Duality of the Godhead in Old and New Testament

Next Part The Divine Names and Titles of God

Some have wondered why, if there are two Beings in the Godhead, the Old Testament does not more clearly address the subject. They point to the fact that the Jews of Christ’s time believed in only a Unitarian Godhead—this being part of the reason that Jewish leaders of the time were unable to accept Christ and His divinity. They considered His statements of being God in the flesh as blasphemy. But the Old Testament does contain verses that point to the duality of the Godhead. The Jews could have and should have known.

In the book of Daniel, written nearly six centuries before Christ’s life on earth, we read earlier, “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days…” (Dan 7:13).

This verse speaks of two Beings: one who is the “Son of Man” who came to the second Being—the “Ancient of Days.” The “Ancient of Days” in Dan 7:13 can only refer to the One called “the Father” in the New Testament because, of course, the Son of Man who …before Him” is Christ. This verse speaks of the Return of Christ to earth to set up the government of God.

Dan 7:22 makes it even more plain. It can only refer to Christ, as He is the one who will come at the time that “judgement is given to the saints.” This cannot possibly be speaking of the Father. Dan 7:9 refers to Christ, because this is an “Ancient of Days” who “did sit” at a time when other “thrones” were “cast down” (NKJV: “put in place”). This parallels Dan 7:22 almost exactly, with the other thrones being those of the resurrected saints.

Also consider. Isaiah 9:6 calls the One there who is clearly Christ, “the Everlasting Father”—and yet, we know that Christ is not “the Father.” This verse obviously refers to the fact that Christ is the “Father of Creation.” Isa 9:6 and 7 could not possibly refer to anyone other than Christ. Since we also know that Christ is Melchisedec (Heb. 7:1-17), and that Heb 7:3 describes Melchisedec as “having neither beginning of days, nor end of life,” it is not difficult to understand why He could also be considered “everlasting” in days.

In the parable of the nobleman (Luke 19:12), Christ made reference to the same event that Daniel saw in his vision. In that parable, the nobleman (Christ) went to a far country (heaven) to be given a kingdom and to return. This was a depiction of Christ’s death and Resurrection, and His Return in power and glory as the “King of kings” (Rev. 17:14).

We already saw another plain verse in the Psalms, where King David showed the duality of the God Family: “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit You at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool” (Psa. 110:1). Let’s be reminded that this verse mentions two different Lords. One (“The Lord”) is the Father. The Other (“my Lord”) is the One who would later become Jesus Christ.

Referring directly to Christ, Paul in the New Testament quoted this same verse: “But to which of the angels said He at any time, Sit on My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool?” (Heb. 1:13). Heb 1:8 shows that the Son was also God: “But unto the Son He says, Your throne, O God, is for ever…” Here Christ is directly called “God.” Remember, we mustalways let the Bible interpret the Bible.

Although most Bible students have never had this understanding (and many in the first-century Church, among others today, had it, but lost it and fell away), these verses show that both the Old and New Testaments recognize the Father and the Son as two separate Beings!