Divine Persons in Genesis : The Theological Implications

Beginning with its third word, the book of Genesis reveals that God (ֹ להיִם)א ֱexists and that He created the heavens and the earth. The seventeenth word from the end of the book is also “God” (ֹ להיִם)אֱ—in Joseph’s declaration that God will provide for the descendants of his father Israel. Few exegetes would argue today that the plural form of ֹ להיִם אֱ even implies a plurality of divine persons—and rightly so. However, evidence exists within the text of the first book of Moses that might indicate a distinction of persons in the Godhead. For example, both Genesis 1:2 and 6:3 seem to refer to the Spirit of God. Other statements in the text of Genesis appear to mention more than one divine person named Yahweh (19:24). Some references involve a person identified as the “angel/messenger of Yahweh” (e.g., 22:11). Was this individual the same as one of the “three men” who appeared to Abraham (18:2) and before whom Abraham stood (18:22)? Is he a person of the Godhead? In addition to these more direct and perhaps less abstract references to a divine person, Genesis includes several first person plural statements (“us” and “our”) spoken by a divine person (1:26; 3:22; 11:7). Are these references best explained as multiple divine persons, some sort of plural of majesty, or some council of spirit beings other than divine? What is the exegetical evidence? What are the implications theologically regarding either a plurality of divine persons or even a limitation to three such divine persons? Furthermore, how do these implications affect the way we understand ancient human conceptions of God, His person, His attributes, and His work from Adam to Joseph?


Introduction
Let's commence this study by looking at some general principles with which to approach the topic of the Trinity in the OT generally. First, we must recognize that the revelation God provides in the OT represents the early stages of progressive revelation completed by the NT. At each stage of revelatory development, the biblical text clarifies and expands theological truths.
Second, the wisest course of interpretive analysis attempts to interpret the biblical text with its chronological development in mind. In other words, we need to avoid interpreting Genesis by means of Isaiah or Isaiah by means of the NT. Third, each text must stand by itself in its own context. What did the original writer intend and how did the original recipients understand it? John Feinberg suggests that we need not "lose anything of significance to the doctrine of the Trinity" 1 in the OT. In fact, he concludes that "the observant OT saint" could have observed clues in the OT texts that indicated "that there is more to say about God than just that there is one God and Yahweh is his name." 2 Although a plurality within the Godhead might be implied by the OT, that does not mean that the OT believer would ever speak of a triune God, nor would he formulate the plurality as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit per se. One note of caution, however-I am not saying that no OT believer ever referred to God as Father (cf. Ps. 89:26;Isa. 63:16;64:8;Jer. 3:19;Mal. 2:10) or as Son (cf. Ps. 2:7,12;Prov. 30:4) or as Holy Spirit (cf. Ps. 51:11;Isa. 63:10,11). 3 The individual titles might well be found somewhere within the OT's progressive revelation, but the three are never put together the way they are in Matthew 28:19, for example. Likewise, I am not saying that no OT text ever speaks of multiple persons by means of differentiating divine titles.
Some theologians express extreme skepticism regarding any concept of the Trinity in the OT and even question its existence in the Gospel narratives. 4 A popular pamphlet on the Trinity only refers to OT texts to demonstrate the deity of Christ, but provides no indication at all that the OT itself testifies clearly to a plurality of persons in the Godhead. 5  2 John S. Feinberg,No One Like Him,445. 3 Such texts, being outside Genesis, will not be analyzed in this paper. For sympathetic statements about these texts, see Feinberg,No One Like Him,. It must be noted, however, that theologians sold out to higher criticism and the Documentary Hypothesis have to deny any concept of divine plurality in the OT, since they normally date Gen 1 to at least the sixth century B.C., a time parallel with the so-called Deutero-Isaiah; see Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, Interpretation (1982;repr., Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 24-25. 4 E.g., R. W. L. Moberly, The Bible, Theology, and Faith: A Study of Abraham and Jesus, Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 236, "a Trinitarian theology must remember always to keep the Old Testament and gospel narratives in the foreground. Trinitarian theology always tends to locate in eternity that which was achieved in time." Although Broughton Knox, The Everlasting God (Kingsford, Australia: Matthias Media, 2009), 67 believes that the Gospels do reveal the Trinity, he is convinced that the doctrine of the Trinity "arose from the Christian experience of God in Jesus Christ and which was taught indeed by Christ himself." In other words, Knox seems to deny that the OT reveals any plurality of divine Persons. 5 Robert M. Bowman, Jr., et al., The Trinity (Torrance, CA: Rose Publishing, 1999).
conception other than that it does not conform to the limitations of the mind of man." 6 In other words, rejection of the Trinity in the OT stems from the fact that some theologians have difficulty allowing the writers of the OT (within their supposedly very primitive ANE environment) the ability to write of sophisticated theological concepts supposedly originating with Christianity in the NT. Usually, these theologians buttress their line of reasoning with constant appeals to a history of religion and to a documentary view of multiple editors for individual books of the OT. 7

Discussion and Result
From the Beginning Genesis 1:1-2 speaks of more than just the act of creation. The text identifies the Creator as "God" and immediately thereafter indicates the possibility of another person of the Godhead at work: "the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the waters." The phrase "Spirit of God" ‫חוּר(‬ ַ ‫א‬ ֱ ‫הֹל‬ ‫)םיִ‬ occurs only fifteen times in the Hebrew Bible and appears always to be a reference to a person, not a wind. In addition, ‫ֱא‬ ‫הל‬ ִ‫םי‬never occurs as an adjective in the Creation account-it always refers to God. 8 The evidence is so overwhelming that Hildebrandt reaches a conclusion commensurate with that of Moltmann regarding the personhood of the Spirit of God: "The personhood of God the Holy Spirit is the loving, self-communicating, out-fanning and out-pouring presence of the eternal divine life of the triune God." 9 However, Hildebrandt then warns that taking this too far might lead to "speculative intrusion into the OT references," since the full development of the personhood of the Spirit of God awaits the NT revelation. 10 This hesitation to make the commitment to seeing a divine person as "the Spirit of God" in the second verse of Genesis arises even among some of the strongest evangelical theologians.
Merrill, for example, concludes that "The Spirit is to be understood here as an effect of God and not yet, as in New Testament and Christian theology, the third Person of the triune Godhead." 11 Why the disagreements and even the hesitation to identify "the Spirit of God" in Genesis 1:2 as a person of the Godhead? Part of the resistance comes from the thinking that the interpreter must give due recognition to the ANE setting for the writing of Genesis and its Creation account. 12 Is that how we must read Genesis? Must we limit ourselves to the way that pagan, unbelieving, idolatrous ANE cultures viewed God (or, gods)? To yield to this hermeneutic requires one to degrade and even destroy the significant difference between genuine believers in the true God and those who ridicule them for their faith. Their worldviews are (and were) very different. Their value systems are opposed. A rough equivalent in our own day would be to insist that future readers of evangelical books should read them as though evangelicals have adopted the prevailing worldview or Zeitgeist-that our theology and morality actually coincide with non-Christian philosophy and (im)morality in the twenty-first century. If we would scream, "Foul!," so would the OT writers. Many who write as Hildenbrandt does only intend that we recognize that the OT writers are reacting to and interacting with the unbelieving culture of their day, not adopting the beliefs expressed by pagan myths. However, it doesn't always come out sounding or smelling that way, especially when someone insists that there is no way that "the Spirit of God" in Genesis 1:2 could be a person of the Godhead, because such a concept was totally foreign to the ANE cultures among whom the Hebrew writers dwelt.
One must also look at Genesis 6:3 where God refers to "My Spirit." Hildebrandt's treatment of this text detours into later revelation before reaching a conclusion. He seeks to place the reference in a context of divine judgment as expressed throughout the OT. He still comes to a result identifying the Spirit as a personal being, but not as independently as the probably could be taken as references to a divine council (ibid., 136). The matter involves more than can be presented in the current paper and does not promise to have any significant bearing on the question of a plurality of persons in the Godhead. 15 William David Reyburn and Euan McG. Fry, A Handbook on Genesis, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1998), 50, explain that this involves a speaker "conferring or consulting with himself." 16 In accord with my introductory comments, it behooves the interpreter to treat these references as potential implications of plurality, not as any specifically Trinitarian statements. 17 S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, with Introduction and Notes (New York: Edwin S. Gorham, 1904), 14, remarks that God adopts "this unusual and significant mode of expression" in order to introduce the account of man's creation with solemnity. Bill T. Arnold, Genesis, NCBC (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 44, agrees that the "lofty words of v. 26 make this event distinctive ...." John Peter Lange, Genesis or, the First Book of Moses, trans. by Tayler Lewis and A. Gosman, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (1864; electronic ed., Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 173 lists five different ways to understand these first person plurals, but concludes that the carrying of the plural understanding of who God is, what deeds God has performed (both in creation and in setting about to redeem fallen mankind), who man is, and what man has caused by his disobedience to his Creator. Such plural pronouns occur one time outside Genesis (Isa 6:8, "Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?'"). In my opinion, these OT occurrences might be favorably compared with the use of the first person plural in NT passages like John 14:23, "Jesus answered and said to him, 'If anyone love Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him'" (emphasis mine). It might be argued that Jesus purposefully echoes the language of the three Genesis texts to highlight His own deity. But, let's not use such NT references to interfere in a contextual examination of the text in Genesis.

Genesis 1:26
Commentators and theologians have proposed as many as seven different views of the plural pronouns ("us . . . our . . . our") in this text: 18 (1) taken from a polytheistic account without correcting it 19 (2) refers to God plus the heavens and the earth 20 (3) refers to the angelic beings in heaven's court-the most popular view currently and one that groups all such occurrences into the same category (Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8) 21 into "our image" might more accurately point to "a distinction in the divine personality." Hebraists point out that the so-called "plural of majesty" applies primarily to nouns and that it is uncertain whether that applies also to plural verbs or pronouns; cf. James McKeown, Genesis, THOTC (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008), 26; Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, trans. and rev. by T. Muraoka, 2 vols., Subsidia Biblica 14/I-II (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993) Publishers, 1996), 161 points out that v. 27 ("God created man") contradicts this view-God alone is the Creator.
(4) a plural pronoun used when addressing oneself-a plural of deliberation: 22 Collins believes that this opens the possibility of referring to a plurality of persons in the Godhead. 23 However, Mathews finds this viewpoint lacking because there is no evidence that the plural is used this way in Hebrew. 24 In fact, being cognizant of such absence of evidence, Cassuto adopts "the plural of exhortation" even though that explanation is "rejected by the majority of contemporary commentators." 25 (5) a plural pronoun of "majesty"-a royal "we": McKeown remarks that Hebrew nouns might be used this way, but there is insufficient evidence for pronouns and verbs with this sense in Biblical Hebrew. 26 Likewise, Payne says that "The socalled 'royal we' usage is foreign to Old Testament thought." 27 Hebraists point out that the so-called "plural of majesty" applies primarily to nouns and that it is uncertain whether that applies also to plural verbs or pronouns. 28 Mathews argues that this view "is flawed since the point of the verse is the unique correspondence between God and man, not the majesty of God." 29 (6) a plural of fullness 30 (7)  One's theological view of Scripture impacts how he might approach this problem and seek a solution. For someone who believes that a human being wrote Genesis 1 without any divine revelation, the text might explain the origin of mankind only from the author's worldview. However, if the interpreter believes that Scripture's primary author is God Himself and that the record presents an accurate account from the Creator's perspective, then the words fall within a totally different kind of context. 33  However, Collins points to five arguments that support a plurality of persons in the Godhead: (1) Genesis 1:27 declares that God created the man "in the image of God"-a limited reference omitting any indication of anyone outside the Godhead; 37 (2) the verbs "create" and "make" throughout the Creation account take God alone as their subject; (3) 35 Keiser, "The Divine Plural," 134: "That is, not finding any clue within the Genesis account to indicate the referent, those who hold this position take recourse to something which was likely sufficiently prominent in the world view of the original author and reader that it would be unnecessary to provide an explicit clarification." 36 Collins, Genesis 1-4, 60. 37 Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 215 takes the view that the overall record focuses on correspondence to God alone as the greater of those to which the plural pronoun refers (primus inter pares). 38 Amazingly, Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis-Part I, 25 attributes the Gen 1:2 reference to "the paternal care of the Divine Spirit, which hovered over" the in the Godhead as the author's intended meaning, Collins prefers to limit it to sensus plenior which makes it possible to use 1:26 as a text that allows for the Trinity. 39 Cassuto argues against the popular angelic council interpretation by also pointing to the text focusing on God alone as the Creator of mankind. Then he reasons that "Let us make" cannot be understood as consultation, because if the intention was to tell us that God took counsel, the Bible would have explicitly stated whom He consulted, as we are told in other passages that are usually cited in support of this theory (I Kings xxii 19; Isa. vi 2-8; Job i-ii). 40 After disavowing the heavenly council of angels view, Mathews concludes that Genesis 1:26 ("our image") together with v.27 ("His image") implies both the plurality (most immediately by reference to the Spirit of God in v. 2) and the unity of God. 41 This is basically the same position that Hamilton takes, who concludes his thought with the following cautionary statement: It is one thing to say that the author of Gen. 1 was not schooled in the intricacies of Christian dogma. It is another thing to say he was theologically too primitive or naive [sic.] to handle such ideas as plurality within unity. What we often so blithely dismiss as "foreign to the thought of the OT" may be nothing of the sort. 42 Let's take a closer look at the structure of vv. 26-27 to see if it might provide some additional information that might be of help (blue marks singulars; red marks plurals):

Then God said,
Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the beasts and over all the earth, primeval waters at creation. He does not state that the Spirit is a person of the Godhead and, indeed, elsewhere implies that it might be the breath of God by taking the meaning as identical to Job 33:4 ("The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life"; ibid., 24). He makes the non-personal identification more specific in his discussion of 6:3 ("My spirit, the spirit of life that I breathed into man's nostrils, shall not abide in man forever"; ibid., 296). Hamilton, Genesis Chapters 1-17, 114 concludes that the text does not indicate a specific viewpoint, therefore, to "translate 'Spirit' runs the risk of superimposing Trinitarian concepts on Gen. 1 that are not necessarily present." See Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, 212-13 for an example of a treatment of this issue by a theologian who rejects any association of "the Spirit of God" in the OT with a person of the Godhead. Waltke takes references to "the spirit of God/Yahweh" as references to God's power which He did not reveal as the Holy Spirit (as a divine person) until the coming of Christ (ibid., 619). 39  The text makes three plural statements about God and three about man. Three times "man" appears in the singular. Three times "created" is used in the singular. Three different singular statements are made about God ("God said," "God created," "in His image"). 43 In addition, v. 27 is a poetic triplet with the first two cola being formed chiastically. 44 Therefore, the text presents the unity and plurality of both God and man. This exegetical result must be taken into account. As Keiser suggests, the "singular and plural terminology provides a strong argument for understanding a connection between the two." 45 If this account existed as an oral tradition in the post-Fall world, we must assume that the hearers had the mental acuity to think about the parallels here between God and man-especially in light of 2:24 (a man and his wife "become one flesh"). If God only revealed this account at a much later date to Moses, we still must assume (unless we have an anti-Semitic prejudice treating the Jews as dullards and incapable of sound thinking) that this text stimulated the Israelites' thinking as they contemplated the reasons for such unity, yet plurality, for both God and man. Keiser makes yet 43 Emphatic triplets characterize the account of the sixth day: Three times "God said" (vv. 24, 26, 29)-the tautology of "God blessed . . . and said" (v. 28) should be taken as one emphatic declaration of blessing. The blessing itself contains a triplet: "be fruitful . . . multiply . . . fill." 44 Verse 26 can stand as evidence for the poetic prose (elevated narrative) that makes up much of the Creation account. The insertion of v. 27 as pure poetry will be matched later by 2:23. 45 Keiser, "The Divine Plural," 135.
another contribution to the analysis of the singular and plural in 1:26-27 when he notes that the transition from singular to plural occurs in a context of generating life. 46

Theophanies in Genesis
"The angel/Angel of Yahweh" ‫ה(‬ ‫ו‬ ָ ‫ה‬ ‫י‬ ‫ך‬ ‫ְאל‬ ‫מ‬ , mal'ak yhwh) appears in Genesis 16 (vv. 7, 9-11; 22:11, 15). At times both narrator and speakers within the events identify him with Yahweh (16:13). The angel/messenger can speak in the first person, as though he were God (16:10). Therefore, many commentators and theologians identify this individual as an appearance of God Himself, a theophany. 47 Knight lists the following theophanies in [18][19][20][21][22]19;and, However, he explains them all away as not being God Himself in person, but only an "'alter ego' of himself." 49 Still, he is forced to admit that a number of these texts specifically identify that presence on earth as God (21:18;22:14;31:13). These texts have fallen prey to the same frame of mind that treats Genesis 1 as nothing more than sanctified human imagination. As Moberly points out, theologians have given up on the traditional Christian understanding that the theophany in these chapters indicates a plurality of persons in the Godhead. Why have they given up?-it "naturally fell by the wayside when the text was approached in a historical-critical frame of reference." 50

Genesis 16:7-14
In this passage the narrator (Moses) himself (not Hagar) identifies the angel of Yahweh as Yahweh ("Then she called the name of Yahweh who spoke to her,"; v. 13). According to Wenham, the text's referent involves "God himself appearing in human form." 51 However, Waltke takes the angel as merely a surrogate for God who is treated as God, but remains distinct from God-he is but a messenger whom God sends out of the heavenly council of 46 Ibid., 138. He also associates the transition from singular to plural with the image of God. Since the topic of this paper is more limited, I will not develop this aspect of the text. 47 9. angelic beings. 52 Waltke ignores the statement "Yahweh who spoke to her" ( ‫ה‬  ‫י‬  ‫ל‬  ‫א‬  ‫רבדּ‬  ‫ה‬ ‫הוה‬ ‫י‬ , v. 13). It seems clear by context that Hagar is addressing "the angel of Yahweh" who had just been speaking to her (vv. 11-12). Merrill also identifies "the angel of Yahweh" as a surrogate, rather than being a person of the Godhead. 53

Genesis 18-19
The opening words of this text unit ("Yahweh appeared to him at the oaks of Mamre," 18:1) point to Moses's narration of the events in these two chapters. Abraham himself did not at first realize that one of the three men at his tent door was actually Yahweh. 54 Wenham observes that when "the angel of Yahweh" appears together with other individuals, at first "they are usually taken to be men, but by the end of the encounter one of them is realized to be God (18:2,22;[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]." 55 Even if one were to identify the description of the three individuals (two angels plus a person of the Godhead) as anthropomorphism, that does not require that the entire narrative, together with the identification of the three individuals, "be dismissed as merely figurative or symbolic." 56 Those who accept the occurrence of a theophany here do so, in at least some cases, even if they deny that a theophany occurred in chapter 16. 57 In addition to the theophany that seems so apparent in chapter 18, 19:24 says, "Then Yahweh rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah sulfurous fire from Yahweh, from the heavens." By placing "Yahweh" at the head of the clause, the Spirit-superintended author emphasizes the Lord's role in the event. As Ross puts it, "The text . . . simply emphasizes that, whatever means were used, it was the Lord who rained this judgment on them." 58 While this is an accurate 52 Waltke, Genesis, 254. 53 Merrill, Everlasting Dominion, 77 refers to 18:1 as a reference to "the Lord's appearance . . . in a tangible form in the person of the angel of the Lord who, in fact, is equated with the Lord himself (Gen. 18:10,13,17,20,etc.)." But, a few pages later states that this personage "appears, either as a representative of the Lord or, in a few instances, as his surrogate" (ibid., [80][81]. He reasons that there is no basis in the OT for taking this individual as the preincarnate Christ, but he is merely "a superhuman spokesman for the Lord himself" (ibid., 81; see also, [83][84]. 54 Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 45 makes this observation. 55 Wenham,9. 56 Hoekema, Created in God's Image, 127. Hoekema's argument for the integrity of the narrative seeks to respond to those, unlike himself, who think that the author identified the individuals using a mere anthropomorphism, rather than intending that they actually possessed the physical forms of men. 57 Waltke, Genesis, 266 is just such an example. 58 Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 362. observation, it is only one part of the overall meaning of this clause. There is a second occurrence of "Yahweh" later in the verse: "from Yahweh." Is the second mention of Yahweh merely a redundant expression in order to extend the emphasis of the first word, or is it the result of Moses' careful attention to theological detail? 59 REB, NLT, and NJB chose to eliminate the second reference to Yahweh as being a redundant expression. In his commentary Wenham opts for a similar conclusion but for different reasons. He believes that the "narrator stresses that 'it was from the LORD.'" However, Wenham translates the verse as follows: "and the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah: it was from the LORD from the sky." 60 This represents a legitimate attempt to translate the text as it stands. It also takes into account the Masoretic accents dividing the verse. However, the treatment of this final portion of the verse as a noun clause (viz., "it was") lacks convincing grammatical evidence. Instead, it would be more natural grammatically to take these last two phrases as adverbial prepositional phrases modifying the main verb, "rained." Most translations obscure the presence of two different persons of the Godhead. If the expression were an intentional redundancy, one would expect to see it used elsewhere in the OT. However, it does not occur elsewhere. This is a unique expression that is clarified by later revelation. The OT reveals that in a number of cases the "angel of Yahweh" was the immediate agent of judgment (cf. 2 Sam 24:16-17; 2 Kgs 19:35; Ps 35:6-7). Therefore, it is no surprise that the same agency might apply in the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah.  3 vols. in 1 (1907;repr., Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1967), 318. 62 James A. Borland, Christ in the Old Testament, rev. ed. (Ross-shire, UK: Christian Focus, 1999), 152. Others who note this same distinction in the text include David L. Cooper, The God of Israel, rev. ed. (Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1945), 23. Oehler granted that some sort of distinction was being made in Gen 19:24 but did not think that, in and of itself, it supported the view of identifying the one manifestation directly with the Logos, the Son of God, the second person of the Godhead; Gustav Friedrich Oehler, Theology of the Old phraseology is not to be "dismissed as a doublet or a gloss." 63 However, he stops short of noting any distinction between divine persons in the passage. Were the translators of REB, NLT and NJB anti-Trinitarian? If so, that cannot be determined by the translation alone. A theologically insensitive translation does not reveal anything about the theological position of the translators. The translation might indicate that a particular theological conclusion was not sufficiently clear to the translators in a particular passage. It is irresponsible to stigmatize the translators with a particular theological error or heresy on the basis of a single passage's translation. Do such translations weaken the evidence supporting a particular doctrine? They might, but that is not the same as outright denial of the doctrine in question. Even though prejudice may be implied by a particular translation, that one translation rarely affects the readers' broad conclusions about doctrine when they study a particular theological point through the entire version in which the one translation appears. One questionable translation in one passage might mislead someone on a few occasions, but in almost every case the same reader can formulate a theological opinion from the full version that generally results in sound doctrine.

Genesis 21:17-19
This passage does not exhibit the same clarity as the previous two passages. First of all, "the angel of God" (v. 17) occurs, not "the angel of Yahweh." 64 Secondly, the angel states that "God has heard the voice of the lad" (v. 17). Thirdly, v. 19 indicates that "God opened her eyes," but does not require that He be present. Wenham points out the similarities with 22:11, 15 to indicate that the two personages were probably identical-neither descended to earth. 65 The ambiguity makes it difficult to categorize this event as a clear theophany-there is no seeing or Testament, trans. George E. Day (1883;repr., Minneapolis, MN: Klock & Klock, 1978), 133. Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, trans. and ed. by William Hendriksen (1977;repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1997), 258 cites Gen 19:24 as important OT passages indicating "a distinction within the Divine Being." 63 Victor P. Hamilton, Genesis: Chapters 18-50, NICOT (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 46. Westermann is representative of those who think that the repetitive reference to Yahweh is awkward and due to a merging of two different accounts; Claus Westermann, Genesis 12-36: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Press, 1985), 306 64 Waltke, Genesis, 296. He suggests that the phrase use of "the angel of God" (as opposed to "the angel of Yahweh") resulted from the fact that the angel is addressing the non-elect here 65  ).

Genesis 32:24-30 (Heb. 25-31)
The mysterious nature of the account regarding Jacob and his wrestling opponent at the Jabbok River has spawned many different explanations. For those steeped in the evolution of natural religion and a denial of divine inspiration and biblical inerrancy, the explanations run the full gamut of conformity to the worldviews of pagan religions found in Israel's historical and cultural context. Wenham summarizes such views as follows, Gunkel, von Rad, and Westermann are among those who suggest that originally this was an account of Jacob's encounter with a Canaanite river god. And this they hold is confirmed by the "man's" desire to depart before dawn, a regular feature of folk tale. However, as Eissfeldt ( KS 3, 70 Waltke, Genesis, 447 notes that "face to face" appears in the Hebrew Bible "only of direct divine-human encounters, not necessarily of literal visual perception." appeared to Jacob, as He had to Abraham (Gen 18:1-2), in the physical form of a man. 71 Although he does not spend much time discussing the theophanies in Genesis, Brueggemann does finally indicate that the "angel" appearances in chapters 18 and 32 did indeed involve God just as certainly as 48: 15-16. 72 Genesis 48:15-16 On one hand, Knight includes this text as a potential theophany solely on the basis of implications gained from later revelation in Isaiah that indicate that God alone acts as the Redeemer of Israel (e.g.,Isa 43:14;44:6,24;47:4). 73 On the other hand, Wenham relies upon prior textual references and repetitions within the current passage to establish the identity of "the angel who has redeemed" Jacob. 74 First, God Himself had rescued Jacob from both his uncle (Gen 31:42) and his brother (Gen 32-33). Second, Jacob's triple declaration parallels and equates God with the angel: The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, The God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, The angel who has redeemed me from all evil, . . . (48:15-16a, emphasis mine) 75 Third, Jacob calls upon this individual (identified by the triple statement) to bless Ephraim and Manasseh, Joseph's two sons (v. 16b). 76

Result: Summary Regarding Theophany in Genesis
Such theophanies seem to possess one significant feature: all of them "reveal, at least in a partial manner, something about [God] Himself, or His will, to the recipient." 77 Should we identify the divine person in such appearances as the pre-incarnate Son of God (i.e., a Christophany)? James Borland's definition of "Christophany" runs as follows: "those unsought, 71 See Hoekema, Created in God's Image, 127 regarding the possible use of anthropomorphism, as mentioned above in fn 30. 72 Brueggemann, Genesis, 362 73 Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament, 64-65 74 Wenham, Genesis 16-50, 465. 75 Waltke, Genesis, 599 takes the parallelism as a strong indicator that, unlike in 16:7, the angel is God Himself. Brueggemann, Genesis, 361 notes the same three parallels and adds a fourth: "God make you" (v. 2). He emphasizes that this God is the focus of the text and all the verbs describe His actions (ibid., 362). 76 Jacob's request ("Bless") consists of a jussive 3ms ( ‫ְך‬ ‫ר‬ ֵ ‫ב‬ ‫י‬ ), not a plural, which might be expected if God and the angel were two separate beings. 77 Borland, Christ in the Old Testament, 24.
intermittent and temporary, visible and audible manifestations of God the Son in human form, by which God communicated something to certain conscious human beings on earth prior to the birth of Jesus Christ." 78 When the biblical account associates "the angel of Yahweh" with a theophany, "messenger" might be a better translation than "angel," because this title denotes the function or office of the individual, not His nature. 79 In addition, He is spoken of as actually being God, He bears the name Yahweh, He speaks as God, He displays divine attributes and authority. Most significantly, however, He receives worship. 80 Shedd identifies twelve actions and relations that serve as evidence to distinguish between persons of the Godhead. 81  Putting all of these Genesis references together, we can reach a conclusion similar to that of Oehler: "Though we must not read the New Testament doctrine of the Trinity into the Old Testament, it is yet undeniable that we find the way to the economic Trinity of the New Testament already prepared in the doctrine of the Malakh and of the Spirit." 82

Conclusion
This study of the Trinity in the book of Genesis has produced for our consideration the following findings: