JOHN GILL AND THE JEHOVAH-ELOHIM HERMENEUTIC

Throughout Christian history, the church has confessed “that we worship one God in Trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding their persons nor dividing the essence.” This divine mystery is contained in the unified testimony of Scripture, wherein God reveals himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In the fullness of progressive revelation, the Triunity of God is published through Jesus Christ in the pages of the New Testament. The extent it may be discerned in the Old Testament, however, raises longstanding hermeneutical questions: Is the doctrine of the Trinity identifiable through Old Testament exegesis? Can one conclude a distinction of persons in the one divine essence in the Hebrew language? Were believers in the Old Covenant conscious of the Triune revelation of God? 

These types of questions were particularly significant within the exegetical tradition of the Reformation and its Trinitarian polemics. The rise of anti-Trinitarianism in the sixteenth century, for example, left the Protestant church diverging on certain hermeneutical grounds from one another. This divergence concerned whether the doctrine of the Trinity could be coherently and exegetically defended from the text of the Old Testament. Prominent theologians, like John Calvin (1509-1564) and Girolamo Zanchi (1516-1590), represent two views on this matter. Calvin’s exegetical method was primarily grammatical, exercising care to arrive at the ancient, authorial intent, and, in turn, expressing skepticism toward a number of Old Testament proof texts raised in defense of the doctrine of the Trinity. On the other hand, Zanchi’s method was theological in bent, arguing for God’s Triunity explicitly through the Old Testament divine names, Jehovah and Elohim—the former name in revelation of the singular essence of God and the latter in revelation of the plurality of persons in God. These hermeneutical methods, represented by Calvin and Zanchi respectively, demonstrate the tension within the Reformed tradition and its ongoing question regarding the relationship between Old Testament exegesis and the articulation and defense of the doctrine of the Trinity.

In consideration of this question, the Particular Baptist theologian, John Gill (1697-1771), is an important case study. Although centuries after the Reformation, Gill represents intentional engagement both with Old Testament exegesis, as evidenced by his Exposition of the Old Testament (1748-63), and with Reformed Orthodox theology, as demonstrated by his Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity (1769). Gill’s engagement with both exegetical and systematic theology coincides as the foundation for his defense of classical Trinitarianism in the eighteenth century, specifically in his Treatise on the Doctrine of the Trinity (1731). These writings reveal Gill’s commitment to orthodox and creedal articulations of the Godhead, rooting them in his exegesis of Old Testament passages and, specifically, the names of God: Jehovah and Elohim. Interestingly, however, Gill’s defense of the Trinity appeals not only to Christian interpretations of the text, but rabbinic writings. Gill, in other words, presents a sustained commitment to a thoroughly orthodox theology of the Trinity, while likewise, rooting his defense in a sustained commitment to the grammatical, lexical, and historical realities of the Old Testament—even in citation of early Jewish commentators.

This blog will argue that John Gill’s Trinitarian exegesis of the Old Testament represents a Particular Baptist appropriation and development of Trinitarian orthodoxy consistent within the Reformed and Reformed Orthodox of the sixteenth and seventeenth century. To demonstrate this, specific attention will be given to Gill’s Treatise on the Doctrine of the Trinity, with particular focus on Gill’s employment of Jehovah–Elohim and his appeals to Jewish writings. 

Jehovah and the Divine Essence

Gill begins his exegetical defense of the Trinity by asserting “proof of the unity of the Divine Essence, or, that there is but one God.” He cites the sufficiency of Scripture in this task, recognizing that it is a doctrine of “pure revelation,” contained in the books of the Old and New Testament which “ought to be our guide in all such abstruse and mysterious doctrines.” Upon articulating what he does not mean by the one essence of God, polemically addressing Arianism, Sabellianism, and Tritheism, Gill cites his orthodox understanding of God’s Being by appeal to Jehovah in Deuteronomy 6:4:

We say, that there is but one divine essence, which is common and undivided to Father, Son, and Spirit; and in this sense we assert that there is but one God. There’s but one essence, though there are different modes of subsisting in it… when we say, there is but one God, we thereby design, and so do the scriptures, to include, and not exclude, the deity of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; which will appear by considering the forementioned scriptures.

Elohim and the Plurality of Persons

It is Gill’s Old Testament argument for the plurality within the Godhead via Elohim which is most deserving of attention. To establish his defense, Gill raises three points. First, the plural name Elohim, which is often used when Jehovah is likewise employed, is sometimes joined together by a singular verb, such as in Genesis 1:1. Because Elohim is in the plural construct, it grammatically requires a plural verb; however, Moses employs the word bara, a singular verb. According to Gill, this cannot mean a plurality of gods, as already established with the divine name Jehovah, nor cannot it refer to any creature, for the creative verb can only be ascribed to deity; therefore, Elohim must refer to a plurality of persons within the singular essence of Jehovah. Gill, thusly, translates the text theologically to establish this point, writing: “In the beginning every one of the divine persons created the heavens and the earth.”

Second, Gill argues that Elohim is elsewhere employed with a plural verb, with examples from Genesis 20:13, Genesis 35:7, and 2 Samuel 7:23. The Trinitarian significance of this particular construct is revealed by the aforementioned assertion concluded by Gill and the inspired writers—namely, Elohim in these instances cannot mean a form of polytheism. Rather, in its particular uses contained in the noted texts, they refer to the divine persons of the Godhead due to their ascription of personal actions—namely, in “their removal of Abraham from his father’s house; their appearance to Jacob, and their redemption of the people of Israel.”

Finally, Gill employs Elohim as a Trinitarian witness by concluding that it is occasionally used with plural adjectives and participles. In particular, Gill provides an exegesis of Jeremiah 10:10 to demonstrate his conclusion: “‘But the Lord is the true God; […] he is the living Gods;’ expressing, at once, a plurality of persons in the one divine being.” He provides similar arguments from Joshua 24:19, Proverbs 30:3, and Psalm 58:11 as proof texts for his polemic. 

‘Athanasian’ Rabbis

The most interesting argument that Gill raises in his Treatise regarding both Jehovah and Elohim is the employment of Jewish writings in his defense. For example, he cites the Zohar as evidence for Rabbinic understanding of the one essence of God with a maintained distinction of plurality within the divine Being: 

This is the unity which is called Jehovah, the first, Elohenu, Jehovah; lo! They are all one, and therefore called one, to show that those three names are as one; and therefore we call them one, because they are one; which is made known by the revelation of the Holy Spirit, and indeed is abundantly manifest… Jeovah, Elohenu, Jehovah; there are; these three […] modes, forms or things, are one.

Regarding Elohim, Gill cites the Zohar once more, as well as Bereshit Rabba and Parash, to claim that God’s Spirit, which flowed over the expanse, was the very “spirit of the Messiah.” The most pointed and profound claim of Gill is found in this particular quotation:

The ancient Jews not only concluded a plurality, but even a Trinity, from this word Elohim; as appears from a passage in the book of Zohar, where the author says: “Come, see the mystery of the word Elohim: There are three […] degrees, and every degree is distinct by himself, notwithstanding they are all one, and are bound together in one, and one is not divided from the other”. This is so full an account of the Trinity, that one would rather have thought it came out of the mouth of a Christian, than of a Jew. Was an Athanasian to give an account of his faith in the doctrine of the Trinity, he would do it in much the same language, except, that instead of degree he would use the word person.

Although Gill himself acknowledges that Jehovah–Elohim is not the clearest or strongest defense for the Trinity, this does not dismiss the validity of his interpretation. Gill’s point is clear. Faithful exegesis of the Old Testament Divine names of Jehovah and Elohim will, consequently, lead one to discern a plurality of persons within the Godhead. According to Gill, this is not a Christian imposition onto the text, but a divine reality revealed in the Old Testament itself. To establish the veracity in which this may be discerned, he notes that Jewish authors articulate something akin to the very creedal truth Gill himself is defending amid anti-Trinitarianism—one might conclude that the Rabbinic sources Gill employs were more Trinitarian than those professing Christian dogma in his day.

About the Author

John William Crawford is a ThM student at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, with particular focus on John Gill and the doctrine of the Trinity. He received his MDiv from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and his BA in Biblical Studies from Spurgeon College in Kansas City, Missouri. John William currently resides in North Alabama with his wife, Gracie, and their two (soon-to-be three!) children.

CBTS Student

This blog post is authored by a student of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary.