Summary: Here is a case study that presents a condensed theological exchange between a Hebraic-narrative-based theologian (response) and a traditional Nicene-Chalcedonian positis and an advocate as opponent. The topic: how to understand the divinity of Jesus within Scripture’s own categories, and whether the language of the Trinity—especially as developed in Greek metaphysical terms—is faithful to biblical revelation. It beings with an eschatological statement and how language functions from scripture.
I. The Hinge of History and the Messianic Age
Response: I hold that the End Times, in the sense of the Messianic Age, began with the resurrection of Jesus. This is the hinge of history. However, I distinguish between the Millennium—a suffering-servant phase often associated with Messiah ben Yosef and time before a full raging satanic age when everything we hold sacred is turned on its head like today—and the full Messianic Age that we may be on the verge of entering sooner than we think. Many conflate the two, but this distinction aligns more closely with early Jewish-Christian thought than later Christian frameworks.[1]
Response: I hold that the End Times, in the sense of the Messianic Age, began with the resurrection of Jesus. This is the hinge of history. However, I distinguish between the Millennium—a suffering-servant phase often associated with Messiah ben Yosef and time before a full raging satanic age when everything we hold sacred is turned on its head like today—and the full Messianic Age that we may be on the verge of entering sooner than we think. Many conflate the two, but this distinction aligns more closely with early Jewish-Christian thought than later Christian frameworks.[1]
II. On Language and Revelation
Response: My opponent argued that using a word like Injil (Islam’ term for the New Testament) is problematic because it’s a later linguistic form. But that’s a category error. Revelation always speaks into evolving human language. The Hebrew Torah becomes Nomos in Greek and Injil in Arabic—not because the message changed, but because language does.[2]
Response: My opponent argued that using a word like Injil (Islam’ term for the New Testament) is problematic because it’s a later linguistic form. But that’s a category error. Revelation always speaks into evolving human language. The Hebrew Torah becomes Nomos in Greek and Injil in Arabic—not because the message changed, but because language does.[2]
III. Christianity and Judaism: A Mutual Separation
Response: It wasn’t just that Christianity left Judaism; Judaism, post-Temple, also redefined itself in reaction to Jesus. The question isn’t “who left whom?” but which Judaism remains faithful to God’s covenantal plan. Jesus didn’t discard Torah—He fulfilled it. He is not an interruption, but its telos.[3]
Response: It wasn’t just that Christianity left Judaism; Judaism, post-Temple, also redefined itself in reaction to Jesus. The question isn’t “who left whom?” but which Judaism remains faithful to God’s covenantal plan. Jesus didn’t discard Torah—He fulfilled it. He is not an interruption, but its telos.[3]
IV. Jesus as Divine: Rejecting Abstract Christologies
Opponent: “Jesus is fully God and fully man. This isn’t Greek. It’s biblical.”
Response: Let’s talk Isaiah 63:9: “In all their affliction, He was afflicted, and the Angel of His Presence (malakh panav) saved them.” This isn’t a created messenger—it’s YHWH’s own redemptive presence. This malakh is the one who spoke from the bush, who went before Israel, who bore God’s Name. This is not polytheism. This is divine self-disclosure.[6]
This angel is not merely a messenger but carries the Divine Name—it is a veiled theophany. Jewish midrash often reads this as Metatron or Sar haPanim (cf. 3 Enoch), though it’s clear this being holds a status far beyond any created angel.
2. Theophanic Trinities in the Hebrew Bible
Though the doctrine of the Trinity is often accused of being a Greek innovation, the shape of divine multiplicity within unity is baked into Scripture. A few examples of trinitarian theophanies:
A. Genesis 18 – The Three Men
Abraham is visited by three men, but speaks to one as YHWH. Rabbinic commentary (e.g. Bereshit Rabbah 50) often parses these as angels, but the text plays deliberately with ambiguity—one speaks as God.
B. Isaiah 63
This passage offers a stunning early “trinity”:
• YHWH the Redeemer
• His Holy Spirit (v.10–11)
• The Angel of His Presence / Sar haPanim (v.9)
These are not mere modes but interacting agents with distinct functions—yet all integral to divine identity.
C. Daniel 7 – Ancient of Days and Son of Man
Two distinct yet united figures appear in the divine court. The “Son of Man” is given dominion—a sign of divine enthronement. This scene echoes Psalm 2 and invites a Messianic reading within a divine framework.
Opponent: “Jesus is fully God and fully man. This isn’t Greek. It’s biblical.”
Response: Yes, Jesus is divine—but His divinity must be interpreted in biblical, Hebraic terms. Greek metaphysical language such as essence (ousia) and person (hypostasis, prosopon) emerged in later centuries, and while they were attempts to safeguard mystery, they often obscured the narrative categories of Torah and Prophets. Jesus is the Shekhinah in flesh, not a philosophical puzzle of two natures in one prosopon.[4]
V. On Preexistence and Agency
Response: My opponent cited Genesis 19:24 to claim plurality in the Godhead. But this reflects divine agency, not co-eternal “persons.” Many preexistent realities in Jewish Scripture—Wisdom in Proverbs 8, Torah in midrash, and the Son of Man in Daniel—are not separate deities, but manifestations or vessels of YHWH’s own purpose.[5]
VI. The Angel of the Presence
Response: Let’s talk Isaiah 63:9: “In all their affliction, He was afflicted, and the Angel of His Presence (malakh panav) saved them.” This isn’t a created messenger—it’s YHWH’s own redemptive presence. This malakh is the one who spoke from the bush, who went before Israel, who bore God’s Name. This is not polytheism. This is divine self-disclosure.[6]
VII. The Problem of Imported Frameworks
Opponent: “You’re denying the Trinity.”
Opponent: “You’re denying the Trinity.”
Response: I’m not denying God’s triunity. I’m questioning whether Greek philosophical categories are the best vehicle for expressing it. Hypostasis doesn’t mean “person” in any modern sense—it originally meant “substance” or “underlying reality.” Prosopon meant “mask” or “face” in the theater. These were unstable terms that the Cappadocians had to redefine to avoid heresy.[7]
VIII. Jesus as YHWH in Flesh
Response: Let me be clear: I affirm that Jesus is YHWH—not a divine representative, not a divine human, but the full manifestation of the God of Israel. I believe the homoousios as same essense formula of Nicaea is kosher, but also through biblical images: the Word (Davar/Memra), the Cloud Rider, the Angel of the Lord, and the Face of God.[8]
IX. On Empire and Creedal Theology
Response: You say Nicaea wasn’t political. But Constantine convened it for imperial unity. The Church didn’t develop doctrine in a vacuum. Even Eusebius, Constantine’s court theologian, was Arian.[9] The Nicene and Chalcedonian definitions were theological responses shaped by imperial pressure, not just exegesis. I believe as descriptions they had counterproductive destinations and reactions. For example, theotokos in refering to Mary as simply ‘God Bearer or she who gives birth’; in the post Nicaea era it morphed into Mother of God which is unacceptable and provides usurps the supremacy of the the Son.
X. Final Clarification on The Trinity: Vertical, Not Horizontal
Response: The Trinity, properly read, is a vertical revelation—God revealing Himself in creation, covenant, Spirit, and flesh. It’s not three divine minds sitting side by side in eternity, nor different stages nor manifestations. Genesis 1 says “And God said…”—that’s not “Person 2 of 3” speaking. That’s the Word of God, His self-expression, His Memra going forth in power. Genesis 1:2-3 and the Spirit hovered over the Deep! [10] The trinitarian shape found in scripture emerges when we trace the following:
1. Yeshua as Sar haPanim
This title comes from Exodus 23:20–21:
“Behold, I send a malakh before you to guard you on the way… My Name is in him.”
This title comes from Exodus 23:20–21:
“Behold, I send a malakh before you to guard you on the way… My Name is in him.”
This angel is not merely a messenger but carries the Divine Name—it is a veiled theophany. Jewish midrash often reads this as Metatron or Sar haPanim (cf. 3 Enoch), though it’s clear this being holds a status far beyond any created angel.
Some Jewish traditions see this being as a memra—a hypostatic Word.
Yeshua, in this light, is not an intruder to Jewish theology but its inner secret revealed. He is the one who bore God’s Name, the face of God (cf. 2 Cor 4:6, John 14:9, Rev 22:4).
2. Theophanic Trinities in the Hebrew Bible
Though the doctrine of the Trinity is often accused of being a Greek innovation, the shape of divine multiplicity within unity is baked into Scripture. A few examples of trinitarian theophanies:
A. Genesis 18 – The Three Men
Abraham is visited by three men, but speaks to one as YHWH. Rabbinic commentary (e.g. Bereshit Rabbah 50) often parses these as angels, but the text plays deliberately with ambiguity—one speaks as God.
B. Isaiah 63
This passage offers a stunning early “trinity”:
• YHWH the Redeemer
• His Holy Spirit (v.10–11)
• The Angel of His Presence / Sar haPanim (v.9)
These are not mere modes but interacting agents with distinct functions—yet all integral to divine identity.
C. Daniel 7 – Ancient of Days and Son of Man
Two distinct yet united figures appear in the divine court. The “Son of Man” is given dominion—a sign of divine enthronement. This scene echoes Psalm 2 and invites a Messianic reading within a divine framework.
3. Yeshua, Memra, and the Divine Face
In Aramaic Targums, Memra (Word) often replaces “God” in anthropomorphic actions (e.g. “the Memra walked in the garden”). This idea of a mediating divine presence anticipates John 1 and Colossians 1:15–20, where Yeshua is both the image and agent of creation.
In Aramaic Targums, Memra (Word) often replaces “God” in anthropomorphic actions (e.g. “the Memra walked in the garden”). This idea of a mediating divine presence anticipates John 1 and Colossians 1:15–20, where Yeshua is both the image and agent of creation.
His title as Sar haPanim means:
He is the embodied Face of God (panim = face/presence)
He guards and guides covenantal IsraelHe is revealed in moments of divine encounter (burning bush, cloud, mountaintop, Transfiguration)
4. Practical Implication for Theology
Rather than inserting Jesus into Jewish texts, this framework shows that:
Rather than inserting Jesus into Jewish texts, this framework shows that:
The Trinity is not a foreign idea—it’s encoded in theophanic patternsYeshua’s identity as the Face, the Word, the Angel, the Son of Man ties him deeply to Jewish divine expectationChristian dogmatics must rediscover its Jewish foundation through this lens
Endnotes:
1. See Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, where he distinguishes between the expected Messianic Age and earlier periods of suffering and transition.
2. On the term Injil, see Sidney H. Griffith, The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the ‘People of the Book’ in the Language of Islam, 2013.
3. Matthew 5:17; Romans 9–11. On mutual redefinition, see Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ.
4. See Khalil Andani, Divine Word and Prophetic Reality in Islam and the Hebrew Bible (for comparisons on logos theology); cf. John 1:14 and Exodus 25:8.
5. Proverbs 8:22–30; Daniel 7:13–14; see Alan Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 1977.
6. Isaiah 63:9; Exodus 23:20–21. The Angel of YHWH bears God’s name and acts with His authority. See also Philo’s Logos concept.
7. On Cappadocian terms, see John Behr, The Mystery of Christ, and Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, Vol. 1.
8. John 1:14; Colossians 1:15; Daniel 7:13–14. On the Cloud Rider motif, see Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm.
9. See Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology.
10. Targum Onkelos on Genesis 1:3: “And the Memra of the Lord said…” See also Rashi’s commentary, Genesis 1.
