The “Heavenly” and “Earthly” Yahweh:
A Trinitarian Interpretation of Genesis 19:24
Genesis 19:24 – “Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven” (NASB)
I. Introduction
Among the many passages of the Old Testament that provide support for the doctrine of the Trinity, passages that have been looked upon as significant in this regard by Christians from the earliest days of the Church, are such as the one above which attributes the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah to the activities of more than one personal agent, each designated LORD or Yahweh.[1] Just as surely as the Church has found repose in verses such as this, so those outside of the Church have attempted to put them in a different (i.e. non-Trinitarian) light. As I have shown elsewhere,[2] some modern Christians have capitulated on this as well, not by denying that the doctrine of the Trinity is found in the Bible as a whole, but by denying that these passages in their Old Testament setting provide certain of the necessary indicia for Trinitarianism. Some have gone so far as to deny that these Old Testament texts speak to the issue at all, even when the full light of the doctrine as given in the New Testament is made to shine back upon them. Nevertheless, as will be demonstrated, the Old Testament does speak to this issue with sufficient clarity, leaving those who deny the Trinity in material breach of both Testaments.
Against all of these notions the following provides a case for the historic Trinitarian understanding of Genesis 19:24, first from the Old Testament, and then from the New Testament. The view defended in the present paper is the same as Leupold’s who saw this downgrade trend over fifty years ago.
“We believe the view the church held on this problem from days of old is still the simplest and the best: Pluit Deus filius a Deo patre = “God the Son brought down the rain from God the Father,” as the Council of Sirmium worded the statement. To devaluate the statement of the text to mean less necessitates a similar process of devaluation of a number of other texts like [Genesis] 1:26, and only by such a process can the claim be supported that there are no indications of the doctrine of the Trinity in Genesis. We believe the combined weight of these passages, including Gen 1:1, 2, makes the conclusion inevitable that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is in a measure revealed in the Old Testament, and especially in Genesis. Why would not so fundamental a doctrine be made manifest from the beginning? We may see more of this truth than did the Old Testament saints, but the Church has through the ages always held one and the same truth.”[3]
II. The Old Testament Case for a Trinitarian Interpretation
Genesis 19:24 and the Old Testament
1. A Prima Facie Distinction of Persons
a. Even a casual reading of Genesis 19:24 points up some kind of personal plurality or distinction within the Godhead, for it speaks of Yahweh doing something from Yahweh in heaven, and this would be, to say the least, a rather odd way of saying that only one person was in view. Indeed this would not only be odd, it would be patently ungrammatical, altogether confusing, and downright misleading. This means that as much as one may go on in an effort to explain it differently the prima facie reading of the text is Trinitarian.
“This passage is remarkable regardless of how you deal with it. It simply states that there are two divine Persons. One on the earth and One in the heavens. Each Person is called … [Yahweh]. The first … [Yahweh] who is on earth brings down brimstone and fire from the second … [Yahweh] who is in the heavens. It is easy to see why this passage has irritated anti-Trinitarians for centuries.”[4]
b. When we move beyond this simple, surface-level observation and look at the verse in light of the broader context, we see that this distinction is indeed underscored and made quite undeniable, all contrary efforts proving to be unsuccessful.
To begin with, in the preceding chapter which leads into the account of Sodom’s destruction, we read of the Lord Yahweh’s appearance to Abraham along with two angels. After supping with Abraham the Lord announces His intention to judge the cities of the plain for the outcry that has reach heaven. In the process we have the first indication of a distinction of persons, both of whom are identified as Yahweh:
“The LORD said, ‘Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed? For I have chosen him, so that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him.’” (Gen. 18:17-19)
Second, whatever one makes of this otherwise curious alteration from the first person pronoun (“I”) to the third person noun (“LORD/Yahweh”) and pronoun (“He”), we are clearly told that the events that are about to unfold are “what I [Yahweh] am about to do.”[5] As it says plainly again in the verses that follow, Yahweh Himself is personally going to visit Sodom and Gomorrah and confirm the noxious report that has come up to heaven: “I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me; and if not, I will know (Gen. 18:21).” At this time the Lord dispatches the angels who accompanied Him (Gen. 18:22), responds to Abraham’s plea to save the righteous (Gen. 18:23-32), and finally departs from Abraham (Gen. 18:33).
In keeping with these things, chapter nineteen speaks first of the arrival of the two angels (Gen. 19:1ff), and later of Yahweh’s own presence in the city (Gen. 19:21-22). The point: The Lord, Yahweh, is in Sodom, just as He previously announced to Abraham; consequently, when Genesis 19:24 says “the LORD rained fire on Sodom and Gomorrah from the LORD from the heavens”, the distinction drawn is between someone on earth called “Yahweh”, the same person who spoke to Abraham, and someone in heaven called “Yahweh”, the one who poured out the fire. To state it simply: Yahweh on earth called down the fire from Yahweh in heaven.
c. Not only is the prima facie reading supported by the broader context, but all of this is reinforced by the rest of Scripture as well.
On this score one may especially observe that this manner of speaking is not an altogether unique phenomenon; neither is it something that is limited to the Spirit-inspired editorial comments of the Biblical writers; it can be found on the lips of the Lord God Himself. Although it is entirely possible to cite unrelated instances in the Bible of one person speaking of another person while yet both are identified as God (e.g. Hos. 1:7; Jer. 14:10), it is just as possible, and, therefore, all the more striking, to see that God perpetuates this manner of speaking in relation to the overthrow of these cities:
“Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold. And their bows will mow down the young men, they will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb, nor will their eye pity children. And Babylon, the beauty of kingdoms, the glory of the Chaldeans' pride, will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.” (Isaiah 13:17-19)
“As when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah with its neighbors,” declares the LORD, “No man will live there, nor will any son of man reside in it.” (Jeremiah 50:40)
“I sent a plague among you after the manner of Egypt; I slew your young men by the sword along with your captured horses, and I made the stench of your camp rise up in your nostrils; yet you have not returned to Me,” declares the LORD. “I overthrew you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and you were like a firebrand snatched from a blaze; yet you have not returned to Me,” declares the LORD. (Amos 4:10-11)
These passages wonderfully complement Moses’ description of the agency of Sodom’s downfall, thereby providing inspired prophetic commentary on Genesis 19:24. Were someone tempted to say that the way Sodom’s destruction is described in Genesis 19:24 is an isolated phenomena, as if for that reason it could be dismissed, or were they to say that these are Moses’ words and not the Lord’s, as if this objection were any better, the passages just cited would be their undoing, for they provide repeated testimony from God Himself that a distinction is in view.
This complimentary relationship works the other way as well. Since it is grammatically possible to refer to oneself in the third person, it has been suggested that this is all that is going on in the passages just cited from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Amos. But this objection is self-defeating as it only serves to underscore the distinction drawn in Genesis 19:24, for, unlike those passages, Genesis 19:24 is not an instance of Yahweh speaking, third person or otherwise, but an inspired description of Yahweh acting, and that “from” another.
In order for Moses to express what these people are looking for he would have had to say something like the following, “Yahweh rained down fire and brimstone from Himself,” or “Yahweh rained down fire from heaven.” Recognizing this, some in history have even had the temerity to (mis)translate or (mis)interpret Genesis 19:24 in like manner, and to these Luther’s response is fitting:
“Since the Jews are audacious, yes, even rash, they explain the particle as a pronoun, so that the sense is: ‘The Lord rained from Himself, the Lord.’ But who ordered them to have the audacity to do this in the case of God’s Book? For if one were at liberty to trifle in this way with Holy Scripture, no article of faith would remain intact. Hence it is characteristic of the unbelieving Jews and of the godless papists to be teachers of the Holy Spirit and to teach Him what or how to write. But let us be and remain pupils, and let us not change the Word of God; for we ourselves should be changed through the Word.”[6]
2. The Nature and Proper Divinity of These Two Persons
The surest proof that both of these persons are truly divine stems from the fact that the name Yahweh is applied to each. Contrary to some cultic,[7] occultic,[8] and otherwise sectarian groups of the past and present, Christians have always taken the Biblical view that the name Yahweh, here applied to two persons, is incommunicable; it does not properly apply to creatures.[9]
This is easily inferred from: the answer God gave to Moses on their first encounter at the burning bush when Moses asked God for His name, i.e. His distinctive or personal name, in answer to which the Lord said, “‘I AM WHO I AM’; and He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.' God, furthermore, said to Moses, ‘Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations” (Ex. 3:14-15); and it can also be gleaned from that other famous passage where Moses asks the Lord for a greater revelation of His glory, a request that is fulfilled not only by seeing the receding glory of the Lord while covered in the cleft of a rock, but by another declaration of the Name: “The LORD descended in the cloud and stood there with him as he called upon the name of the LORD. Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth…” (Ex. 34:5-6).[10] The following passages are also to the point:
“I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, nor My praise to graven images...” (Isaiah 42:8)
“For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; for how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another.” (Isaiah 48:11)
“Let them be ashamed and dismayed forever, and let them be humiliated and perish, that they may know that You alone, whose name is the LORD, are the Most High over all the earth.” (Psalm 83:18)
When confronted with the implications of this for the Trinity or the deity of Christ, many have been motivated to jettison the incommunicable nature of the divine name and have sought out many devices by which to get around it, but none of these can successfully withstand refutation. To take what is perhaps the most common objection to this, anti-Trinitarians have pointed to people like Elijah, whose name means “Yahweh is my God” (Heb. El = God; Jah = Yahweh), and argue from this that creatures can and do bear The Name. The full reality of the matter is, unlike the persons of the Trinity, none of the names given to created persons, Elijah among them, ever contain the full Tetragrammaton (YHWH): Jah is a contraction of God’s name; the full name is reserved for God alone. The name Yahweh is never applied to pagan deities, which are everywhere treated as lies and vanity, and it is never given wholesale to any individual.
3. The Personal Identity of These Two Persons
At this point the relevant question becomes whether or not we can further identify these two persons. Toward this end, it is helpful to observe not only the equal divinity of the two as betokened by the use of the name Yahweh, but the different roles that these persons assume. Whereas in the first instance Yahweh condescends to enter into the world, appears in the form of a man, and holds converse with sinful men, in the second instance Yahweh remains exalted in the heavens, apparently holds converse only with Yahweh on earth, and is not seen directly at any time. Furthermore, though the former, the “earthly” Yahweh, is undoubtedly Lord and sets about to determine the propriety of the judgment, He does not exercise His divine prerogative to do so apart from the will of Yahweh in heaven, for He rains down the fire not of or by Himself but from the Lord from the heavens.
Confirmation from Pre-Christian Jewish Sources
The fact that there were faithful Jews who understood and received what God revealed about Himself in texts like this before the rise of Christianity can be found in many quarters, especially in certain inter-testamental writings. The following is confined to the testimony supplied by Palestinian Jews of the eastern Diaspora as reflected in the Targums of Jerusalem, Pseudo-Jonathan, and Onkelos.
As will be seen presently, in an effort to understand and explain this portion of Scripture the Targumim either highlighted the distinction found in the actual Hebrew text by employing different terms for the two persons called Yahweh, or they perpetuated and/or accentuated that distinction in some other way.
1. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
“And the Word of the Lord had caused showers of favour to descend upon Sedom and Amorah, to the intent that they might work repentance, but they did it not: so that they said, Wickedness is not manifest before the Lord. Behold, then, there are now sent down upon them sulphur and fire from before the Word of the Lord from Heaven. And He overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and the herbage of the earth.”
2. Jerusalem Targum
“And the Word of the Lord Himself had made to descend upon the people of Sedom and Amorah showers of favour, that they might work repentance from their wicked works. But when they saw showers of favour, they said, So, our wicked works are not manifest before Him. He [i.e. the Word] turned (then), and caused to descend upon them bitumen and fire from before the Lord from the heavens.”
3. Targum of Onkelos
“And the Lord rained upon Sedom and upon Amorah sulphur and fire from before the Lord from the heavens, and destroyed those cities and all the plain, and all the dwellers in the cities and the herbage of the earth.”
III. The New Testament Case for a Trinitarian Interpretation
Preliminary Considerations
Two broad teachings of the New Testament shed significant light on this matter and, when coupled with what has come before and with what will follow, lead inexorably to the conclusion that Genesis 19:24 is Trinitarian in quality and that it specifically involves the Father and the Son.
First, the New Testament says of the Lord Jesus that He eternally preexisted His conception and birth as a man (e.g. Jn. 1:1-3; 17:5; Col. 1:17; et. al.), was active on earth in the Old Testament period (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-9), and was known to, among others, Abraham, the father of the faithful. As Jesus said:
“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” (Jn. 8:56-58)
Not only does the New Testament identify Jesus as someone known to Old Testament saints, even to the patriarch Abraham who saw a theophany of Yahweh in Genesis 18, but also, as in the passage just quoted, it does so in the process of revealing Jesus’ identity as Yahweh, the great “I Am” who spoke to Moses from the burning bush. This consideration alone makes it possible that the two persons called Yahweh by Moses in Genesis 19 are the Father and the Son, for who could gainsay that the Father can also properly be called “I Am” even as Jesus explicitly says of Himself in John 8?[11][12]
Second, no man has seen God (the Father) at any time, only the Lord Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, has been seen, and He has revealed the Father (Jn. 1:18, 14:1ff). Because Jesus is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature (Heb. 1:3), He alone is capable of fully revealing the Father (Matthew 11:27). This means that when God appeared to people of old, even though the Father was truly known in and through such events, it was not the Father but the Son who caused Himself to be seen and heard in a way suitable to finite creatures. Such temporary manifestations of God in the form of a man all prefigured the incarnation of the Son; they anticipated the fullness of time when God the Word would take flesh and permanently tabernacle among men (Jn. 1:1-14). This is why the New Testament repeatedly identifies other theophanic appearances in the Old Testament as the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Isa. 6:1-10 and Jn. 12:39ff; et. al.). It also accounts for the total absence of any theophanies in the New Testament, for at that time God the Word, the Lord Jesus, walked among men, even as He did with Adam and Eve in paradise at the beginning (Gen. 3:8) and will do forever in the consummated New Heavens and New Earth (Rev. 22).
Genesis 19:24 and the New Testament
Though the New Testament never quotes Genesis 19:24 directly, it does make remarks relevant to the judgment of Sodom and the identity of the persons called LORD or Yahweh on that occasion. As said, when coupled with the foregoing these remarks are tantamount to explicit testimony that Genesis 19:24 means, when properly interpreted, “God the Son brought down the rain from God the Father.”
a. Equivalent in Role
The relation between the “heavenly” and the “earthly” Yahweh of Genesis, as also the distinct role that each one assumes in the visitation to Abraham and the judgment on Sodom, are equivalent to the relationship and roles assumed and sustained by the first and second persons of the Trinity as recorded in the New Testament. Occasion has already been given to note certain features of this in Genesis 19, such as how one person remains unseen in heaven and carries out all activities in and through that person who comes to earth in the appearance of a man, but this becomes all the more poignant when brought into contact with the New Testament. As one early Christian observed as he reflected on this passage:
“But we know from the Gospel that Christ keeps this mode of speaking everywhere; for He relates everything, both His sayings and His deeds, to the Father. He says (John 7:16): ‘Philip, he who sees Me sees My Father;’ (John 14:10): ‘The Father abides in Me, and I in the Father’; and (John 5:19); ‘Whatever the Father does, the Son does the same.’ What else is this than what Moses says: Christ teaches, Christ works, but from the Father or out of the Father.”[13]
b. Equivalent in Activity
Of further interest related to the above is the fact that just as Yahweh in the Old Testament came to earth and called down the fire from Yahweh in heaven, so the Lord Jesus according to the New Testament will, in the same manner, come from the bosom of God the Father to judge all men on the last day. The divine prerogative exercised by Yahweh in the Old Testament account of the destruction of Sodom finds a direct correspondence in the work of Jesus according to the New Testament.
Does the Old Testament speak of the Lord Yahweh as one who will “come in fire and His chariots like the whirlwind, to render His anger with fury, and His rebukes with flames of fire (Isa. 66:14-16)”? Then so does the New Testament say of the Lord Jesus that He “will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus (2. Thess. 1:6-10).” Does the Old Testament speak of God when He comes forth to judge as one whose “apparel is red … like the one who treads in the wine press?” Then so does the New Testament say of Jesus “He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called the Word of God ... He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty (rev. 19:11-15).” And does the Old Testament speak of “the breath of Yahweh, like a stream of burning sulfur (Isa. 30:33)” setting a wicked land ablaze? Even so the New Testament says that the Lord Jesus will “overthrow with the breath of His mouth and destroy by the splendor of His coming (2 Thess. 2:8),” ultimately casting the wicked into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone.
In fact, not only does the New Testament speak of the Lord Jesus exercising this divine prerogative in a way that exactly mirrors what God is said to do according to the Old Testament, but it does so in a way that could hardly be passed over in its significance relative to Genesis 19:24.
“For the Son of Man [i.e. Jesus] in his day will be like the lightning which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation … It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed (Luke 17:24-25, 28-30).”
c. Jude’s Definitive Testimony
All of this brings us, finally, to the testimony of Jude, the half-brother of Jesus.
“For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” (Jude 4-7)
At least three lines of evidence from this passage demonstrate that Jesus is the one who visited Sodom and Gomorrah in fiery judgment:
a. Since Jesus is identified in the context of verses 4-7 as “our only Master and Lord” (v. 4), both thematic and exegetical consistency require us to understand “the Lord” who judged the Israelites (v. 5), the angels (v. 6), and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 7) as the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, because verse four identifies Jesus as our only Master and Lord, there should be little wonder that the strongest manuscript evidence and other sources favor “Jesus” in place of “Lord” in verse five,[14] a reading that is reflected in, among several other translations,[15] the English Standard Version:
“Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, after destroyed those who did not believe…just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment by eternal fire.” (Jude 4ff.)
b. Besides this, the other examples that Jude gives of “the Lord” judging the ungodly for licentiousness and gross immorality – 1) the generation of Israelites that died in the wilderness, and 2) the angels who are kept in eternal bonds – are things associated with the activity of Jesus in other parts of Scripture. Consistency should lead us to include the third and final example, Sodom, among Christ’s judgments and devastations.
c. When Jude concludes verse seven by saying that the people of Sodom are “exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire,” it yields another compelling line of proof that Jesus is the Lord who visited Sodom and destroyed it. Note the parallels between the judgment on Sodom by Yahweh and that of the Lord Jesus at the end of history, of which the former is said to be an example or type:
- Jesus Himself will come from heaven to earth
- Jesus will be accompanied by angels
- Jesus will execute the judgment of the Lord in heaven
- Jesus will ultimately cast into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone
- The smoke of the damned will ascend before all of heaven
Confirmation from Patristic Sources
Having considered before the nascent Trinitarianism of certain early Jewish sources in reflecting on the Old Testament, it is appropriate to consider here the response of the early church to the combined testimony of both testaments. In the process let it be observed: this view was uniformly held by the early Christians, not only after but also before the council of Nicea (325 A.D.). It was at Nicea that the doctrine of the Trinity was first foisted on the Church, or so a multitude of unbelievers continue to assert.[16] The following testimony should be enough to put this issue to rest.
1. Ignatius
“For Moses, the faithful servant of God, when he said, “The Lord thy God is one Lord,” and thus proclaimed that there was only one God, did yet forthwith confess also our Lord [Jesus Christ] when he said, “The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord.”[17]
2. Pseudo-Ignatius
“… reject every Jewish and Gentile error, … neither introduce a multiplicity of gods, nor yet deny Christ under the pretense of [maintaining] the unity of God. For Moses, the faithful servant of God, when he said, “The Lord thy God is one Lord,” and thus proclaimed that there was only one God, did yet forthwith confess also our Lord when he said, “The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord.”[18]
3. Justin Martyr
“I [Justin] inquired. And Trypho said, “Certainly; but you have not proved from this that there is another God besides Him who appeared to Abraham, and who also appeared to the other patriarchs and prophets. You have proved, however, that we [the Jews] were wrong in believing that the three who were in the tent with Abraham were all angels.” I [Justin] replied again, “If I could not have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of those three is God, because as I already said, He brings messages to those to whom God the Maker of all things wishes [messages to be brought], then in regard to Him who appeared to Abraham on earth in human form in like manner as the two angels who came with Him, and who was God even before the creation of the world, it were reasonable for you to entertain the same belief as is entertained by the whole of your nation.” “Assuredly,” he said, “for up to this moment this has been our [the Jews] firm belief.” … “And now have you not perceived, my friends that one of the three, who is both God and Lord, and ministers to Him who is in the heaves, is Lord of the two angels? For when [the angels] proceeded to Sodom, He remained behind, and communed with Abraham in the words recorded by Moses; and when He departed after the conversation, Abraham went back to his place. And when he came to [Sodom], the two angels no longer conversed with Lot, but Himself, as the Scripture makes evident; and He is the Lord who received commission from the Lord who [remains] in the heavens, i.e., the Maker of all things, to inflict upon Sodom and Gomorrah the [judgments] which the Scripture describes in these terms: ‘The Lord rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.”[19]
4. Irenaeus
“Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord. And again, referring to the destruction of the Sodomites, the Scripture says, “Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the LORD out of heaven.” For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, had received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness.”[20]
“And then the Scripture says: And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven: that is to say, the Son, who spake with Abraham, being Lord, received power to punish the men of Sodom from the Lord out of heaven, even from the Father who rules over all. So Abraham was a prophet and saw things to come, which were to take place in human form: even the Son of God, that He should speak with men and eat with them, and then should bring in the judgment from the Father, having received from Him who rules over all the power to punish the men of Sodom.”[21]
5. Tertullian
“That is a still grander statement which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ There was One ‘who was’, and there was another ‘with whom’ He was. But I find in Scripture the name LORD also applied to them Both: ‘The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand.’ And Isaiah says this: ‘Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” Now he would most certainly have said Thine Arm, if he had not wished us to understand that the Father is Lord, and the Son also is Lord. A much more ancient testimony we have also in Genesis: ‘Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.’ Now, either deny that this is Scripture; or else (let me ask) what sort of man you are, that you do not think words ought to be taken and understood in the sense in which they are written, especially when they are not expressed in allegories and parables, but in determinate and simple declarations?”[22]
6. Cyprian
“That the Father judgeth nothing, but the Son; and that the Father is not glorified by him by whom the Son is not glorified.
In the Gospel according to John: ‘The Father judgeth nothing, but hath given all judgment unto the Son, that all may honour the Son as they honour the Father’….Also in Genesis: ‘And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur, and fire from heaven from the Lord’.”[23]
7. Novatian
“… it was only God the Son, who also is God, who was seen by Abraham, and was believed to have been received with hospitality. For He anticipated sacramentally what He was hereafter to become. He was made a guest of Abraham, being about to be among the Sons of Abraham … Whence also, that there might be no doubt but that it was He who was the guest of Abraham on the destruction of the people of Sodom, it is declared: ‘Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrha fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven.” For thus also said the prophet in the person of God: ‘I have overthrown you, as the Lord overturned Sodom and Gomorrha’. Therefore the Lord overturned Sodom, that is, God overturned Sodom; but in the overturning of Sodom, the Lord rained fire from the Lord. And this God was the guest of Abraham, certainly seen because He was also touched. But although the Father, being invisible, was assuredly not at that time seen, He who was accustomed to be touched and seen was seen and received to hospitality. But this is the Son of God, ‘The Lord rained from the Lord upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire.’ And this is the word of God. And the Word of God was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and this is Christ. It was not the Father, then, who was made a guest with Abraham, but Christ. Nor was it the Father who was seen then, but the Son; and Christ was seen. Rightly, therefore, Christ is both Lord and God, who was not otherwise seen by Abraham, except that as God the Word He was begotten of God the Father before Abraham himself.”[24]
“For thus say they, ‘If it is asserted that God is one, and Christ is God’, then say they, ‘If the Father and Christ be one God, Christ will be called the Father.’ Wherein they are proved to be in error, not knowing Christ, but following the sound of a name; for they are not willing that He should be the second person after the Father, but the Father Himself. And since these things are easily answered, a few words shall be said. For who does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he … holds in his hands: ‘The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha fire and brimstone from the Lord from heaven?”[25]
8. Constitution of the Holy Apostles
“… He is the Christ of God, who is ‘determined by Him to be the Judge of quick and dead.’ To Him did Moses bear witness, and said: ‘The Lord received fire from the Lord, and rained it down.’”[26]
9. Chrysostom
“… let them learn that this mode of speech is not uncommon in Scripture [that more than one person is called Lord and God]; as when it is said, ‘The Lord said unto my Lord’ … and again, ‘I said unto the Lord, Thou art my Lord’ … and, ‘The Lord rained fire from the Lord.’ … This indicates that the Persons are of the same substance, not that there is a distinction of nature. For we are not to understand that there are two substances differing from each other, but two Persons, each being of the same substance.”[27]
10. Eusebius of Caesarea
“Moses most clearly proclaims him second Lord after the Father, when he says, The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord (Genesis 19:24). The divine Scripture also calls him God, when he appeared again to Jacob in the form of a man, and said to Jacob, Your name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel shall be your name, because you have prevailed with God (Genesis 32:38). Wherefore also Jacob called the name of that place Vision of God, saying, For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved (Genesis 32:30).”[28]
11. Ambrose
“‘In thee,’ saith he, ‘is God’ – forashmuch as the Father is in the Son. For it is written, ‘The Father, Who abideth in Me, Himself speaketh,’ and ‘The works that I do, He Himself also doeth.’ And yet again we read that the Son is in the Father, saying, ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.’ Let the Arians, if they can, make away with this kinship in nature and unity in work.
There is, therefore, God in God, but not two Gods; for it is written that there is one God, and there is Lord in Lord, but not two Lords, forasmuch as it is likewise written: ‘Serve not two lords.’ And the Law saith: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord thy God is one God;’ moreover, in the same Testament it is written: ‘The Lord rained from the Lord.’ The Lord, it is said, sent rain ‘from the Lord’ … So again, when you read, ‘The Lord rained from the Lord,’ acknowledge the unity of Godhead, for unity in operation doth not allow of more than one individual God, even as the Lord Himself has shown, saying: ‘Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me: or believe Me for the very works sake.’ Here, too, we see that unity of Godhead is signified by unity in operation.”[29]
IV. Conclusion
The Old Testament witness is clear: God is Triune. A Trinitarian reading of Genesis 19:24 is demanded by the context provided in chapters 18-19, as well as by many other relevant considerations drawn from the Old Testament (e.g. the inspired, interpretive testimony of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Amos). These insights were not lost on faithful Jews of pre-Christian times or on the early Christians, a fact that has also been brought out. Above all it has been shown that this view receives definitive approval from various lines of evidence derived from the New Testament – the Word of the Messiah, whose name is above all names, who has all authority in heaven and on earth, and before whom every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
Endnotes
[1] In most English translations of the Old Testament, when the divine name, which consists of four consonants (YHWH), commonly called the Tetragrammaton, appears in the underlying Hebrew text, it is made over into English as Lord and is set off from other terms that are also translated Lord (such as Adonai) through the use of all capital letters: LORD. While there is some debate about the exact pronunciation of God’s name in Hebrew, with some ecclesiastical writers of past centuries rendering it Jehovah, not to mention certain cult groups like the so-called Jehovah’s Witnesses, the scholarly consensus of the present favors Yahweh as a better approximation.
[2] See “Let Us Make Man: A Trinitarian Interpretation of Genesis 1:26”
[3] H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1942)
[4] R. Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues (Grand Rapids, Michigan: World Publishing, 1996), p. 97
[5] See also Genesis 19:14: “Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, and said, "Up, get out of this place, for the LORD will destroy the city." But he appeared to his sons-in-law to be jesting...”
[6] Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 15-20, as it appears in Luther’s Works, Vol. III (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958), p. 297, ed. by Jaroslav Pelikan.
[7] For example, this view was held by the Socinians in the past and is held by the Christadelphians of the present. See the following: http:www.bbie.org/English_text/Study01God/D03GodManifestation.html
[8] An example of this can be seen in ch. XIV, book two, of Francis Barrett’s The Magus, written in 1801. This book is available online at this website.
[9] “But we say that this name is so peculiar to God as to be altogether incommunicable to creatures”, Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume One: First Through Tenth Topics (Philipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, [1696], 1992), p. 184; “In the name ‘Jehovah’ the O.T. revelation of God reaches its culmination: no new names are added. God’s ‘proper name par excellence’ is Jehovah … This name is, therefore, not used of any other than Israel’s God, and never occurs in the construct state, in the plural or with suffixes,” Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), p. 107; “Hence, from the nature of the case this name cannot be analogically transferred to any creature, however eminent or exalted, J. H. Thornwell, The Collected Writings of James H. Thornwell: Lectures on the Doctrine of God and Divine Government, Vol. 1 (Solid Ground Christian Books), p. 154; “Jehovah … has ever been esteemed by the Church the most distinctive and sacred, because [it is] the incommunicable name of God,” R. L. Dabney, Systematic Theology (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust [1871], 1985), p. 145; “[Jehovah], the Name of God, the Name par excellence, in which God’s nature is revealed in the highest sense of the word, and by which He is distinguished forever even from the deities of the heathen” Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1966), p. 66; “It [Jehovah] has always been regarded as the most sacred and the most distinctive name of God, the incommunicable name….It stresses the covenant faithfulness of God, is His proper name par excellence…and is therefore used of no one but Israel’s God”, Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., [1939], 1991), p. 49
[10] The apostles knew there was an especially sanctified and personal name for God, a name that was exclusive to Him and above all other names, for they could simply refer to “the name”. As an example: “For they went out for the sake of the Name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles”. (3 John vs. 7). Along these lines one should not miss that when Jesus returned to the glorified position He shared with the Father before the world was created (Jn. 1:1-3; 17:1-5), He received “the name” that is above all names (Eph. 1:20-21), a name that was already His by virtue of His divinity but which was also conferred on Him as the incarnate Word and victorious Messiah at His exaltation when He triumphed over Satan, sin, and death. (Phil. 2:5-10)
[11] New Age feminists and Muslims are among the exceptions to this rule: feminists for obvious reasons; and Muslims because their Qur’an knows nothing of the Father of God, their “god” being different than “the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”.
[12] The irony here should be underscored: whereas many people debate the propriety of identifying Jesus as Yahweh or the Great “I Am” who spoke to Moses, no one debates the legitimacy of calling the Father Yahweh. However, and here is the irony, Jesus explicitly calls Himself by this name, but nowhere does the text of Scripture explicitly say that the Father calls Himself Yahweh, even though this is a truth that is easily and soundly inferred from overwhelming Biblical data. In other words: it is an inference that the Father is Yahweh, but it is explicit that Jesus is Yahweh. Whence, then, the debate about Jesus?
[13] Regrettably, I can no longer find the source of this citation. The remarks are true, nonetheless.
[14] NA27 supplies the following manuscript attestation for this reading: A B 33 81 1241 1739 1881 2344 pc vg co Or1739mg. A note in the NET Bible adds the following witnesses: 88 322 323 424c 665 915 2298 eth Cyr Hier Bede.
[15] Other translations that go with the best witnesses include the New English Translation, Wycliffe New Testament, and the Douay-Rheims Bible. Several other English versions note this reading in a footnote, e.g. ASV, RSV, NASV, NIV, NEB and TEV. It is interesting to observe that at least one ancient witness, P72, even has the following reading: “know all [this] once and for all, that God Christ who saved a people out of the land of Egypt…”
[16] The Council of Nicea may well be referred to as the universally recognized dumping ground of non-Christians; the underlying idea all non-Christians seem to share is: if you do not like something, blame it on Nicea. The catalogue of dastardly deeds said to have been perpetrated by Nicene Christians is quite long and includes such as the following: getting rid of certain bona-fide writings as non-canonical; rewriting whatever Scriptures remained after the yard sale previously mentioned; imposing a pagan day of worship on the Christian Church (i.e., the Lord’s Day); laying the foundations for anti-Semitism; et cetera. You name it, they blame it. ***Challenge to the reader: think of some hated teaching of Christianity or the pet theory of any non-Christian group or cult and do an internet search along the following lines – “Nicea + ______ (fill in the blank)”. This exercise is bound to turn up a baseless accusation by someone that it was invented by a group of evil bishops and a pagan emperor at Nicea.
[17] The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, ch. II
[18] To the Antiochians, Ch. 1-2
[19] Dialogue With Trypho, LVI. See also ch. CXXVII
[20] Against Heresies, Bk. III, ch. VI, sec. 1
[21] The Demonstration of the Apostlic Preaching
[22] Against Praxeas, ch. XIII
[23] The Treatises of Cyprian, bk. III, sec. 33
[24] Treatise Concerning the Trinity, ch. XVIII
[25] Ibid, ch. XXVI
[26] Constitution of the Holy Apostles, bk. V, ch. XX
[27] Homilies on 2 Timothy, III
[28] Church History, 1.2.9
[29] Exposition of the Christian Faith, bk. 1, ch. III, sec. 22-25