destruction of the Sodomites.” Yet in v. 5 God Himself is said to have gone down and, in v. [9], to have confused the languages. “ 
The Most High separated the sons of men” (Deut. 32:8). Theodoret is correct in his commentary: “In the plural He confused the language, indicating the number of the persons of the Trinity.” Calvin is forced by the power of truth to admit: “From this it is proved not clumsily that several persons exist in the one essence of God.” For observe: (a) The use of the plural number, 
[“Let Us go down and let Us confuse”]. (b) The mutual exhortation 
, “Come [plural],” which word is used in the same chapter (v. 4) to refer to the many builders of the tower of Babel (“Come, let us build ourselves a city”). (c) The expression of the divine work, “Let Us go down and confuse their language.” But that confusion of languages is a purely divine work: “Jehovah confused their lips” (v. 9). Therefore God is not addressing angels but the persons of the Godhead.
“I heard the voice of the Lord saying: ‘Whom shall I send? Who will go for Us?’ ” (Isa. 6:8). Everywhere the sending of prophets is attributed to the true God alone. Therefore God is not addressing the angels but the persons of the Trinity. Eniedinus objects: “Here in reference to one and the same singular, sometimes the singular and sometimes the plural is used in a mixture: ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?’ ” Lyra responds: “Only the Holy Spirit is speaking here and, in fact, to Himself at first: ‘Whom shall I send?’ Then He addresses the entire Trinity.” This is because the sending of the prophets and apostles is attributed to the Holy Spirit uniquely (Acts 13:2), and He is even said to speak “by the prophets” (2 Sam. 23:2; Acts 1:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). He is effective through the ministry of the Word preached by the apostles, prophets, and other teachers of the Church (Gen. 6:3; John 16:8; 1 Cor. 2:4; 2 Cor. 3:3; etc.). We respond more simply that the plural and singular are by no means being mixed nor do they signify the same thing in every respect, but that the former expresses the trinity of persons and the latter the unity of the divine essence (just as in the words of Christ that “I and the Father are one,” John 10:30, the unity of essence is expressed by “one” and the distinction of persons by “are”).
Some add the passage of the prophet Isaiah (41:22): “Let them come and tell us what is to happen. Tell us what the former things were.” However, it is more correct to refer these words to the prophet speaking in the name of the church, for this is added: “And we shall place our heart and know the latter end of them. Declare to us the things to come hereafter, and we shall know that you are gods.” In Not. ad quaest. 1. Athan., Reuchlin adds the passage Mal. 1:6, where God speaks of Himself in the plural: “If I am 
Lords, where is My fear?”
§ 155. (III) Those passages in which Jehovah speaks about Jehovah and the Lord [speaks] about the Lord. In these passages we gather that the plurality of persons is being signified because the utterly simple unity of essence confirmed in other passages of Scripture does not permit this form of speaking to refer to a plurality of essence. In Gen. 9:16 God says to Noah: “There will be a bow in the cloud, and I shall see it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature.”
Gen. 19:24: “The Lord rained brimstone and fire from the Lord upon Sodom.” In his commentary, Vatablus believes that this phrase is a Hebraism that signifies that “the Lord Himself stirred up this fire from the skies.” Calvin claims the same thing in his commentary and says: “It is not at all certain that the fathers tried to prove the divinity of Christ with this testimony. Those are, in my judgment, causing an uproar without reason who harass the Jews quite fiercely because they do not admit this kind of proof, though the advice of Moses raises and sharpens the eyes of his readers to look at the hand of God.” Ostorodt cites and approves this explanation of Calvin in his Disput. German., Trad. oppositae, part 2, c. 5.
We press, however: (1) the clear distinction of Jehovah the Son from Jehovah the Father. “Jehovah rained from Jehovah.” Therefore it is one person who rained, the Son, but it is in turn another person from whom He rained, the Father—for the unity of the divine essence proved elsewhere keeps another God from being introduced.
(2) The emphatic addition of the preposition, “The Lord rained 
Jehovah,” where 
is not the article that indicates the accusative case but the preposition that means “with,” which exerts its meaning added to the preposition
[“from”]. Therefore it gives an emphatic sound to the words “The Lord rained down from with Jehovah,” to signify that the Lord rained both from Jehovah and with Jehovah. Ps. 118:23: “This has happened from with the Lord.”
(3) A comparison with other passages of Scripture. John 5:19: “The Son can do nothing of His own accord but only what He has seen the Father doing.” Therefore the assertion of Moses that “He rained from Jehovah” refers to Him who witnesses that He can do nothing from Himself. V. 17: “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” V. 22: “The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son.” But he is describing in this passage [Gen. 19:24] the judiciary action of God the Father against the Sodomites. Therefore the Son should not be excluded from it. Amos 4:11: “I overthrew you as when Elohim overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.” Yet Elohim indicates plural persons. Jer. 50:40: “As when Elohim overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah,” etc. We also add those passages of Scripture in which Jehovah speaks to Jehovah and Jehovah sends Jehovah, where [only] one person cannot be understood. Therefore as Jehovah who speaks is distinguished from Jehovah to whom the words are addressed and Jehovah who sends from Jehovah who is sent, so the Jehovah who rains is personally distinguished from the Jehovah from whom it rains.
(4) The Aramaic version. The Targum Hierosolymitanum reads: “The Word of Jehovah was sending down upon the people of Sodom and Gomorrah gentle rains, if they perhaps would repent from their evil works. And when they saw those gentle rains, they said, ‘Undoubtedly our wicked works have not yet been uncovered before the presence of Jehovah.’ Therefore the Word of the Lord came back again and sent down upon them fire and brimstone from the face of Jehovah down from the heavens.” The Targum Jonathan: “The Word of Jehovah sent down gentle rains upon Sodom and Gomorrah that they might repent. And they did not repent because they said: ‘Our evil works have not been revealed before Jehovah.’ Therefore fire and brimstone were sent upon them from the Word of Jehovah down from the heavens.” But sending fire and brimstone that they be turned back to God, etc., are actions befitting persons. Rabbi Eleazar (as cited by Galatino in bk. 2, c. 6), Beresith Rabba, on Genesis 19 (“And God rained,” etc.): “In every passage of Scripture where the Tetragrammaton is used, God Himself and the house of His judgment is always understood.” Furthermore, Galatino proves that “the house of His judgment” means the Trinity because it took three at the minimum to render a sentence.
(5) The consensus of Christian interpreters. Irenaeus, bk. 3, c. 5, p. 175: “In the destruction of the Sodomites Scripture says: ‘And the Lord rained upon Sodom fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven.’ This signifies the Son, who also spoke with Abraham and had received from His Father the power to judge the Sodomites because of their sins.” Justin (Dial. cum Trypho., p. 215) concludes from this passage that “besides Him who is comprehended by our understanding to be the Father of all, someone else is properly being called ‘Lord.’ ” The Council of Sirmium, canon 16, according to Socrates (Hist., bk. 2, c. 30): “If someone understands that ‘the Lord sent rain … from the Lord’ does not refer to the Father and the Son but would say that He sent rain from Himself, let him be accursed, for the Lord the Son sent rain from the Lord the Father.” We find similar things in Ignatius (Epist. ad Antioch.), Hilary (De trin., bk. 4), Epiphanius (Adv. haeres.), Cyril (Contra Julian., bk. 1), Augustine (Quaest. in Gen., bk. 1, q. 59), etc.
§ 156. The Photinians object, saying: (I) “The Hebrews often use the antecedent in place of the personal pronoun.” “Solomon summoned the elders of Israel to King Solomon” (1 Kings 8:1), that is, to himself. “King Solomon gave to the queen of Sheba all that she desired according to the hand of King Solomon” (1 Kings 10:13). “Rehoboam gathered all the house of Judah … to restore the kingdom to Rehoboam” (1 Kings 12:21). From the New Testament they add 1 Cor. 1:7–8; 1 Thess. 1:9; 2 Thess. 3:5; 2 Tim. 1:18. They try to prove that the same thing is being observed when God is being discussed. They do this on the basis of: “God created man after the image of God” (Gen. 1:27; 5:1). “Jehovah was revealed to Samuel at Shiloh according to the word of Jehovah” (1 Sam. [3:21]). “Does Jehovah want burnt offerings and sacrifices and not rather that one obey the voice of Jehovah?” (1 Sam. 15:22). “The priests were unable to enter the temple of Jehovah because the majesty of Jehovah had filled the temple of Jehovah” (1 Kings 8:11; 2 Chron. 7:2). [All this is from] Eniedinus, Explicat. loc.; Schmalz, Contra Schopp., de trin., p. 9.
We respond. This empty subterfuge cannot be applied to the other passages of Scripture in which Jehovah speaks to Jehovah and also in which Jehovah is sent by Jehovah, where anyone at all understands that distinct persons are being expressed. In Isa. 48:[16] Jehovah says: “Jehovah and His Spirit have sent Me.” A paraphrase will read like this: “I have sent Myself, and My Spirit has sent Me.” Zech. 2:8: “He Himself has sent Me,” that is, “I have sent Myself.” The very letter clearly confirms our opinion, for it is one who rains and another from whom it rains. To this pertain the other foundations brought out in support of our position.
(II) The Photinians make the exception: “Everywhere in Holy Writ the overthrow of Sodom is attributed to God the Father, not to the Son: Jer. 50:40; Amos 4:11; 2 Pet. 2:6.” We respond. As the Father is not outside nor without the Son, so also He does not work outside nor without the Son but through the Son. In fact, the Father is of one essence and power with the Son. Nazianzen says in reference to the works of God that are called “external [ad extra]”: “That which acts is one Deity common to the three” (Orat. 5. de theolog.). Furthermore, in prophetic statements we have the word Elohim, which expresses plural persons.
(III) They make the exception that “the word ‘God’ is emphatic and means increase and greatness. Thus the ‘fear of Jehovah’ and ‘the sleep of Jehovah’ (2 Chron. 20:29; Gen. 35:5; 1 Sam. [26]:12) are taken as great and vehement; ‘the fire of Jehovah’ (Num. 11:1) as great and vehement; ‘the wind from Jehovah’ (v. 31), that is, great and vehement. So also here, ‘Jehovah’ is an epithet for fire and brimstone.”
We respond. (1) This exception militates against the first, for the vehement effect of God is not true God Himself. (2) This exception would have some attractiveness if the fire and brimstone were called “the fire of God” and “the brimstone of God,” just as elsewhere things are called “the cedars of God,” “the mountains of God.” Yet Moses says far differently: “Jehovah rained fire and brimstone from Jehovah,” where the name “Jehovah” is related not to the noun but to the verb “rained.” (3) In 2 Chron. 20:29 and Gen. 35:5, the word “Jehovah” is not present but rather Elohim, which at times is attributed also to creatures. Therefore to this point there is a disparity. (4) In those passages, the word Elohim is not taken adjectivally, so as to extend the meaning, but substantively, to express the efficient cause, God Himself, by whom that terror was sent and from whom that fire came down. (Cf. Gen. 35:5; Exod. 23:27; Deut. 11:25.) (5) In 1 Sam. 16:13 it is not a vehement wind but the Spirit of the Lord who is said to have rested upon David, which must be understood as referring to the Holy Spirit, as is evident from other passages of Scripture. (6) The vehemence and uniqueness of that fire are denoted by the added section “from heaven” so that we understand that this was a unique, heavenly rain. (7) According to this hypothesis the word “Jehovah” would have a different meaning in one and the same sentence.
(IV) They make the exception: “In the first passage the angel is called Jehovah—the angel whom God had sent to destroy Sodom, who represented Jehovah, who brought down fire and brimstone from the true God Himself, whose ambassador He was.”
We respond. (1) This exception also conflicts with the first because a created angel is not true God Himself. (2) The name “Jehovah” belongs to the true God alone, as we proved in its own place. (3) This exception labors under the same absurdity as the third, namely, that the name “Jehovah” takes on a diverse meaning in one and the same sentence. (4) In Defens. animadv., p. 304, Socinus admits that Jehovah Himself, not the angels, destroyed Sodom with fire and brimstone, which rained down from heaven. He says: “The angels then say that they were sent by Jehovah to destroy that place not because they themselves were actually going to destroy it—for Jehovah Himself did that with brimstone and fire sent from heaven—but because Jehovah both was using and would continue to use their services to prepare the place for destruction after Lot and his household had been led out from there,” etc. (5) Moses never speaks in the singular but always in the plural with reference to the two angels sent to Sodom (Gen. 19:1ff.). And from v. 19 to v. 23 Lot is no longer speaking with the two angels who were the companions of the Son of God but directly with the Son of God Himself, who had come to this conference with the angels, as all the circumstances show. For he invokes Him and gains his request that the town of Zoar be spared, etc. Therefore He is the Jehovah who rained from Jehovah.
§ 157. In Exod. 11:3 the Lord is speaking about the Lord, Jehovah about Jehovah, saying that He “will give favor to the people in the sight of the Egyptians”32 to lend them golden vessels. Exod. 16:7: “In the morning you will see the glory of Jehovah because He has heard your murmurings against Jehovah.” In Exod. 23:20 Jehovah says that He will send an angel in whom is His name. For this reason He is called “the face of Jehovah.” In Exod. 24:1 the Lord says to Moses: “Come up to the Lord.” In Exod. 30:16 the Lord commands that the atonement money be given “as a remembrance before the Lord.” In Exod. 33:19 the Lord says to Moses: “I shall make all My goodness pass before you, and I shall call in the name of Jehovah before you.” Exod. 34:5–6: “Jehovah descended in the cloud and stood there with Moses and called in the name of Jehovah. And Jehovah passed before him and cried: ‘The Lord, the Lord God, merciful,’ ” etc. Num. 14:21: “As I live, says the Lord, the glory of the Lord will fill all the earth.” (Cf. Isa. 6:4; John 12:41.) In 2 Sam. 5:23–24 the Lord said to David: “You shall come upon the enemies from opposite the mulberry trees. And when you hear the sound of marching in the tops of the mulberry trees, then you will move, for then Jehovah will go out ahead of you.” 2 Sam. 7:11: “Jehovah declares to you that Jehovah will build you a house.” Ps. 45:[7]: “God, Your God has anointed You with the oil of gladness.” (Cf. Heb. 1:9.) Ps. 110:1: “The Lord said to My Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand.’ ” (Cf. Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; etc.) The Targum Onkelos: “The Lord said to His Word.” Midrash Tillim on Psalm 17: “It will happen that the holy and blessed God will cause the King Messiah to sit at His right hand, just as it was said: ‘The Lord said to My Lord.’ ” Isa. 44:6: “Thus said the Lord the King of Israel 
and His Redeemer the Lord of hosts.” Isa. 60:19: “The Lord will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory.” Jer. 23:5; 33:15: “Behold, the days are coming, says Jehovah, and I shall raise up for David a righteous shoot … and this is His name by which they will call Him: ‘Jehovah our righteousness.’ ” Dan. 9:17: “Hear, our God, the prayer of your servant for the sake of the Lord.” In Hosea 1:7 the Lord says: “I shall have pity on the house of Judah, and I shall save them in the Lord their God.” Zech. 2:8ff.: “Thus says the Lord of hosts: After the glory He sent Me to the nations who plundered you, for he who touches you touches the apple of My eye. Behold, I shall lift up My hand over them, and they will be plunder for their servants. And you will know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Me. Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion, because, behold, I shall come and I shall dwell in the midst of you, says Jehovah. And many nations shall be gathered to Jehovah on that day, and they will be My people, and I shall dwell in the midst of you. Then you will know that Jehovah of hosts has sent Me to you.” Zech. 3:2: “And Jehovah said to Satan: ‘May Jehovah rebuke you, O Satan! May Jehovah, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you!’ ”
§ 158. (IV)33 Those passages in which mention is made of the Son of God, for it is necessary that He be true God, otherwise He will not be the proper and natural Son of God. Ps. 2:7: “I shall tell of the decree that Jehovah said to Me: ‘You are My Son; today have I begotten You.’ ” This psalm speaks in the literal sense not about David but about Christ. This is shown: (1) By the aim and argument of the psalm. It deals with the doctrine of the person of the Messiah and His prophetic and royal office, and with the fortune of His kingdom in this world.
(2) It is shown by the entire context and individual parts. (a) For it is not against David but against Christ, the Son of David, and His Gospel that the heathen have raged; that is, the whole world has conspired against Him. (b) Christ alone is described in Holy Scripture in such a way that He was established as the “King of Zion” (Zech. 9:9); that “He sent forth the scepter of His kingdom,” that is, the preaching of the Gospel, “from of Zion” (Ps. 110:2); that He is “the salvation given from Zion” (Ps. 14:7). There is a prophecy about Christ in Isa. 59:20: “The Redeemer will come to Zion.” Isa. 52:7: “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who preaches the Gospel … who says to Zion: ‘Your King has reigned.’ ”(Cf. Ps. 74:2; 76:[2]; Joel 3:[2]; Mic. 4:7; etc.) (c) Christ alone is the natural and proper Son of God begotten of the Father “today,” that is, from eternity. (d) To Christ alone have been promised the inheritance of the whole world and the possession of dominion (Ps. 8:[6]; 72:5; Isa. 49:6). However, David never received the nations as his inheritance. He subdued the neighboring peoples in war and subjected them to himself, but his kingdom was closed in by much less than the limits of the whole world. But it is this breadth of the kingdom, of which the psalm speaks, that is clearly promised. (e) The power of life and death, to be able to save and destroy, belongs neither to David nor to any man but to Christ alone (Acts 10:42; 17:31; Rom. 14:10). (f) Least of all can we apply to David what is said at the end of the psalm: “Blessed are all those who trust in Him.” (Cf. Jer. 17:5.)
(3) It is shown by the consensus of the apostles in the New Testament, who expressly and clearly apply this psalm to Christ (Acts 4:25; 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5; Rev. 2:27; 19:15).
(4) It is shown by the approval of the ancient Jews. You see, if the early Jews had been persuaded that this psalm was speaking about David, they would have objected to Paul and the rest of the apostles when they applied it to Christ. Lyra, from Rabbi Salomon: “Our teachers explained this psalm as referring to the King Messiah, by which Christ is understood, who was promised in the Law and the prophets.” (Cf. the Midrash Tillim and the testimonies of the other rabbinic scholars on this psalm. See the Disput. Giessens., vol. 4, disp. 5, pp. 117, 131, 247, and in our Commonplaces, On the Three Elohim [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 4], § 9.)
Ps. 72:17: “His name was begotten [filiatum] before the sun,” for Burgensis explains the word 
in this way. He also witnesses that the ancient Hebrews taught that “Yinnon is one of the names of the Messiah” and that they counted this psalm among the prophecies of the Messiah. (See vol. 4, Disput. Giessens. 5, p. 118.)
Ps. 89:[26–27]: “He will cry to Me: ‘You are My Father, My God, and the rock of My salvation.’ I shall make Him the firstborn, the highest among the kings of the earth.” The rabbinic scholars themselves admit that this passage must be taken to refer to the Messiah. For thus Rabbi Nathan writes on Exodus 13 (“Consecrate to Me all the firstborn”): “Just as I made Jacob the firstborn, so I shall make the King Messiah the firstborn, as it says in the psalm: ‘I shall make Him the firstborn, the highest among the kings of the earth.’ ”
Prov. 30:4: “Who ascends into heaven and comes down? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name and what is His Son’s name? Surely you know!” Mercier takes this as a reference to power in this sense: “What man will be able to accomplish such things that are mentioned? Will you ever be able to name someone or designate someone by your name or by your son’s name?” But the aim and complete context show that the discourse refers not to power but to knowledge. You see, the words are expressly added, “Surely you know!” The meaning, then, is “Surely you know His or His Son’s name who works such things in nature.” Later, it is added in v. 5: “Every saying of God is purified. … Do not add to His words,” etc., so that from the revealed Word alone the name of God and of His Son is signified. That is, one must seek the true knowledge of God the Father and of His Son from it alone. Furthermore, those questions cannot be understood to refer to the power of man because, in accomplishing those actions that are listed, the ability of man is clearly nothing. Also, in Holy Scripture parents are not named from their children but, vice versa, children from their parents.
§ 159. The Jews refer this to Moses. Yet: (1) Neither Moses’ nor his son’s name was unknown, for to Moses two sons were born in the land of Midian, and their names are expressed in clear words. They were called Gershom and Eliezer (Exod. 2:22; 18:3). (2) “Every creature is capable of being named,” as the Damascene argues correctly from the ancients. However, as the divine essence is incomprehensible, so also is it nameless. Therefore Agur [in Proverbs 30] is speaking neither about Moses nor about any human but about God alone and the Son of God. (3) They cannot attribute to Moses the miracles of nature that are listed nor do ascending into heaven and descending from it befit him. (4) The exclamation set ahead of the questions shows that Agur is looking at something more lofty, for he arranges the wording in this way: “I have not learned wisdom nor have I known the knowledge of the saints” [Prov. 30:3]. That is, though I have learned many things in the realm of nature, nevertheless in the divine mysteries I did not learn the wisdom of the saints from myself and from the native powers of my own reason outside of and beyond the revealed Word—what the name of God and of His Son is. Consequently, Lyra comments on this passage: “The philosopher cannot say this because he does not have a knowledge of the Godhead except from creatures, which the divine essence surpasses infinitely. And the distinction of Father and Son in the Godhead could never be known through human wisdom, though one does know it through divine wisdom.”
Therefore the words of the wise Agur are correctly and simply taken to refer to the Son of God. This proves: (a) His true divinity, because the works that are attributed here to the Son of God are purely and truly divine works that pertain to the article of creation, as is clear from parallel passages of Scripture (such as Job 38:5ff.; Isa. 40:12; Jer. 5:22; and in many other places). Also, He whose name is unspeakable is the true God.
(b) His personal distinction from the Father, because He is distinguished from the Father by the name “Son” and because there is no question whether God has a Son; rather, it is presupposed that He does have one.
(c) His consubstantiality with the Father, because the name of both the Son of God as well as of God Himself is said to be unspeakable and unutterable. Surely, then, a unity of essence exists between the Father and the Son. (Cf. parallel passages in Gen. 32:29 and Judg. 13:[18], where the Son of God says: “Why do you ask My name, which is wonderful?” And this, too, pertains to the demonstration of this consubstantiality and equality of the Son with the Father: the name and knowledge of the Father and of the Son are most closely joined, for because the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father—because the Father and the Son are one—so also “no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 1:18; 6:46; etc.).
For this reason the earlier rabbinic scholars themselves have taken this passage as referring to the Son of God. Rabbi Moses Hadarsan, on Genesis 44, on the words “And we said to my lord, ‘We have an old father, and the child of his old age,’ ” here says:
It is written: “Who ascends to the heavens and descends? Who gathers the wind [spiritum] in His palms? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son’s name?” Who ascends into heaven and descends? The holy and blessed God ascends into heaven and descends, as it says in Job 28: “Binding the waters in His clouds.” Here Scripture teaches us to say: The old father is His name, and the child of His old age is the name of His Son.
So much for the tradition in which God the Father is called an “old man” because He had no beginning nor will He ever have an end and the Son is called “the child of His old age” because He is begotten from Him from eternity.
§ 160. Here belong those passages of Scripture: (1) In which the eternal begetting of the Son from the essence of the Father is being discussed, for by reason of that begetting He is called the “Son of God.” (2) In which Jehovah is said to send the kind of angel to whom is attributed the name “Jehovah” or purely divine works or divine worship. For then the word “angel” is understood to mean not a created angel (to which these predicates do not belong—neither individually nor universally) but the uncreated Son of God. We spoke of this earlier.
§ 161.34 To the latter class of testimonies belong these passages of Scripture: (I) Passages in which the three distinct persons of the Godhead are enumerated: Gen. 1:1–2: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth by saying,” that is, through the Word, “and the Spirit of the Lord was brooding upon the waters.” We provided the explanation of this passage earlier.
In Exod. 31:1, “the Lord speaks to Moses,” and v. [3] says that Bezalel was filled “with the Spirit of God” (of His Son).
2 Sam. 23:2: “The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me, and His Word is upon my tongue.” For a clear explanation of this passage, see Luther’s treatise De novissimis verbis Davidis, vol. 8, German edition of Jena.
Ps. 33:6: “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made and all their host by the Spirit of His mouth.” For the explanation of this passage, see above.
Ps. 45:[7]: “Therefore God Your God has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows.” Here there is mention of Him who anoints, that is, God the Father; of Him who is anointed, that is, God the Son; and of Him with whom the anointing is done, that is, the Holy Spirit of God. Weidner applies this a bit differently in his Loc. fidei Christian., where he says: “Because the name ‘God’ is doubled or said twice on the part of God who anoints—when he says, ‘God, Your God, has anointed You’—he wanted to denote the person of the Father and the person of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit by which the Son was anointed.”
Ps. 105:4: “Seek the Lord and His strength and His face always.” The “face of God” is understood to mean the Son of God, as we taught above from Exod. 33:14. The “strength of God” is understood to mean the Holy Spirit, as is concluded from a comparison of Matt. 12:27 and Luke 11:20.
Ps. 143:10 in the Aramaic paraphrase: “I have established Your Word as Redeemer. O Lord, teach me to do Your will and let Your good Spirit lead me in the right path.”
In Isa. 42:1 the heavenly Father says to His Son, who in the fullness of time would come to minister: “Behold, My servant, My chosen, in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him.” (Cf. Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Luke 4:18, where the explanation is set forth.)
In Isa. 48:16 the Messiah, the Son of God, says: “Draw near to Me and hear this. From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time it came to be I have been there. And now Adonai Jehovah, and His Spirit, has sent He.” V. 17: “Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.” Jerome comments on this passage: “When the Father was creating all things, He (the Son) was with Him, and the Father rejoiced in Him. Now the Son also says: ‘I who have always been with the Father and in the Father and have never been without the Father—even now do I speak and according to the frailty of the assumed flesh I say that the Lord God, and His Spirit, has sent Me.’ In this brief verse the mystery of the Trinity is revealed to us.”
§ 162. Socinus makes the exception: (1) “The authority of Jerome cannot be used against me because he was a sworn enemy of the Photinian opinion and violently and shamelessly twisted passages of Scripture to prove the Trinity” (Defens. animadv., p. 311). We respond. We set against our adversaries not so much the authority of Jerome as the evidence and explanation of the prophetic text given in the New Testament in John 18:20. Not only Jerome but the entire chorus of the teachers of purer antiquity—in fact, of the prophets and the apostles—are the sworn enemies of the Photinians. Therefore will they not allow the authority of these people to be set against them?
(2) “With the expression ‘mystery of the Trinity’ Jerome in this passage could have understood not that there are three persons in God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—but that those three concur in the mystery of our salvation.” We respond. There is no need for doubtful conjectures as to what Jerome meant by “the mystery of the Trinity” because he has explained his opinion clearly in other places. Jerome’s adversary is accusing him of this: that “he has violently and shamelessly twisted passages of Scripture to prove the mystery of the Trinity.”
(3) “The words ‘Thus says Jehovah, your Redeemer,’ etc., belong not to the words that precede but to those that follow.” We respond. On the contrary, they can and should be referred to those that precede, as is clear from John 18:20 where Christ, our only Redeemer, says: “I have spoken nothing in secret.”
(4) “He who is speaking here is someone and Jehovah, or God, is someone else, for he who is sent is undoubtedly speaking, and as he had said before that he had been sent by Jehovah, so also he had openly admitted that he was not Jehovah. Thus he is speaking about Jehovah, or God, as about someone other than himself. In fact, he speaks about Him in the third person and recites the words that contain his mission as reciting the words of a third person.” We respond. What a brilliant proof! He who sends is Jehovah; therefore He who is sent is not Jehovah! The Messiah is speaking here about Jehovah as another or distinct person. Therefore the Messiah is not Jehovah! But on the contrary, both sender and sent are Jehovah, as the evidence of the text shows quite clearly. The Messiah is speaking about Jehovah who is distinct from Himself not with respect to essence but with respect to person. Socinus objects in vain that “this response begs the question,” for because Scripture distinguishes the sent Jehovah from the sending Jehovah and yet clearly indicates that Jehovah is one, it certainly forces us to refer the former to the personal distinction and the latter to the essential unity.
§ 163. We go on, however, to the other passages of Scripture that belong to this class. In Isa. 61:1 the Messiah, the Son of God, says: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me because Jehovah has anointed Me,” etc. (Cf. Luke 4:1; John 3:34, where the explanation is given. Here the Word of God whom God sent is speaking because God does not give His Spirit by measure.)
Isa. 63:7–10: “I shall recount the mercies of Jehovah. And He said, ‘Surely, they are My people. The Angel of My face saved them.’ But they grieved His Holy Spirit.” See the explanation given above.
Hag. 2:[4–5]: “Behold, I am with you, says Jehovah of hosts. The Word that I covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt and My Spirit will be in your midst.” God the Father makes the promise to His Church of His own presence along with Christ the Mediator and the Holy Spirit. Junius and Tremellius render it: “The statement of Jehovah of hosts: ‘With the Word that I had covenanted with you,’ that is, in whom, through whom, and for the sake of whom I had accepted you and taken you into My covenant. For this reason He is also called ‘the Angel of the covenant’ (Mal. 3:1).”
Hag. 2:[5]: “And My Spirit abides with you. Fear not.” The word 
often is used in place of the preposition “with.”
§ 164. (II) Passages in which the name “Jehovah” and “God” is said three distinct times, for there the three persons of the Godhead are indicated in a way of revelation harmonious with the Old Testament. We have listed those statements in our disputation on the benediction of Numbers 6.
(III) Passages in which the word “holy” is repeated three times in hymns by the angels and the elect, such as Isa. 6:3 and Rev. 4:8. The matter was discussed in detail in the Disp. public. Liseriana.
(IV) Passages in which the Lord speaks about the Lord and God speaks about God, for when the two persons are named at the same time, the person of the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture is included at the same time. (See 2 Sam. 23:2; 2 Pet. 1:21; 2 Tim. 3:16.)
(V) Here some of the ancients refer the divine appearance made to Abraham in the three men (Genesis 18). For because it says “Jehovah” appeared to Abraham and later the addition is made that Abraham saw “three men” and that he addressed and worshiped one of them, they conclude that God appeared to Abraham in three distinct persons. Sozomen reports: “In memory of the appearance that happened near the oaks of Mamre, Jews, Gentiles, and Christians were accustomed to gather there annually. There each performed their sacred ceremonies according to their own ritual” (Hist., bk. 2, c. 3).
However, one cannot draw any solid argument from that appearance: (1) Because the ancients were not yet agreed on who those three men were who appeared to Abraham. The Hebrews mingle together here two appearances and, therefore, explain the words at the beginning of the chapter (“And Jehovah appeared to him”) as a theophany, but the rest as relating to an appearance of angels. Yet we must not allow them to wickedly tear apart the connected words, for why would Moses explain a summary of the entire account and say at the beginning that God appeared to Abraham unless he would later explain in particular the manner of that very appearance? The connective word opposes that tearing apart: “The Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre. 
And he was sitting in the door of his tent.” That is to say, that appearance had been arranged in such a way that God appeared to him in human form. Furthermore, the same one who promised Abraham a son from Sarah and declared judgment against Sodom is addressed by the holy name “Jehovah” by which He had been honored at the beginning of the chapter. Therefore some of the ancients claim that the three persons of the Godhead appeared to Abraham in three distinct forms of men. And because the patriarch knew that there was one God, he addressed those three in the singular number. However, because in Gen 19:1 two of those are called angels who say in v. 13, “Jehovah has sent us to destroy this place,” Burgensis concludes from this that the Father and the Holy Spirit cannot be understood by those two because the Father nowhere is said to be an angel or sent. Furthermore, only one of those is called “Jehovah.” Had these three men been the three persons of the Deity, the Epistle to the Hebrews would have recommended hospitality all the more from this in c. 13. Therefore a third explanation is given by Augustine (De civ. Dei, bk. 16, c. 29; De Trinit., bk. 2, c. 11), Cyril (Contra Julian., bk. 1), Gregory of Nyssa (De trinit.), and others whom Cornelius à Lapide follows. They think that all three were angels appearing in human form to signify symbolically the Trinity. Yet one of them is clearly called “Jehovah,” which name is nowhere given to a created angel. Therefore He is not a higher angel, as Cornelius à Lapide wants; not the archangel Gabriel, as pleases Burgensis; not Michael, as the rabbinic scholars dream—but the very Son of God. Most fitting, then, is the position of Hilary (De trinit., bk. 4), of Theodoret (Quaest. 68. in Gen.), of Nazianzen (De theol. Constant., orat. 2, in Eusebius, De vita Const., bk. 3, c. 50), and of Eusebius himself (Demonst. evang., bk. 5, c. 9), etc., that those three men were the Son of God accompanied by two angels. Therefore this can be applied to the mystery of the Trinity—that the Son of God, accompanied by no more and no less than two angels (and thus in three men) appears to Abraham—but one will hardly be able to extract a demonstrative argument from it.
(2) Because Abraham sometimes addresses those three men in the singular number because, according to Chrysostom, one of them—namely, the Son of God—was 
, more glorious and illustrious, than the others. Consequently, from the actual majesty of His visible form and from other indications, the patriarch gathered that the one whom he was addressing uniquely was chief among them and was the one whom the other two honored. The same thing is known to happen in legations.
(3) Because only one of them is called “Jehovah,” as the entire sequence of the text reveals. Yet if the three persons of the Trinity had appeared to Abraham, the name “Jehovah” would be given to any which one of those three men. Socinus adds: “Even if it were true that one of those angels was called ‘Jehovah’ quite often, this would prove nothing, for that could have happened because Jehovah had sent one of them. You see, in Holy Writ the sent one is called by the name of the sender” (Anim. ad assert. 3, p. 39). However, this begs the question, for we proved in its own place that nowhere is a created angel called by God’s proper name.
Passages of the New Testament.
§ 165. So much for the two classes into which the Old Testament passages can be distributed that are brought forth to affirm the mystery of the Trinity. The New Testament passages can be divided into four classes: (1) Some prove in general a plurality of persons in the Godhead, namely, those that speak of God in the plural: “We speak of what we know and bear witness to what we have seen; and no one receives our witness” (John 3:11). Some people refer these words to the prophets, apostles, and John the Baptist. Some explain it as a general reference to all faithful witnesses. Some assert that Christ speaks about Himself alone in the plural. Some take it as a proverbial expression. However, Cyril refers it most suitably to the mystery of the Trinity because Christ alone, and not the Baptist or any other minister of the evangelical preaching, has seen the things of heaven (John 1:18; 3:13). Christ alone speaks what He Himself knows or what He Himself has seen, while the prophets and apostles spoke those things that they had heard by revelation. For this reason their preaching is called a “hearing” (Isa. 53:1). Furthermore, it would not be fitting to number Christ, upon whom the Spirit of God rests (Isa. 11:2; 61:1), with the other common witnesses. Therefore it is more correct to take it as referring to witnesses who are divine by nature and essence, according to the explanation given in John 5:37 and 1 John 5:7.
To this class belong also these passages: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We shall come to him and make Our dwelling with him” (John 14:23).
(2) Some passages describe the theophanies of God in the Baptism and transfiguration of Christ: Matthew 3 and 17, Mark 1 and 9, Luke 3 and 9, in which the individual persons of the Godhead revealed themselves by audible or visible, external symbols.
(3) Some passages mention the three persons of the Godhead clearly and expressly: Matt. 28:19; Luke 1:35; John 14:16–17; 15:26; Acts 10:38; Rom. 1:2–4; 8:11; 2 Cor. 13:[14]; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 2:18; Titus 3:4–6; 1 John 5:7; Rev. 1:4–5.
(4) Some passages make the mystery of the Trinity known through the distinguishing words 
, and 
: Rom. 11:35–36. (See our Loci [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 4 (On the Three Elohim)], §§ 16–17, 19.)
31 From this § on, Cotta’s paragraph enumeration matches that of Preuss.
32 The verb “give” is future in the Vulgate and Luther’s translation.
33 Continuing the argument from § 155.
34 Continuing the argument from § 153.