Distinct in Number, if Not in Essence
A Short Treatise on the First-Century Understanding of the Godhead
In Distinct in Number, if Not in Essence, the author explores the first-century Jewish understanding of the Godhead. This concise work guides readers through biblical and historical evidence to support a bold conclusion: that early Jewish theology mirrored the Christian concept of the Godhead—until it was later condemned as heresy.
The book presents three key arguments. First, Jesus revealed himself in ways that aligned with Jewish expectations of the second Person within the Godhead. Second, Paul's theology—especially concerning the Godhead and salvation—reflects the Old Testament as fulfilled in Christ. Third, rabbinic scribes from the second to fifth centuries actively reinterpreted the Old Testament to eliminate evidence of Judaism's original multi-person Godhead, even at the cost of branding their own forerunners as heretics.
Introduction
By the first century, the Jewish people had spent nearly two thousand years believing that they were special, chosen by God to usher in the Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One. It is difficult for our post-Enlightenment minds to grasp this, but these people absolutely believed that God talked to some men, known as prophets, and part of what God said was, “Through you the Messiah will be born." Their belief in the prophet's word was so strong that their faith not only survived the Babylonian exile, but it was thriving under Roman occupation. Two millennia ago, anticipation for the Anointed One was near fever pitch. In fact, the late historian Roger Beckwith argued that the Essenes, the Pharisees, and the Zealots all believed the Messiah's week in Daniel 9's “Seventy weeks" would culminate “between 3 B.C. and 2 A.D."1
It is into this world and mindset that a man walked in and said, “I and the Father are one," “to see me is to see the Father" (Jn. 10:30, 14:9). And everything obeyed him—both in the natural and supernatural realms. In the natural world winds and waves ceased at his voice and the blind, lame, and sick were healed at his touch. In the supernatural world demons fled at his word and the dead came alive at his command; and, cementing his authority between both worlds, the forgiveness of sin was his to freely give, as he wished. He was Immanuel. He was God with us. But were not the Jewish people looking for the Messiah?
Throughout my studies, it was taught that the Jews believed the Messiah was going to be a great military commander, who may or may not usher in the end times. In his short book, A Short History of Christianity, Stephen Tomkins claimed the Messiah's job, “was to drive out the Romans, restore true religion and rule justly."2 Tomkins' position seems to reflect the modern consensus—or at least the version widely taught in today's schools and churches. So, we must ask, did the average first-century Jew expect—believe—that the Christ would also be God incarnate?
It was not until the second century that the word “Trinity" was first used to refer to the Godhead, and of course those that used the term were Christians.3 Was the connection between the Messiah and God a common understanding in Jerusalem at the birth of the Common Era? Was there a concept of a multi-person Godhead? Was the idea even allowed? From everything I was taught, the answer was no. Per my understanding, the Jews were appalled by the idea of a two (or three) person Godhead. For them, even suggesting such was logically anti-monotheistic and blasphemous. However, if the New Testament is trustworthy, then the answer seems quite clear: the first-century Jew had to expect the Messiah to be God.
Consider the climactic moment at Jesus' trial: Caiaphas, the high priest, screams, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God" (Matt. 26:63). Notice he said, “Christ" and “the Son of God." What made Caiaphas connect those two offices? He, the high priest, connected the offices! Either Matthew was a liar, or this Jewish understanding was not even in question. They knew their Messiah would be God.
The high priest's connection of the offices suggests that the Messiah's divine nature was not limited to fringe speculation but was a recognized theological expectation. In the first century, many, if not most, believed the Son of David was the Son of God.
What did that mean? Was there historical evidence to support a two (or three) Person Godhead within Judaism? If there was evidence, then why is it considered an affront to Jewish monotheism today? Stated plainly, how did a uniquely Jewish understanding of the Godhead become a uniquely Christian understanding of the Godhead? This brief work seeks to answer these questions by laying out the historical and theological evidence.
- Roger T. Beckwith, “DANIEL 9 AND THE DATE OF MESSIAH'S COMING IN ESSENE, HELLENISTIC, PHARISAIC, ZEALOT AND EARLY CHRISTIAN COMPUTATION.” Revue de Qumrân, vol. 10, no. 4 (40), 1981, pp. 523-530. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24607004.
- Stephen Tomkins, A Short History of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 12.
-
Theophilus, To Autolycus, used the Greek τριάς, trías (c. 180-185).
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, used the Latin Trinitas (c. 213).