Echoes of the Trinity: The Holy Spirit as God in the Old Testament

 

Introduction: The Hidden Trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures

The doctrine of the Trinity—the belief in one God existing in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is often associated with the New Testament. However, careful examination of the Old Testament reveals significant indications of a triune God. While the concept of the Trinity was not explicitly formulated in ancient Israelite theology, the presence of multiple divine figures within the Hebrew Scriptures suggests an early foundation for Trinitarian thought. Among these figures, the Holy Spirit emerges as a distinct yet fully divine presence, interacting with both Yahweh and the "second Yahweh figure" discussed in Second Temple Jewish literature.

Michael Heiser, in his work on the "Two Powers in Heaven," highlights how ancient Jewish texts recognized a second divine figure alongside Yahweh, a concept that was later deemed heretical in rabbinic Judaism. This article examines how the Old Testament reveals the Holy Spirit as God, highlighting His role within the Trinitarian framework.

The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament: A Divine Person

The Holy Spirit is frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, often in ways that suggest both personhood and divinity. Unlike mere metaphors for God's power, the Spirit exhibits attributes of intelligence, will, and relational interaction.

1. The Spirit as Creator

The Holy Spirit is active in creation, demonstrating divine agency. Genesis 1:2 states, "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters." This passage suggests that the Spirit was not merely an impersonal force but an active participant in creation, mirroring the creative work attributed to Yahweh.

2. The Spirit as the Presence of God

The Spirit is often associated with God's presence among His people. In Isaiah 63:10, the Israelites are said to have rebelled against and grieved the Holy Spirit: "But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit; so he became their enemy and fought against them." (Isaiah 63:10) This passage parallels Psalm 78:40, which describes rebellion against God Himself, suggesting an overlap between Yahweh and His Spirit. (1)

Heiser notes that such passages blur the distinction between God and His Spirit, reinforcing the idea that the Spirit is not merely an extension of Yahweh but a distinct divine person. (2)

3. The Spirit as the Source of Prophecy and Wisdom

The Holy Spirit is also depicted as the source of divine wisdom and prophecy. In Numbers 11:25, the Spirit of God descends upon the elders of Israel, enabling them to prophesy: "Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke to him. He took some of the Spirit who was on Moses and placed the Spirit on the seventy elders. As the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied, but they never did it again." (Numbers 11:25) This passage demonstrates the Spirit’s role in divine communication, a function later attributed to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.

4. Paul’s Use of Old Testament Themes in 2 Corinthians 3:17

Paul’s declaration that "the Lord is the Spirit" in 2 Corinthians 3:17 is not an arbitrary theological statement but rather a reflection of Old Testament concepts regarding the Spirit of God. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the Spirit is depicted as the active presence of Yahweh, guiding, empowering, and liberating His people.

1. The Spirit as the Presence of Yahweh

In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God is often associated with divine presence and leadership. For example, in Isaiah 63:10-11, the Spirit is grieved when Israel rebels, paralleling Yahweh’s own sorrow over His people’s disobedience. This suggests an intrinsic unity between Yahweh and His Spirit, reinforcing the idea that the Spirit is not merely an extension of God but fully divine.

Paul builds on this Old Testament foundation by equating the Spirit with the Lord Himself. His statement in 2 Corinthians 3:17 aligns with passages like Exodus 33:14, where Yahweh promises Moses, "My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest." The Spirit, as the presence of God, brings freedom—just as Yahweh’s presence liberated Israel from Egypt.

2. The Spirit and the New Covenant

Paul’s discussion in 2 Corinthians 3 contrasts the old covenant, written on stone, with the new covenant, written on hearts through the Spirit (Jeremiah 31:33). This echoes Ezekiel 36:26-27, where God promises to put His Spirit within His people, enabling them to follow His statutes. By identifying the Spirit as the Lord, Paul emphasizes that the transformative power of the new covenant comes directly from God Himself.

3. The Spirit as the Source of Freedom

Paul’s assertion that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" (2 Corinthians 3:17) draws from Old Testament themes of divine liberation. The Spirit empowered leaders like Moses, David, and the prophets, bringing deliverance and wisdom. In Judges 6:34, "The Spirit of the Lord enveloped Gideon," enabling him to lead Israel to victory. Similarly, Isaiah prophesied that the Spirit would bring freedom to captives (Isaiah 61:1), a passage Jesus later applied to Himself in Luke 4:18.

Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 3:17 is thus a continuation of this Old Testament theme: the Spirit of Yahweh is the agent of divine liberation, freeing believers from the condemnation of the Law and empowering them to live in righteousness.

The Two Powers in Heaven and the Trinitarian Framework

Michael Heiser’s research on the "Two Powers in Heaven" provides further insight into the plurality within the Godhead. Heiser argues that ancient Jewish texts recognized two distinct Yahweh figures—one visible and one invisible—who interacted with humanity. (3)  This concept aligns with Old Testament passages where Yahweh appears in human form (e.g., Genesis 18) while another Yahweh figure remains unseen.

While Heiser primarily focuses on the second Yahweh figure, his analysis indirectly supports the Trinitarian model by demonstrating that ancient Jewish thought was not strictly unitarian. The presence of the Holy Spirit alongside these two figures further strengthens the case for a triune God.

Conclusion: The Old Testament’s Trinitarian Echoes

The Old Testament, often perceived as strictly monotheistic in its portrayal of God, contains profound theological depth that hints at the plurality within the Godhead. The Holy Spirit, far from being a mere force or metaphor, emerges as a distinct divine person—active in creation, intimately involved in guiding Israel, and the source of prophetic revelation. These roles align seamlessly with the Trinitarian framework later fully revealed in the New Testament.

Paul’s declaration in 2 Corinthians 3:17—"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."—is not a theological innovation but rather a continuation of Old Testament themes. The Spirit, as the presence of Yahweh, brings liberation, wisdom, and divine guidance, echoing passages such as Isaiah 63:10, Exodus 33:14, and Ezekiel 36:26-27. Paul’s insight reinforces the idea that the Spirit is not merely an agent of God but God Himself.

Michael Heiser’s research on the "Two Powers in Heaven" further supports the notion that ancient Jewish thought was not strictly unitarian. The recognition of multiple divine figures—Yahweh, the second Yahweh figure, and the Spirit—suggests that the foundations of Trinitarian theology were present long before the New Testament era. The Spirit’s role in creation, prophecy, and divine presence aligns with the functions attributed to both Yahweh and the second Yahweh figure, reinforcing the idea that the Spirit is fully God.

This realization challenges us to reconsider the depth of Old Testament theology. The Trinity is not a doctrine imposed upon the Hebrew Scriptures but rather one that emerges organically from them. The Spirit’s presence in the Old Testament is not a shadowy precursor to His New Testament role but a fully divine reality that has always been at work.

As we reflect on these truths, we are invited into a deeper appreciation of God’s nature—a God who is relational, dynamic, and eternally present. The Spirit, as God, is not confined to the pages of Scripture but continues to work in the lives of believers today, bringing wisdom, transformation, and freedom. Recognizing the Spirit’s divinity in the Old Testament enriches our understanding of the Trinity, reminding us that God’s self-revelation has always been unfolding, inviting us into His divine mystery.

The Bible as a Prop: Examining Ken Ham’s Pattern of Misusing Scripture

Introduction

Over the past few years, I’ve been tracking how Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis handle the Bible. The pattern I’ve seen bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the rhetorical tactics used by some Islamic da’wah preachers: selective quoting, historical revisionism, and a reliance on followers accepting every claim without testing it against the source material. Ham himself has joked on multiple occasions that his followers tell him they enjoy hearing him speak no matter what he says—often because of his accent. (1) While he presents it humorously, the comment reveals a startling truth about the mindset of his demographic: a culture of personality‑driven trust rather than Berean‑style discernment.

In Ham’s rhetoric, “God’s Word” almost always means the written text of Scripture, and in practice, 99% of the time it means Genesis 1–11. On the rare occasion “God’s Word” refers to other passages, it is typically in service of defending his interpretation of those opening chapters. References to Jesus as “the Word” (John 1:1) are exceedingly rare, and references to “God’s Word” as God’s literal spoken command are rarer still. This reflects a strong form of biblicism—one Ham openly promotes—in which the written text is treated as the absolute authority in all matters of life and thought, and positioned as the foundation of what he calls the “biblical” or “Christian worldview.” The result is a myopic focus on Genesis that shapes his entire reading of the Bible: every text is filtered through his Young Earth Creationist apologetic, even when the passage has nothing to do with creation chronology. From blog posts to museum exhibits, books, interviews, and social media, verses are routinely lifted out of context, edited, or reframed to serve AiG’s narrative—often in ways that distort their original meaning.

A Sampling of Misuse

• Proverbs 13:22 — Altered in AiG’s museum with “[legacy]” inserted to fit their branding. The original contrasts the righteous and the sinner; Ham’s version turns it into a slogan about passing on AiG’s message.

• 1 Corinthians 11:19 — Used to claim that division in the church can be good if it’s over “the right reasons” (like AiG’s Genesis interpretation). In context, Paul is rebuking factions, not endorsing them.

• 1 Corinthians 14:8 — Quoted as a call for unity in AiG’s stance on Genesis, though the passage is about clarity in worship, not creation debates.

• 1 Corinthians 2:14 — Applied to suggest that only those with the Holy Spirit will accept a young earth. In context, Paul is talking about receiving God’s message, not calculating the age of the universe.

• 2 Peter 3:3–6 — “Scoffers” are said to be those who reject AiG’s creation and flood model. But Peter’s scoffers doubt Christ’s return, not creation itself.

• Job 38:4 — Ham uses “Were you there?” to dismiss old‑earth views, claiming Genesis is God’s eyewitness account. In Job, God is humbling Job, not giving creation details.

• Genesis 7:11 — Reads “the fountains of the great deep burst open” as a literal, scientific description of catastrophic tectonic activity to support his flood model — but in the same verse, treats “the windows of heaven were opened” metaphorically. Literal when it helps the model, metaphor when it doesn’t.

• Genesis 3:14 — Takes “you shall crawl on your belly” as literal proof snakes once had legs, but dismisses “and you shall eat dust” as metaphor. Again, literal when it fits, figurative when it doesn’t.

• Matthew 7:13 — Applied to explain why most scientists reject Young Earth Creationism (“broad is the road that leads to destruction”). In context, Jesus is warning about the way of life that leads away from Him, not about scientific consensus.

• John 3:19 — Used to suggest that those who accept evolution or deep time “love darkness rather than light.” In context, Jesus is speaking about rejecting Him as the Light of the world, not about positions on the age of the earth.

• Matthew 19:4 — Cited to argue that God made humans “from the beginning” and therefore the earth cannot be millions of years old. In context, Jesus is affirming the creation of male and female as the basis for marriage, not giving a chronology of the universe.

• Matthew 25:41 — Displayed in the Creation Museum as a condemnation of certain cultural groups, but stripped of the following verses about neglecting “the least of these.” The omission changes the focus from neglect of mercy to culture‑war issues.

• Jude 3 — Sometimes paired with a (misattributed) Edmund Burke quote about “the triumph of evil,” this verse is frequently used to rally Christians into culture‑war activism. In context, Jude is warning about false teachers and ungodly behavior within the church, not unbelievers or politics. Nor does it say anything about using Young Earth apologetics to reach people with the gospel.

• Jeremiah 10:14 — Quoted (“Every man is stupid and without knowledge”) to dismiss human reasoning on creation, climate, justice, and more. In context, Jeremiah is rebuking idol‑makers, not humanity in general.

• Colossians 2:3 — Tied to Jeremiah 10:14 to claim true wisdom comes only from starting with AiG’s interpretation of God’s Word. In context, Paul is speaking of wisdom found in Christ Himself, not in a specific apologetic model.

• Joshua 1:6–9 — Used to warn against “compromising” with outside ideas about creation. In context, God is commissioning Joshua to lead Israel into the Promised Land, urging courage and obedience to the Law of Moses. It’s a specific covenant leadership charge, not a general prohibition against engaging with scientific or historical evidence.

• Isaiah 66:1–2 — Quoted to suggest that “trembling at God’s Word” means rejecting any interpretation of Genesis that incorporates extra‑biblical data. In context, God is contrasting His transcendence with human attempts to impress Him through temple‑building, and affirming that He looks with favor on the humble and contrite. The focus is on posture toward God, not on a particular stance in modern creation debates.

• 2 Corinthians 4:6 — Used to frame AiG’s Young Earth Creationist reading of Genesis as the “light” Christians must shine into culture. In context, Paul is speaking about God’s act of shining the light of the knowledge of His glory in Christ into believers’ hearts—pointing to the gospel, not to a specific interpretation of creation chronology.

• Matthew 5:14–16 — Applied to argue that “letting your light shine” means publicly promoting AiG’s Genesis teaching. In context, Jesus is calling His disciples to live in such a way that their good works lead others to glorify God—again, the focus is on visible Christlike living, not on persuading unbelievers to adopt a particular creation model.

• 1 Kings 19:14-18 — Used to compare AiG supporters to Elijah and the “7,000 who had not bowed to Baal,” presenting them as the faithful remnant who alone “stand uncompromisingly on God’s Word beginning in Genesis.” In context, God is reassuring Elijah that he is not alone — that thousands remain faithful. By applying this passage to his movement, Ham implies (not so subtly) that Christians who do not embrace Young Earth Creationism are like the unfaithful Israelites who worshiped Baal. This fits with his broader rhetoric that “evolution” and “millions of years” are a “pagan religion.” The result is a framing where disagreement with AiG’s interpretation is equated with idolatry, rather than a difference in opinion among faithful believers.

The Through‑Line

The list of passage goes on and on, but the pattern is unmistakable:

• Editing or omitting inconvenient parts of verses.

• Reframing rebukes as endorsements.

• Applying unrelated passages to Genesis debates.

• Switching between literal and metaphorical readings within the same verse to fit the model.

• Implying that disagreement with AiG equals spiritual deficiency.

This pattern would be troubling from any teacher, but it is especially so in Ham’s case. He has positioned himself as a definitive biblical authority despite having no formal training in theology or biblical studies, no ordination, and no seminary education. His background is in applied science and education, and his “doctorates” are honorary degrees from institutions aligned with his ministry. There is nothing wrong with being self‑taught — I am as well — but I am transparent about my background, acknowledge my fallibility, and invite my audience to fact‑check me. Ham does not. Instead, he often brands those who disagree with him as “compromising the authority of God’s Word with the fallible ideas/word of man,” while his followers, drawn to his persona and confidence, frequently accept his teaching without question.

What we see here is not merely one man’s interpretation, but a consistent pattern of treating the Bible as a prop for a pre‑determined message rather than allowing the text to speak on its own terms. When Scripture is bent to fit our agenda, we are no longer submitting to God’s Word; we are making it submit to us — the very opposite of honoring its authority.

For that reason, we must hold ourselves and our teachers to a higher standard. Handle the Scriptures with reverence, care, and context. Test every claim against the whole counsel of God’s Word, not just the verses someone strings together to make a point. Do not be swayed by a silver tongue or by words that merely scratch our itching ears. Love the truth enough to follow it wherever it leads, and demand the same integrity from those who teach the Word.

Only then will we shine the light of Christ — not the dim reflection of our own agendas — into a world that desperately needs Him.

Son of God, Not the Offspring of God: Understanding Jesus' Divine Sonship

 

Introduction: The Misconception of Jesus as a Demi-God

Throughout history, various interpretations of Jesus' identity have emerged, some of which misunderstand His divine nature. One such misconception is the claim that Jesus was a demi-God—a being who is literally the biological offspring of Yahweh and Mary. This view, often influenced by Greco-Roman mythology, distorts the theological framework of Christian doctrine and contradicts biblical scholarship. Additionally, echoes of ancient heresies continue to shape modern religious perspectives on Jesus, particularly among Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Furthermore, some scholars, such as Michael Heiser, argue that Genesis 6:1-4 presents a unique case where divine beings interacted with humans, producing the Nephilim. While this passage does describe supernatural beings engaging with humanity, it is distinct from the Greco-Roman demi-God concept. Jewish theology typically rejects divine-human hybridization, but Genesis 6 reflects an Ancient Near Eastern worldview where rebellious divine beings corrupted creation, distinct from pagan myths of heroic demi-Gods.

Similarly, misunderstandings about Jesus' death often lead skeptics to incorrectly claim that God killed "His Son" in an act of divine child sacrifice. Instead, Christian theology teaches that God Himself, in the person of Jesus, took on flesh and bore the punishment for sin.

Religious Groups That Hold This View

Certain sects and religious movements have propagated the idea that Jesus was a demi-God. Some fringe Christian groups, influenced by Gnostic traditions, have suggested that Jesus was a hybrid being—part divine and part human. Additionally, some skeptics argue that early Christian theology borrowed from pagan myths, equating Jesus with figures like Hercules or Perseus, who were believed to be the offspring of gods and mortals.

While mainstream Christianity affirms the doctrine of the Incarnation, some groups such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses hold views that reflect ancient Christological heresies.

Mormonism and the Influence of Arianism

Mormonism teaches that Jesus is the literal spirit son of God the Father, distinct from Him in being, and was created before coming to Earth. This closely resembles Arianism, an ancient heresy that taught Jesus was not co-eternal with the Father but a created being—the highest of all creatures, yet subordinate to God.

Arianism: The Denial of Christ’s Eternal Divinity

• Origin: Arianism was founded by Arius, a 4th-century presbyter in Alexandria.

• Core Belief: Arians taught that Jesus was not co-eternal with God but was a created being, making Him lesser than God the Father.

• Condemnation: The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) rejected Arianism, affirming that Jesus is eternally begotten, not made, and is of the same essence as the Father. (1)

Mormonism’s belief that Jesus was created as a spirit being and is separate from God the Father bears striking similarities to Arianism.

Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Influence of Arianism & Adoptionism

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is not God but rather a created being, specifically Michael the Archangel before His earthly life. This belief closely aligns with Arianism, as Jehovah’s Witnesses deny Jesus’ eternal divinity and claim He was the first creation of God.

Jehovah’s Witness theology also bears some resemblance to Adoptionism, an early heresy that taught Jesus was a mere human who was later adopted by God as His Son.

Adoptionism: The Denial of Jesus’ Innate Divinity

• Core Belief: Adoptionists claimed Jesus was born a mere man and was later elevated to divine status by God.

• Condemnation: The doctrine was rejected by the early church, as Jesus affirmed His divine Sonship from eternity, not as a later adoption.

While Jehovah’s Witnesses do not fully embrace Adoptionism, their denial of Jesus’ co-equal divinity with the Father aligns with its core premise.

Scholarly Refutation of the Demi-God Theory

1. Biblical Evidence Against the Demi-God Concept

The Bible consistently presents Jesus as the divine Son of God, not as a demi-God. The doctrine of the Incarnation, as articulated in John 1:1, 14, states that "the Word was God" and "the Word became flesh." This affirms that Jesus is fully divine and fully human, not a hybrid being.

Additionally, Luke 1:35 clarifies that Jesus' conception was a miraculous act of the Holy Spirit, not a biological union between Yahweh and Mary.

2. Historical Context: The Influence of Pagan Mythology vs. Genesis 6

Some skeptics argue that early Christianity borrowed from Greco-Roman mythology, leading to the demi-God interpretation. However, scholars refute this claim by demonstrating that Jewish monotheism generally rejects divine-human hybridization and the concept of demi-Gods, which emphasizes God’s absolute transcendence.

That being said, Michael Heiser argues that Genesis 6:1-4 presents a unique case where divine beings (the "sons of God") interacted with human women, producing the Nephilim. (2, 3, 4) Heiser contends that this passage reflects an Ancient Near Eastern supernatural worldview, distinct from Greco-Roman demi-God myths.

Rather than portraying heroic demi-Gods, Genesis 6 depicts a rebellion of divine beings corrupting humanity, leading to divine judgment (the flood). This aligns more with Jewish and Christian traditions of cosmic conflict, rather than mythological hybridization.

3. Theological Implications: Jesus' Death Was God Taking Humanity’s Place

A common misconception is that Jesus’ death was divine child sacrifice, where God unjustly killed His "Son" to appease His wrath. This completely misunderstands the nature of the Atonement. 

Christian theology affirms that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, a doctrine known as the Hypostatic Union. This means that Jesus' divine nature was not diluted by His human nature, nor was He a hybrid being. The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) formally defined the Hypostatic Union, affirming that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, rejecting views that diminished His full divinity or humanity.

Rather, Christian theology teaches that:

• Jesus’ death was not an external being suffering under God's wrath—it was God Himself bearing the penalty for sin.

• Jesus is fully God and fully man—He died in His human nature, but never ceased being God (1 Timothy 6:16).

• He willingly laid down His life (John 10:17-18) and had authority to take it up again (John 2:19-21).

• Jesus bore sin on behalf of humanity (2 Corinthians 5:21), so that sinners might become righteous through Him.

• The penal substitutionary atonement teaches that Christ took our punishment, absorbing God's just wrath so that believers could be reconciled to Him (Isaiah 53:5-6).

Additionally, the article Was Jesus Really the ‘Son of God’? (5) examines the historical context of the term "Son of God" and argues that Jesus did not present Himself as the literal, biological son of Yahweh, but rather as the divine Son uniquely united with the Father, in accordance with Jewish traditions that referred to kings and prophets as "sons of God."

Conclusion: Affirming Jesus’ True Identity

The misconception that Jesus was a demi-God arises from a misunderstanding of biblical theology and historical context. Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses, among other groups, propagate views that echo ancient heresies such as Arianism and Adoptionism. Additionally, misunderstandings about Genesis 6:1-4 and Jesus' death contribute to flawed perspectives. However, scholarly research and biblical evidence affirm that Jesus is fully God and fully man.

Furthermore, while Genesis 6:1-4 describes divine beings interacting with humans, Michael Heiser’s scholarship clarifies that this passage reflects an Ancient Near Eastern supernatural worldview, distinct from Greco-Roman demi-God myths. The Nephilim were a product of rebellion, not heroic divine-human offspring.

Most importantly, Jesus’ death was not an external being suffering under God's wrath—it was God Himself taking human form, stepping into history, and bearing the punishment for sin. The profound mystery of the Incarnation reveals Jesus as the eternal Word made flesh, reconciling humanity to God.