Divine Illeism and the Trinity: Does Third-Person Divine Speech Demonstrate Multiple Divine Persons?

Introduction

Among the many arguments advanced in support of Trinitarian theology, one of the more recent and increasingly popular proposals concerns the phenomenon of divine illeism—the use of third-person self-reference by God. Particular attention has been given to passages in which YHWH appears to refer to YHWH, or where Jesus refers to Himself in the third person. These texts are frequently presented as subtle yet compelling evidence for a plurality of persons within the one God.

The argument has gained renewed prominence through the work of scholars such as E. Roderick Elledge, whose research into third-person self-reference in both the Old and New Testaments has encouraged many apologists to view Jesus’ use of illeism as a deliberate literary echo of YHWH’s own manner of speaking. According to this line of reasoning, because YHWH speaks of Himself in the third person, and because Jesus likewise speaks of Himself in the third person, Jesus is intentionally adopting a uniquely divine pattern of speech that identifies Him with Israel’s God.

For many readers, this appears to be an elegant argument. It seemingly combines literary analysis, linguistic observation, and biblical theology into a cumulative case for Christ’s deity. It also offers an explanation for a number of difficult passages where YHWH appears to speak of YHWH, such as Genesis 19:24, Isaiah 48:16, Zechariah 2:8–11, and other similar texts.

Yet the more closely one examines the argument, the more apparent it becomes that several important questions remain insufficiently addressed. In fact, much of the modern discussion has proceeded as though certain conclusions have already been established, when in reality they are the very issues requiring demonstration.

The purpose of this study is not to deny the doctrine of the Trinity, nor is it to argue against the deity of Christ. Those larger theological questions lie beyond the scope of this article. Rather, the aim is considerably narrower—and, it is hoped, methodologically more precise.

The question before us is simply this:

Does the use of third-person self-reference by God or by Jesus, either by itself or in conjunction with passages where YHWH appears to speak of YHWH, actually constitute evidence for multiple divine persons within the Godhead?

That question deserves to be examined carefully, independently of later theological conclusions.

The Importance of Method

Before any particular passage can be examined, a fundamental methodological distinction must be maintained throughout this discussion.

Biblical interpretation always involves at least three distinct stages.

First, there is the grammar.

What does the text actually say?

Secondly, there is the interpretation.

How should the grammatical features be understood?

Finally, there is the theological conclusion.

What implications, if any, follow from that interpretation?

These stages are often collapsed into one another, particularly in apologetic discussions.

For example, when Genesis 19:24 states that “YHWH rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from YHWH out of heaven,” the text itself simply contains two occurrences of the divine name. The conclusion that one occurrence refers to the Father and the other to the Son is not part of the grammatical data. It is an interpretation of that data. Whether that interpretation is ultimately correct is a separate question, but it should not be confused with what the text explicitly states.

Likewise, when Jesus refers to Himself in the third person, the grammatical observation is straightforward: Jesus employs third-person self-reference. The conclusion that such self-reference is necessarily intended as a claim to deity is an additional interpretive step. That conclusion may or may not prove persuasive, but it does not arise merely from the presence of illeism itself.

Maintaining this distinction is essential for sound exegesis.

Throughout this study, every effort will be made to distinguish carefully between what the biblical text explicitly says and what later theological interpretation infers.

The Problem of Circular Reasoning

A second methodological concern also deserves attention.

Many contemporary discussions begin with the assumption that whenever YHWH appears to refer to YHWH, multiple divine persons must already be present within the text.

However, this assumption effectively predetermines the conclusion.

If one begins by assuming that every third-person occurrence of the divine name represents another divine person, then the existence of multiple persons will naturally appear throughout Scripture.

Yet this is precisely the point that must first be demonstrated.

The existence of divine illeism complicates the matter considerably.

If YHWH is capable of referring to Himself in the third person—as numerous Old Testament passages appear to demonstrate—then every occurrence of “YHWH” within divine speech cannot automatically be treated as a reference to another divine person.

The possibility of divine self-reference must first be excluded before the alternative explanation can legitimately be adopted.

This is not a theological objection but a hermeneutical one.

One must first establish why a particular passage is not another example of divine illeism before concluding that one divine person is speaking of another.

The Broader Phenomenon of Biblical Self-Reference

An equally important consideration is that third-person self-reference is not unique to God.

Throughout the biblical record, numerous human figures employ the same rhetorical phenomenon.

Kings speak of themselves by title.

Prophets occasionally refer to themselves by name.

Narrative speakers shift naturally between first-person and third-person forms of reference.

Even Jesus Himself repeatedly speaks of “the Son of Man” in the third person.

Nor is biblical discourse rigid in its use of personal reference.

Speakers frequently alternate between direct address and indirect, honorific forms without any indication that the referent has changed.

Abigail, for example, moves effortlessly between addressing David as “you,” “thy,” and “my lord” within the same speech. She likewise refers to herself repeatedly as “your handmaid” instead of simply saying “I.” These shifts are not treated as unusual by the biblical writers. They are part of the natural rhetorical texture of biblical Hebrew.

Consequently, the mere presence of a change in person-reference cannot bear the theological weight that is sometimes placed upon it.

Rather, each occurrence must be examined within its own literary and grammatical context.

The Meaning of Illeism

One of the underlying assumptions frequently encountered in modern apologetic literature is that illeism possesses a stable theological significance.

In other words, because YHWH uses illeism, Jesus’ use of illeism must necessarily communicate divine identity.

Yet rhetorical devices do not function in this manner.

A metaphor is not inherently messianic.

Irony is not inherently sarcastic.

Hyperbole is not inherently deceptive.

Likewise, illeism is simply a rhetorical phenomenon.

Its significance depends entirely upon context.

Indeed, the biblical evidence demonstrates that third-person self-reference serves numerous purposes.

It may express royal dignity.

It may create rhetorical distance.

It may emphasize an office rather than an individual.

It may function as a literary convention.

It may simply reflect ordinary discourse.

None of these functions inherently communicates deity.

Therefore, before any instance of Jesus’ third-person self-reference can legitimately be interpreted as a claim to divine identity, the surrounding context must independently establish that conclusion.

The rhetorical device alone cannot do so.

The Referent of the Divine Name

A further issue concerns the meaning of the divine name itself.

Within classical Trinitarian theology, the Father is YHWH, the Son is YHWH, and the Holy Spirit is YHWH.

Yet YHWH is not merely the Father, nor merely the Son, nor merely the Holy Spirit.

Rather, YHWH denotes the one God who exists eternally as three persons.

This creates an important exegetical question.

If one argues that in a particular passage one occurrence of “YHWH” refers specifically to the Father while another occurrence refers specifically to the Son, then the referent of the divine name has narrowed from the one God to individual divine persons.

Whether such a narrowing is warranted cannot simply be assumed.

It must itself be demonstrated from the text.

Moreover, passages such as Genesis 19:24 do not identify which divine person each occurrence of “YHWH” represents.

Those identifications are supplied by later theological interpretation rather than by the biblical narrative itself.

Recognising this distinction does not invalidate the theological interpretation.

It simply reminds us that the interpretation extends beyond what the text explicitly states.

The Aim of This Study

This article therefore seeks to evaluate these questions by examining the biblical evidence itself.

Rather than beginning with later doctrinal formulations, we shall begin with the language of Scripture.

We shall ask what biblical illeism is, how it functions, and whether third-person self-reference necessarily implies multiple speakers.

We shall examine human examples of illeism, divine examples of illeism, and the use of third-person self-reference by Jesus Himself.

We shall investigate the flexibility of biblical discourse, paying particular attention to the frequent alternation between first-person, second-person, and third-person forms of address.

Finally, we shall consider several of the principal Old Testament passages often cited in support of intra-Trinitarian dialogue and ask a simple but important question:

Does the text itself require that interpretation, or is it one possible explanation among several?

This study does not seek to settle the doctrine of the Trinity.

Rather, it seeks to establish a more modest but equally important conclusion:

That the existence of divine illeism and the rhetorical flexibility of biblical language require interpreters to demonstrate—not merely assume—that a particular third-person reference to YHWH represents one divine person speaking of another.

Only once that has been established can broader theological conclusions legitimately follow.

The burden of this study is therefore not doctrinal but exegetical. Its concern is not what later theology may affirm, but what the biblical text itself requires. Only by maintaining that distinction can the discussion proceed on sound hermeneutical foundations.

Chapter 1 — Divine Illeism is a Genuine Biblical Phenomenon

1.1 What Is Illeism?

Before examining whether Jesus’ use of third-person language constitutes a claim to deity, or whether passages in which YHWH appears to speak of YHWH reveal multiple divine persons, it is essential to understand the rhetorical phenomenon at the centre of the discussion. That phenomenon is known as illeism.

Although the term has become increasingly common in biblical scholarship over the past several decades, the phenomenon itself is ancient. It is found throughout the literature of the ancient Near East, the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and indeed many cultures throughout history. Far from being an unusual linguistic curiosity, illeism represents one of the many rhetorical devices available to ancient speakers and writers.

Understanding what illeism is—and, just as importantly, what it is not—is fundamental to interpreting the biblical texts responsibly.

Defining Illeism

The word illeism derives from the Latin pronoun ille, meaning “he,” “that one,” or “that man.” In modern linguistic terminology, illeism refers to the practice of a speaker referring to himself or herself in the third person rather than using the expected first-person pronouns “I,” “me,” or “my.”

Instead of saying,

“I will do this,”

a speaker employing illeism might say,

“David will do this.”

or,

“The king will do this.”

The speaker and the referent remain identical. Only the grammatical form has changed.

This distinction is crucial.

Illeism does not introduce another speaker.

Nor does it necessarily introduce another subject.

Rather, the same individual momentarily refers to himself as though speaking from an external perspective.

Consequently, illeism should be understood primarily as a rhetorical device, not a theological statement.

Like metaphor, irony, hyperbole, or personification, its significance depends entirely upon the context in which it appears.

Illeism Is About Form, Not Meaning

One of the most common mistakes made in discussions of illeism is to assume that the rhetorical form itself possesses a fixed meaning.

This would be comparable to arguing that because someone uses a metaphor, they must therefore be speaking poetically, or because someone employs hyperbole, they must necessarily be exaggerating for humorous effect.

Rhetorical devices simply provide forms of expression.

They do not carry a universal meaning independent of their context.

Exactly the same principle applies to illeism.

Third-person self-reference tells us how a speaker has chosen to speak.

It does not automatically tell us why.

The reasons for using illeism may vary considerably.

One speaker may employ it for royal dignity.

Another may use it for literary effect.

Another may wish to emphasize an office rather than an individual.

Another may simply be following a recognised convention of formal speech.

In every case, the rhetorical device remains the same while its communicative function changes according to context.

This observation is particularly significant for biblical interpretation.

If illeism itself possesses no inherent theological meaning, then its mere presence cannot automatically establish a theological conclusion.

Instead, the interpreter must determine the purpose of the third-person reference from the surrounding literary, grammatical, and historical context.

Illeism Is a Widespread Human Phenomenon

Modern readers often regard third-person self-reference as strange because contemporary English rarely employs it outside humour, politics, or certain public contexts.

Yet this modern intuition can be misleading.

Throughout history, illeism has been remarkably common.

One of the most famous examples comes from Julius Caesar.

Rather than writing,

“I crossed the Rubicon,”

Caesar consistently narrated his military campaigns using expressions such as,

“Caesar marched…”

“Caesar ordered…”

“Caesar conquered…”

Modern readers immediately recognise that Caesar is speaking about himself.

No one concludes that another individual named Caesar has suddenly entered the narrative.

The third-person reference simply creates a particular literary effect.

Likewise, throughout the ancient Near East, kings frequently referred to themselves by name or title rather than by first-person pronouns.

Royal inscriptions often present the king as both narrator and subject simultaneously.

The rhetorical purpose is not to conceal the speaker’s identity but to elevate the dignity of the office being represented.

The focus shifts from the private individual to the public office.

In this respect, illeism often functions as a literary expression of authority.

Yet even here, it remains nothing more than a rhetorical convention.

It does not indicate divinity.

Nor does it imply multiple persons.

It simply reflects one recognised way of speaking.

Illeism in Biblical Literature

The biblical writers display exactly the same linguistic flexibility.

Far from treating third-person self-reference as unusual, they record numerous instances in which human beings naturally speak of themselves using names, titles, or third-person descriptions.

Kings do it.

Prophets do it.

Narrators do it.

Jesus Himself repeatedly does it.

Most significantly for the purposes of this study, YHWH also appears to do it.

The sheer variety of these examples immediately warns against assigning any single meaning to the phenomenon.

If David employs illeism, it cannot by itself signify deity.

If Daniel employs illeism, it cannot by itself signify royal authority.

If YHWH employs illeism, it cannot by itself establish plurality of persons.

The rhetorical device remains constant.

The contexts differ.

Consequently, the meaning must always be determined contextually rather than mechanically.

Why Speakers Use Illeism

Scholars have identified numerous possible functions for third-person self-reference.

No single explanation accounts for every occurrence.

Instead, illeism appears to serve several different rhetorical purposes.

1. Formality

Public speech frequently adopts a more formal register than ordinary conversation.

Rather than repeatedly saying “I,” speakers may prefer a title or name.

Kings frequently speak as “the king.”

Prophets sometimes speak as “the prophet.”

Modern equivalents still survive.

A judge may write,

“The Court finds…”

rather than,

“I find…”

Likewise, a monarch may say,

“The Crown…”

instead of,

“I…”

The individual has not disappeared.

The office has simply been placed in the foreground.

2. Authority

Illeism may also emphasise authority.

When a king says,

“The king commands,”

the statement carries greater institutional weight than,

“I command.”

The focus shifts from personal opinion to official authority.

This explains why royal inscriptions throughout the ancient Near East frequently employ third-person forms.

3. Literary Style

Ancient literature often exhibits a greater freedom in shifting between grammatical persons than modern English readers expect.

Biblical Hebrew in particular displays considerable stylistic flexibility.

Speakers may alternate between first-person and third-person reference without any indication that a new speaker has entered the discourse.

This phenomenon should not surprise us.

Modern languages continue to display similar flexibility.

A football manager may say,

“The manager accepts responsibility.”

A politician may refer to himself by surname.

A celebrity may jokingly refer to himself by name.

Although these examples differ in tone, they demonstrate the same underlying phenomenon.

4. Objectivity

Third-person self-reference can also create rhetorical distance.

By stepping outside oneself, the speaker invites the audience to view him almost as another participant in the narrative.

Rather than speaking purely subjectively, the speaker momentarily adopts an external perspective.

This often lends solemnity, gravity, or dramatic force to the statement.

5. Emphasising Identity Rather Than Individuality

Sometimes the title itself becomes more important than the individual.

A king may wish to emphasise his kingship.

A prophet may emphasise his prophetic office.

Likewise, biblical speakers frequently refer to themselves as:

“your servant,”

“your handmaid,”

or

“my lord’s servant,”

rather than simply saying,

“I.”

The shift places the relationship, office, or status at the forefront of the discourse.

Again, this represents rhetorical emphasis rather than theological significance.

Illeism Does Not Have a Fixed Meaning

This observation cannot be overstated.

The same rhetorical device appears in remarkably diverse contexts.

A proud king may employ it.

A humble servant may employ it.

A prophet may employ it.

Jesus may employ it.

YHWH may employ it.

If one rhetorical phenomenon serves all of these speakers, then it clearly cannot possess one intrinsic meaning.

Instead, illeism functions much like any other rhetorical device.

Its significance emerges only within its immediate literary context.

This has important implications for theological interpretation.

If Scripture demonstrates that ordinary human beings naturally refer to themselves in the third person, then the mere presence of third-person self-reference cannot constitute evidence for deity.

Likewise, if Scripture demonstrates that YHWH Himself naturally refers to Himself in the third person, then every third-person reference to YHWH within divine speech cannot automatically be assumed to indicate another divine person.

That conclusion requires additional evidence beyond the existence of illeism itself.

Why This Matters

This study is not concerned with denying that certain passages may reveal distinctions within the Godhead.

Rather, it asks a more fundamental question.

When we encounter third-person language in Scripture, what exactly has the text established?

Has it established that one person is speaking about another?

Or has it merely established that the speaker has momentarily adopted a recognised rhetorical form?

Those are not the same question.

Indeed, they represent two entirely different interpretive possibilities.

Before one can conclude that a passage reveals intra-Trinitarian dialogue, one must first demonstrate why the simpler explanation—ordinary third-person self-reference—is inadequate.

That burden of proof becomes especially significant once it is recognised that illeism is neither rare nor uniquely divine.

On the contrary, it is a widespread rhetorical phenomenon employed by human beings, kings, prophets, Jesus, and, according to many scholars, by YHWH Himself.

The chapters that follow will therefore begin not with difficult Trinitarian proof texts, but with the broader biblical evidence for illeism itself. Only after establishing the phenomenon on its own terms will we be in a position to ask whether particular passages require us to move beyond ordinary third-person self-reference to the conclusion that one divine person is addressing another.

1.2 Human Illeism in Scripture: A Common Biblical Mode of Self-Reference

Having established what illeism is as a rhetorical phenomenon, we must now ask a more important question:

How is illeism actually used within Scripture?

This question is of fundamental importance because any argument concerning Jesus’ or YHWH’s use of third-person self-reference must first be understood against the broader linguistic background of the biblical writings. If third-person self-reference is already shown to be an ordinary feature of biblical discourse, then its mere presence cannot, by itself, bear any unique theological significance.

In other words, before asking whether Jesus’ use of illeism identifies Him as God, we must first determine whether illeism itself functions as a uniquely divine form of speech.

The biblical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it does not.

Instead, Scripture presents third-person self-reference as a natural and recurring feature of human speech. Kings employ it. Prophets employ it. Poets employ it. Military leaders employ it. Even ordinary narrative occasionally records speakers referring to themselves by name or title rather than by the expected first-person pronoun.

The significance of this observation cannot be overstated.

If numerous human beings naturally refer to themselves in the third person, then illeism cannot inherently communicate deity. Whatever theological significance a particular instance may possess must arise from its immediate context rather than from the rhetorical device itself.

For this reason, it is necessary to examine the phenomenon broadly before considering any individual theological claims.

Illeism Is Not Restricted to One Type of Speaker

One of the first observations to emerge from the biblical data is that illeism is remarkably diverse.

It is not confined to kings.

Nor is it restricted to prophets.

It is not a feature reserved for divine speech.

Rather, it appears across a wide variety of literary settings and among many different kinds of biblical figures.

Some examples occur in poetic speech.

Others appear in formal addresses.

Some occur in moments of intense emotion.

Others arise in legal or royal contexts.

This diversity immediately cautions us against assigning a single communicative function to the phenomenon.

Instead, the biblical writers appear entirely comfortable allowing speakers to move between first-person and third-person self-reference without signalling that anything unusual has occurred.

Indeed, many modern readers fail to notice these shifts altogether until they are pointed out.

This observation alone suggests that the ancient audience would have regarded such language as perfectly natural.

 

Lamech: Poetic Self-Reference

One of the earliest examples occurs in the speech of Lamech recorded in Genesis 4:23–24.

Lamech declares:

“I have slain a man for wounding me,
and a young man for striking me.
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

The speech begins with unmistakable first-person language:

“I have slain…”

Yet it concludes by referring to the speaker by name:

“Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

No reader imagines that another individual named Lamech has suddenly entered the poem.

The speaker remains the same throughout.

Only the grammatical perspective changes.

The final line heightens the rhetorical force of the poem. By naming himself, Lamech transforms the conclusion into something resembling a proverbial declaration. The effect is literary rather than theological.

Jonathan: Third-Person Self-Reference in Direct Speech

Jonathan likewise refers to himself in the third person while speaking directly.

In 1 Samuel 20:13 he says to David:

“The LORD do so and much more to Jonathan: but if it please my father to do thee evil, then I will shew it thee, and send thee away, that thou mayest go in peace.”

The structure of Jonathan’s speech is striking.

He begins by referring to himself by name:

“The LORD do so and much more to Jonathan…”

Only moments later, without any change of speaker, he continues naturally in the first person:

“…then I will shew it thee…”

There is no indication that another Jonathan has entered the conversation, nor would any reader suppose such a thing. Jonathan simply alternates between third-person and first-person self-reference within the same speech.

This example is particularly important because it demonstrates that illeism need not dominate an entire discourse. A speaker may move freely between first-person and third-person forms without any explanation or transition. The change is stylistic rather than semantic.

David: Royal and Poetic Illeism

King David provides some of the clearest examples of third-person self-reference in Scripture.

In 2 Samuel 5:8 we read:

“And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites… that are hated of David’s soul, he shall be chief and captain.”

Here David is the speaker, yet instead of saying,

“…that are hated of my soul,”

the narrative records the expression,

“…that are hated of David’s soul.”

The referent remains the same. David speaks, yet David also becomes the grammatical object of his own statement.

Even more striking are the parallel conclusions to David’s song of deliverance.

In 2 Samuel 22:51 David concludes:

“He is the tower of salvation for his king: and sheweth mercy to his anointed, unto David, and to his seed for evermore.”

The same words are preserved in Psalm 18:50:

“Great deliverance giveth he to his king; and sheweth mercy to his anointed, to David, and to his seed for evermore.”

These verses occur within a psalm in which David overwhelmingly speaks in the first person:

“I will love thee…”

“The LORD is my rock…”

“He delivered me…”

Yet at the conclusion, rather than saying,

“to me and to my descendants,”

David refers to himself by name:

“to David, and to his seed forever.”

Once again, the grammatical form changes while the referent remains identical.

This illustrates an important feature of biblical rhetoric.

A speaker may naturally alternate between first-person and third-person self-reference within the same composition without implying a change of speaker or introducing another individual.

Daniel: Narrative Perspective and Self-Reference

The Book of Daniel provides another important illustration of the flexibility of biblical person-reference.

The opening chapters consistently speak of Daniel in the third person:

“But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself…” (Daniel 1:8)

Throughout these narratives we repeatedly read expressions such as:

“Daniel answered…”

“Daniel requested…”

“Daniel went…”

Later, however, the book undergoes a remarkable shift. Beginning in chapter 7, Daniel begins recounting his visions in the first person:

“I, Daniel, was grieved in my spirit…”

“I saw in my vision by night…”

The book therefore alternates between third-person narrative and first-person autobiography without any sense of contradiction. Daniel is the same individual throughout. Only the narrative perspective changes.

Although these examples are not all instances of spoken illeism in the strictest sense, they demonstrate an important literary principle: biblical writers were entirely comfortable shifting grammatical perspective when it suited the literary or rhetorical purpose of the text.

Further Examples of Human Illeism in Scripture

The examples considered thus far are by no means isolated. The biblical writers repeatedly preserve instances in which individuals refer to themselves by name, title, or other third-person designation rather than by the expected first-person pronouns. These examples occur across a wide range of literary genres and among very different kinds of speakers, demonstrating that illeism was an accepted and unremarkable feature of biblical discourse.

Moses: “Thy Servant”

Although Moses ordinarily speaks in the first person, he frequently refers to himself by the honorific expression “thy servant” when addressing YHWH.

For example, in Exodus 4:10 he pleads:

“O my Lord, thy servant is not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant.”

Likewise, in Numbers 11:11 Moses asks:

“Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in thy sight…?”

Here Moses alternates naturally between first-person language (“have I not found favour”) and third-person self-designation (“thy servant”) within the same prayer.

Strictly speaking, “thy servant” is not a proper name, yet it functions in precisely the same rhetorical manner. Moses momentarily speaks of himself through his office and relationship to God rather than through the simple pronoun “I.”

This illustrates an important point: biblical self-reference is often more concerned with status and role than with grammatical consistency.

Abigail: Alternating Between “I” and “Thy Handmaid”

One of the clearest demonstrations of biblical flexibility occurs in Abigail’s speech to David in 1 Samuel 25.

Throughout her address she repeatedly refers to herself as:

“thy handmaid”

rather than simply saying,

“I.”

For example:

“Upon me, my lord, upon me let this iniquity be…” (v.24)

Yet only a few verses later she says:

“Let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak in thine audience…” (v.24)

Again:

“Forgive, I pray thee, the trespass of thine handmaid…” (v.28)

And later:

“Behold, let thine handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord.” (v.41)

Abigail moves effortlessly between first-person and third-person forms of self-reference.

No explanation is offered because none is needed.

The rhetorical shift serves to emphasise humility and social position rather than introducing another individual.

This example is particularly valuable because it demonstrates how naturally biblical speakers alternate grammatical perspectives within a single speech.

What These Examples Demonstrate

Taken together, these examples establish a significant principle.

Third-person self-reference is neither rare nor exceptional within Scripture.

It appears in poetry.

It appears in royal speech.

It appears in historical narrative.

It appears in personal discourse.

It appears in autobiographical material.

Most importantly, it appears without any indication that ancient readers found it confusing or unusual.

The biblical authors never pause to explain why Lamech says “Lamech,” why Jonathan speaks of “Jonathan,” or why David concludes his psalm by referring to himself by name. Such language is simply accepted as part of the normal rhetorical range of biblical discourse.

This observation becomes critically important as we turn to the words of Jesus and the speech of YHWH Himself.

If human beings across widely differing literary contexts naturally employ illeism, then the mere presence of third-person self-reference cannot, by itself, establish a claim to deity or identify multiple speakers. The rhetorical phenomenon is already well established within ordinary biblical language.

The question, therefore, is not whether Jesus or YHWH uses illeism. The question is what function that illeism serves in each particular context. Only once that question has been answered can any theological conclusions responsibly be drawn.

1.3 Jesus’ Use of Illeism: Third-Person Self-Reference in the Gospels

Having established that third-person self-reference is a common feature of human speech throughout Scripture, we may now turn to the person whose use of illeism has attracted the greatest scholarly attention—Jesus of Nazareth.

In recent decades, a number of scholars have argued that Jesus’ use of third-person language should be understood as more than a simple rhetorical phenomenon. Because Jesus frequently refers to Himself as “the Son of Man,” and because YHWH also appears to employ third-person self-reference in the Old Testament, it has been suggested that Jesus is consciously adopting a uniquely divine mode of speech.

This proposal deserves careful consideration.

There can be little doubt that Jesus regularly speaks of Himself in the third person. The phenomenon is too frequent to be dismissed as accidental. Indeed, third-person self-reference forms one of the most distinctive features of Jesus’ recorded speech.

The question, however, is not whether Jesus employs illeism.

The question is whether His use of illeism is itself evidence of deity.

Those are two entirely different propositions.

The first is a grammatical observation.

The second is a theological conclusion.

As the previous section has already demonstrated, human beings throughout Scripture naturally employ third-person self-reference in a variety of literary and rhetorical settings. Consequently, before Jesus’ use of illeism can be regarded as uniquely divine, it must first be shown that His usage differs in some meaningful way from the broader biblical phenomenon already observed.

That burden of proof should not be underestimated.

If the same rhetorical device is already employed by Lamech, Jonathan, David, Abigail, Moses, and others, then the mere fact that Jesus also employs it cannot, by itself, establish a claim to deity.

Instead, any theological significance must arise from the immediate context of His words rather than from the grammatical form alone.

The Son of Man Sayings

The overwhelming majority of Jesus’ examples of third-person self-reference occur through His use of the title “the Son of Man.”

Rather than saying,

“I have authority on earth to forgive sins,”

Jesus declares:

“The Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins…” (Matthew 9:6; Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24)

Rather than saying,

“I came to seek and save the lost,”

He says:

“The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” (Luke 19:10)

Likewise:

“The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)

“The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men.” (Matthew 17:22)

“The Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory.” (Matthew 19:28)

These sayings could easily have been expressed in the first person.

Jesus could have said:

“I have authority.”

“I came.”

“I will be betrayed.”

“I will sit.”

Instead, He consistently chooses a third-person designation.

This is, by definition, a form of third-person self-reference.

The referent is unquestionably Jesus Himself.

No one listening to these sayings understood Jesus to be speaking about another individual. The surrounding narratives make this abundantly clear. His disciples, His opponents, and the Gospel writers uniformly understand “the Son of Man” to refer to Jesus Himself.

The grammatical form therefore differs from the referent.

Jesus speaks of Himself as though speaking of another, while intending no change of identity whatsoever.

This is precisely what illeism describes.

A Deliberate Pattern

The frequency with which Jesus employs this form of self-reference is striking.

The expression “the Son of Man” occurs approximately eighty times in the canonical Gospels, almost always upon the lips of Jesus Himself.

Such consistency demonstrates that this was not an occasional stylistic flourish but a deliberate feature of His manner of speaking.

Indeed, among biblical speakers, Jesus employs third-person self-reference more consistently than perhaps any other individual.

Yet frequency alone does not determine meaning.

A rhetorical device may be used often without carrying a single fixed significance.

As we have already observed, human illeism appears in poetry, royal discourse, formal covenant language, autobiographical writing, and humble petition. The same grammatical phenomenon serves different rhetorical purposes in different contexts.

There is no reason to suppose that Jesus’ usage should be exempt from this broader linguistic principle.

Does Illeism Itself Communicate Deity?

It is at this point that an important distinction must be maintained.

No one disputes that many of Jesus’ “Son of Man” sayings carry profound theological significance.

Some clearly allude to Daniel 7.

Others concern His authority to forgive sins.

Others anticipate His suffering, resurrection, exaltation, or future judgment.

These contexts undoubtedly contribute to Christian theology.

What is disputed is something much narrower.

Does the third-person form itself communicate deity?

The answer appears to be no.

Suppose every occurrence of “the Son of Man” were rewritten in the first person.

For example:

“I came to seek and save the lost.”

“I have authority on earth to forgive sins.”

“I will be delivered into the hands of men.”

The theological claims contained within those statements would remain exactly the same.

Only the rhetorical presentation would have changed.

Conversely, if a human prophet were to refer to himself consistently in the third person, no reader would infer deity merely from the grammatical form.

The theological significance lies in what Jesus says, not simply in how He refers to Himself.

This distinction is crucial.

The content of Jesus’ words may indeed reveal His unique identity.

But the rhetorical device of illeism, considered in isolation, cannot bear that theological weight.

It identifies the speaker.

It does not, by itself, identify the speaker’s nature.

A Shared Biblical Convention

When Jesus’ speech is viewed alongside the broader biblical evidence, His use of third-person self-reference appears not as an isolated linguistic anomaly but as participation in a well-established biblical convention.

Lamech refers to himself by name.

Jonathan refers to himself by name.

David speaks of “David.”

Abigail repeatedly refers to herself as “thy handmaid.”

Moses prays as “thy servant.”

Jesus most commonly speaks as “the Son of Man.”

The rhetorical forms differ slightly, but the underlying phenomenon is the same: the speaker momentarily steps outside the ordinary first-person perspective and refers to himself through a title, name, or designation.

Recognising this continuity does not diminish the significance of Jesus’ teaching.

Rather, it prevents interpreters from attributing theological meaning to the rhetorical form itself before examining the context in which that form occurs.

Only once that distinction has been maintained can individual passages be assessed on their own merits.

1.4 Divine Illeism in the Old Testament

The previous sections have established that third-person self-reference is neither unusual nor uniquely divine. Human beings throughout Scripture regularly refer to themselves by name, title, or other third-person designation without introducing another speaker or another person. Jesus likewise employs this rhetorical phenomenon consistently throughout the Gospels.

The question now becomes even more significant.

Does God Himself ever speak in this way?

For many readers, the answer comes as something of a surprise.

Although discussions of divine illeism have become more prominent in recent scholarship, the phenomenon itself is neither obscure nor isolated. The Old Testament contains numerous passages in which YHWH appears to refer to Himself in the third person. In these texts the speaker is unmistakably YHWH, yet within the same discourse He refers to “God” or “YHWH” rather than exclusively employing first-person pronouns.

This observation is of considerable importance.

If divine illeism is a genuine feature of biblical language, then every passage in which YHWH refers to YHWH cannot automatically be interpreted as one divine person speaking of another. Before such a conclusion may be reached, the interpreter must first demonstrate why the passage should not be understood as another example of ordinary third-person self-reference.

This is not a theological objection but a grammatical one.

The existence of a recognised rhetorical phenomenon creates an interpretive alternative that must be considered before more complex explanations are adopted.

For this reason, it is essential to establish the phenomenon itself before turning to those passages frequently cited in Trinitarian discussions.

The Covenant After the Flood (Genesis 9:8–17)

One of the clearest and least controversial examples appears in God’s covenant with Noah following the flood.

Throughout the passage YHWH repeatedly speaks in the first person:

“I establish my covenant with you…” (v.9)

“I set my bow in the cloud…” (v.13)

“I will remember my covenant…” (v.15)

Nothing in the discourse suggests a change of speaker.

The entire covenant speech is presented as the words of God Himself.

Yet in verse 16 an interesting shift occurs.

Instead of saying,

“I will look upon it, that I may remember my everlasting covenant,”

the text reads:

“And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.“

The speaker remains the same.

The repeated first-person verbs leave no doubt concerning this.

Nevertheless, God now refers to Himself simply as “God.”

The covenant is no longer described merely as “my covenant” but as:

“the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature.”

No reader imagines that another deity has suddenly entered the narrative.

Nor does the passage suggest that one divine person is reminding another divine person of the covenant.

Rather, the most natural explanation is that God momentarily refers to Himself in the third person while continuing the same uninterrupted speech.

This is precisely the phenomenon of divine illeism.

It deserves careful attention because it establishes an important interpretive precedent.

If God can naturally describe His own covenant as the covenant “between God and every living creature,” then third-person references to God within divine speech cannot automatically be taken as references to another speaker.

At the very least, the possibility of divine self-reference has now been firmly established.

Why Genesis 9 Matters

Genesis 9 is particularly valuable because it is largely free from the theological controversies surrounding passages such as Genesis 19:24 or Zechariah 2.

The text contains no obvious dialogue between multiple speakers.

No messenger formula interrupts the discourse.

No transition introduces another divine voice.

Instead, one continuous speech moves naturally between first-person and third-person expressions.

Consequently, the grammatical evidence for divine illeism stands independently of later Trinitarian debates.

This is an important methodological point.

The phenomenon of divine illeism does not arise because interpreters require an alternative explanation for difficult proof texts.

Rather, the phenomenon exists within straightforward covenant language where few readers would suspect any doctrinal controversy at all.

Once this observation has been established, it necessarily informs the interpretation of more disputed passages.

If God demonstrably refers to Himself in the third person here, then similar expressions elsewhere cannot simply be assumed to indicate another divine person.

They must first be shown not to be additional examples of the same rhetorical phenomenon.

1.5 What These Examples Demonstrate

Having surveyed the use of illeism among human beings, in the speech of Jesus, and in the words of YHWH Himself, we are now in a position to draw several important conclusions.

These conclusions do not settle the doctrine of the Trinity, nor do they determine the meaning of every passage in which third-person self-reference occurs. Rather, they establish a number of exegetical principles that should govern the interpretation of such passages.

The cumulative evidence presented thus far demonstrates that illeism is neither rare nor exceptional within Scripture. On the contrary, it forms part of the ordinary rhetorical repertoire of biblical language. It appears in historical narrative, poetry, royal proclamation, prophetic discourse, covenant speech, prayer, and the teaching of Jesus. It is employed by kings, prophets, servants, ordinary individuals, the Messiah, and by YHWH Himself.

This breadth of usage is significant because it prevents us from assigning a single, fixed theological meaning to the phenomenon.

Illeism Is a Rhetorical Device, Not a Theological Category

The first and most obvious conclusion is that illeism is a rhetorical phenomenon before it is a theological consideration.

The grammatical observation is straightforward: a speaker refers to himself or herself in the third person.

That observation, by itself, tells us nothing about the speaker’s nature.

Lamech’s use of illeism does not make him divine.

Jonathan’s use of illeism does not make him royal.

Abigail’s repeated references to herself as “thine handmaid” do not imply another Abigail.

Likewise, David’s references to himself by name do not introduce a second David.

In every instance, the rhetorical form remains the same while the identity of the speaker remains unchanged.

Consequently, illeism cannot be understood as a theological category whose meaning remains constant wherever it appears.

It is simply one of the many rhetorical devices employed by biblical speakers.

Like metaphor, irony, repetition, or hyperbole, its significance depends entirely upon its literary and historical context.

The Same Form Serves Different Functions

A second observation naturally follows.

Although the grammatical form remains the same, its rhetorical function varies considerably.

Lamech’s use of illeism heightens the poetic force of his boast.

Jonathan employs it within the solemn language of an oath.

David’s usage reflects the conventions of royal discourse and public proclamation.

Abigail’s repeated references to herself as “thine handmaid” express humility and social deference.

Jesus most commonly uses the designation “the Son of Man,” a title rich with theological and eschatological significance.

YHWH, meanwhile, occasionally refers to Himself simply as “God” or “YHWH” while continuing an uninterrupted divine speech.

The rhetorical phenomenon is identical in each case.

The communicative purpose is not.

This diversity should caution interpreters against assuming that every occurrence of illeism performs the same function.

Context, not grammar alone, determines meaning.

Illeism Is Not Unique to Deity

This leads to perhaps the most important conclusion for the present study.

If ordinary human beings employ illeism, then illeism itself cannot function as a uniquely divine marker.

This conclusion is not controversial.

It follows directly from the biblical evidence.

Whatever theological significance may be attached to Jesus’ or YHWH’s use of third-person self-reference cannot arise merely from the fact that they employ illeism, since that same rhetorical device is demonstrably used by many human speakers throughout Scripture.

To argue otherwise would require one to explain why the same grammatical phenomenon signifies ordinary rhetoric in the mouths of Lamech, Jonathan, David, and Abigail, yet suddenly becomes evidence of deity when employed by Jesus.

Such an explanation cannot simply be assumed.

It must be demonstrated.

Divine Illeism Creates an Additional Interpretive Possibility

The evidence becomes even more significant once divine illeism is taken into account.

The previous section demonstrated that YHWH Himself sometimes refers to Himself in the third person while remaining the sole speaker.

This observation has important hermeneutical implications.

Whenever interpreters encounter a passage in which YHWH appears to speak of YHWH, there are now, at least in principle, two possible explanations.

The first is that one divine person is speaking about another.

The second is that YHWH is employing the already established rhetorical phenomenon of divine illeism.

The existence of the second possibility does not automatically invalidate the first.

Neither, however, may the first simply be assumed.

Once divine illeism has been demonstrated elsewhere in Scripture, it becomes a legitimate interpretive option that must be considered alongside any proposal of intra-divine dialogue.

Accordingly, the burden rests upon the interpreter to explain why a particular passage should not be understood as another instance of divine self-reference.

The Burden of Proof

This point deserves careful emphasis because it fundamentally affects the direction of the discussion.

The argument of this chapter is not that every third-person reference made by God must be understood as divine illeism.

Such a claim would be every bit as unwarranted as insisting that every such reference represents communication between distinct divine persons.

Rather, the argument is methodological.

Before concluding that a passage depicts one divine person speaking of another, it must first be demonstrated that the passage cannot be adequately explained as an instance of divine illeism.

In other words, the existence of a recognised rhetorical phenomenon shifts the discussion.

The question is no longer simply whether one interpretation is possible.

The question becomes whether the text itself requires that interpretation.

This distinction is crucial.

Many theological arguments are constructed as though the mere occurrence of a third-person reference automatically establishes interpersonal dialogue within the Godhead.

Yet once divine illeism has been recognised as an established feature of biblical language, that conclusion no longer follows from the grammar alone.

Additional contextual evidence becomes necessary.

Distinguishing Grammar from Theology

This brings us back to one of the central methodological principles established in the introduction.

Grammar and theology must not be confused.

The grammar tells us that a speaker has referred to himself in the third person.

Theology asks why.

Those are related questions, but they are not identical.

A grammatical observation should never be expected to carry more theological weight than it is capable of bearing.

The biblical evidence allows us to conclude with confidence that Jesus employs illeism.

It also allows us to conclude that YHWH employs illeism.

What it does not allow us to conclude—without further argument—is that illeism itself constitutes a claim to deity or proof of interpersonal communication within the Godhead.

Those conclusions require additional exegetical work.

Preparing for the Discussion Ahead

This distinction prepares us for the chapters that follow.

Many of the Old Testament passages commonly cited in discussions of the Trinity involve YHWH speaking of YHWH, or divine speech containing third-person references to God.

Such passages deserve careful examination.

They may indeed reveal distinctions within the Godhead.

Equally, some may simply represent further examples of divine illeism.

The point is not to prejudge the outcome, but to ensure that the discussion begins from sound hermeneutical principles rather than theological assumptions.

Only by recognising that illeism is an established rhetorical feature of biblical language—employed by human beings, by Jesus, and by YHWH Himself—can each passage be examined on its own merits.

The presence of third-person self-reference is therefore the beginning of the interpretive task, not its conclusion. It alerts the reader to a recognised literary phenomenon, but it does not, by itself, determine the theological significance of the passage. That significance must always be established from the wider context, the flow of the argument, and the explicit claims of the text itself, rather than from the mere presence of illeism.

 

Chapter 2 — Biblical Language Freely Alternates Between Personal Forms of Reference

2.1 The Fluidity of Biblical Person-Reference

One of the greatest obstacles modern readers face when interpreting Scripture is the unconscious assumption that biblical authors wrote according to the stylistic conventions of modern English.

Contemporary English generally prizes grammatical consistency. Once a speaker begins speaking in the first person, we naturally expect that speaker to continue using first-person pronouns unless another individual enters the conversation. Likewise, when a speaker addresses someone directly, we ordinarily expect the second-person pronouns “you” and “your” to remain the primary means of reference throughout the discourse.

Consequently, any unexpected shift from “I” to a personal name, or from “you” to a third-person designation, immediately attracts our attention. Such transitions often strike the modern reader as unusual and invite the question of whether another speaker or another referent has been introduced.

Biblical Hebrew, however, frequently operates with a much greater degree of rhetorical flexibility.

The biblical writers exhibit little concern for the rigid grammatical consistency expected by many modern readers. Instead, they move naturally between first-person, second-person, and third-person expressions whenever doing so better serves the literary, rhetorical, or social context of the discourse.

These shifts are not treated as anomalies.

Nor are they normally accompanied by explanatory markers indicating that a new referent has entered the conversation.

Rather, they form part of the normal texture of biblical language.

Recognising this feature of biblical discourse is essential for sound interpretation.

If ancient speakers could naturally alternate between different forms of personal reference without changing the identity of the person being discussed, then the mere occurrence of a grammatical shift cannot, by itself, establish the existence of another speaker or another person.

The referent must instead be determined by context.

This observation lies at the heart of the present study.

Much of the modern discussion concerning divine dialogue assumes that a movement from first-person language to third-person reference necessarily signals communication between distinct persons.

Yet that assumption can only be sustained if biblical language normally maintains rigid grammatical consistency.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

Before examining passages in which YHWH appears to refer to YHWH, we must first ask a more fundamental question.

How do biblical speakers ordinarily handle personal reference?

The answer is both simple and remarkably consistent.

They do so with considerable freedom.

Throughout Scripture, speakers regularly alternate between direct address and indirect reference.

A king may address another king as “you” before immediately speaking of “the king.”

A servant may alternate between “I” and “thy servant.”

A wife may move effortlessly between “my lord” and “you.”

A prophet may refer to himself by name before continuing in the first person.

None of these shifts signals confusion.

None introduces another individual.

Instead, they reflect the rhetorical flexibility of biblical discourse.

Understanding this principle will prove indispensable in the chapters that follow.

If the biblical writers themselves demonstrate no hesitation in alternating between different forms of reference while maintaining a single referent, interpreters must exercise caution before building theological conclusions upon grammatical shifts alone.

The question is never merely whether the language has changed.

The question is whether the referent has changed.

Those are not the same thing.

Indeed, one of the central contentions of this study is that they are too often assumed to be identical.

The examples that follow will demonstrate that biblical language frequently changes its grammatical form while leaving its referent entirely unchanged.

Only once this broader linguistic principle has been established can individual theological passages be evaluated with the care they require.

2.2 Abigail’s Speech: A Masterclass in Biblical Person-Reference

Few passages illustrate the flexibility of biblical language more clearly than Abigail’s appeal to David in 1 Samuel 25. Although the chapter is rarely discussed in connection with questions of divine discourse or illeism, it provides one of the clearest demonstrations that biblical speakers naturally alternate between different forms of personal reference while maintaining the same referent throughout.

The setting is well known.

David, having been insulted by Nabal, sets out with his men intending to destroy Nabal’s household. Before he arrives, Abigail meets David with provisions and delivers one of the longest and most carefully constructed speeches recorded in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 25:24–31).

Her speech is remarkable not only for its wisdom and diplomacy, but also for its language.

Throughout a single uninterrupted address, Abigail repeatedly alternates between direct second-person address and indirect third-person reference to David. At the same time, she alternates between first-person language and third-person self-designations such as “thine handmaid.” These shifts occur naturally and repeatedly, without any indication that the identity of either speaker or addressee has changed.

Far from being confusing, they form part of the normal rhetorical rhythm of biblical Hebrew.

Speaking Directly—and Indirectly—to the Same Person

Abigail begins by addressing David directly:

“Upon me, my lord, upon me let this iniquity be: and let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak in thine audience…” (1 Samuel 25:24)

Within this opening sentence alone, several forms of reference appear.

She refers to herself first as:

“Upon me…”

She then immediately adopts the honorific expression:

“thine handmaid…”

while continuing to speak in the first person:

“I pray thee…”

At the same time, David is addressed both directly and indirectly.

He is “my lord.”

He is also “thee.”

Nothing in the passage suggests that these expressions refer to different individuals.

“My lord” and “thee” are simply two different ways of referring to the very same person.

Already we see that biblical discourse is not restricted to one grammatical form of reference.

The speaker moves effortlessly between them according to the rhetorical needs of the moment.

Alternating Between “You” and “My Lord”

This pattern continues throughout the speech.

Abigail repeatedly speaks directly to David:

“Hear the words of thine handmaid.”

Yet only moments later she speaks of him rather than to him:

“Let not my lord, I pray thee, regard this man of Belial, even Nabal…” (v.25)

Notice what has happened.

David has not ceased to be the person being addressed.

Abigail has not turned away to address another listener.

She continues speaking directly to David.

Yet instead of saying,

“Do not regard Nabal,”

she says,

“Let not my lord regard Nabal.”

The grammatical form has changed.

The referent has not.

This distinction is fundamental.

Modern readers sometimes assume that because a speaker refers to someone in the third person, another individual must now be in view.

Abigail demonstrates that such an assumption is unwarranted.

She refers to David as though speaking about him while simultaneously speaking directly to him.

The two forms of reference coexist naturally within the same discourse.

“The Soul of My Lord”

Perhaps the most striking example occurs in verses 28–29.

Abigail declares:

“The LORD will certainly make my lord a sure house…”

Immediately afterwards she continues:

“…because my lord fighteth the battles of the LORD…”

She then adds:

“Yet a man is risen to pursue thee, and to seek thy soul: but the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life with the LORD thy God…”

Within only a few lines, Abigail refers to David as:

• thee
• thy
• my lord
• thy soul
• the soul of my lord

Each expression points to exactly the same individual.

The variation is entirely rhetorical.

Indeed, the expression “the soul of my lord” is particularly instructive.

Abigail could simply have said:

“your soul.”

Instead, she momentarily steps back and speaks of David through the honorific title she has consistently employed throughout the speech.

The result is a subtle shift in tone rather than a shift in identity.

Abigail’s Self-Reference

The same flexibility characterises Abigail’s references to herself.

She alternates repeatedly between the ordinary first-person pronouns and the deferential expression:

“thine handmaid.”

For example:

“Upon me…”

followed almost immediately by:

“Let thine handmaid speak…”

Again:

“Forgive, I pray thee, the trespass of thine handmaid.” (v.28)

Later:

“When the LORD shall have dealt well with my lord, then remember thine handmaid.” (v.31)

Abigail clearly knows how to say “I.”

Indeed, she frequently does.

Yet she repeatedly chooses instead to refer to herself through her social relationship to David.

The expression “thine handmaid” functions as a self-designation that communicates humility, submission, and respect.

Importantly, no reader imagines that Abigail has introduced another woman into the conversation.

The expression simply provides another way of referring to herself.

Once again, the grammatical form changes while the referent remains constant.

Honorific Reference as a Feature of Biblical Style

Abigail’s speech also illustrates an important stylistic feature of biblical Hebrew.

Honorific titles frequently replace ordinary pronouns.

Rather than repeatedly saying “you,” speakers often prefer expressions such as:

“my lord.”

Likewise, instead of saying “I,” servants commonly refer to themselves as:

“thy servant”

or

“thine handmaid.”

These expressions are not merely polite substitutes for pronouns.

They reflect a worldview in which relationships, status, and covenant obligations are constantly being reinforced through language.

Consequently, biblical discourse often alternates between direct address and relational titles without any indication that the person under discussion has changed.

For modern readers accustomed to grammatical uniformity, such variation may initially appear unusual.

For the original audience, however, it would have sounded perfectly natural.

The Hermeneutical Significance

Why does Abigail’s speech matter for the present study?

Because it establishes an important principle of interpretation.

Throughout her address, Abigail repeatedly changes the grammatical form by which she refers both to David and to herself.

Sometimes she speaks directly.

Sometimes indirectly.

Sometimes she uses pronouns.

Sometimes titles.

Sometimes relational expressions.

Yet at no point does the referent change.

David remains David.

Abigail remains Abigail.

The language changes.

The identities do not.

This distinction is crucial.

Much modern discussion surrounding passages in which YHWH appears to refer to YHWH assumes that a change in grammatical form necessarily signals a change in referent.

Abigail’s speech demonstrates that biblical language simply does not operate according to such rigid rules.

A speaker may refer to the same individual in multiple ways within the space of a few sentences—even within the same sentence—without creating ambiguity or introducing another person.

The original audience evidently had little difficulty following these shifts because the surrounding context consistently preserved the identity of the individuals involved.

The same interpretive principle should therefore be applied elsewhere in Scripture.

A change in grammatical form is not, in itself, evidence of a change in referent.

Context must always determine whether the person being spoken about has actually changed, or whether the speaker has merely adopted another perfectly ordinary form of reference.

Abigail’s speech stands as one of the clearest demonstrations of this principle. It reminds us that biblical language possesses a flexibility that modern readers often underestimate. Once that flexibility is recognised, interpreters are better equipped to distinguish genuine changes of speaker or referent from ordinary rhetorical variation—a distinction that will prove essential when we turn to passages in which YHWH appears to speak of YHWH.

Chapter 3 — From Grammar to Theology: Why One Divine Person Speaking of Another Is an Interpretive Conclusion

3.1 The Difference Between What the Text Says and What We Conclude

Every act of biblical interpretation involves an important distinction that is often overlooked.

There is a difference between what the text explicitly states and what interpreters conclude from the text.

Although these two are closely related, they are not identical.

Indeed, one of the most common causes of disagreement in biblical interpretation is the failure to distinguish between grammatical observation and theological inference.

This distinction lies at the heart of the present study.

Throughout the preceding chapters we have established two important facts.

First, third-person self-reference—or illeism—is a genuine and widespread feature of biblical language. Human beings employ it. Jesus employs it. YHWH Himself employs it.

Secondly, biblical discourse freely alternates between different forms of personal reference without necessarily changing the identity of the person being discussed. A shift from first-person language to a title, a proper name, or another form of reference does not automatically introduce another individual.

These observations do not settle the meaning of every difficult passage.

They do, however, establish an important hermeneutical principle.

A grammatical shift is not, by itself, evidence of a change in referent.

This principle has profound implications for the interpretation of those Old Testament passages in which YHWH appears to speak of YHWH.

Consider, for example, a passage in which God says:

“YHWH…”

or

“God…”

while He Himself is the speaker.

What has the text actually established?

The answer is remarkably modest.

It has established only that the speaker has referred to YHWH in the third person.

Nothing more.

At this stage the grammar has not identified the referent of that third-person expression beyond the fact that it is “YHWH.”

The grammar has not told us whether that occurrence refers to:

• God referring to Himself;
• one divine person referring to another;
• a literary convention;
• or some other rhetorical phenomenon.

Those questions belong to interpretation.

They are not answered by the grammatical form alone.

This distinction is easily overlooked because interpreters naturally move from reading a text to explaining it.

Yet explanation always goes beyond observation.

To say,

“The text contains two occurrences of the divine name,”

is an observation.

To say,

“The first occurrence refers to the Son and the second refers to the Father,”

is an interpretation.

The latter may ultimately prove correct.

It may also prove incorrect.

But either way, it remains an interpretive judgment rather than an explicit statement of the text itself.

Recognising this distinction is essential if the discussion is to proceed fairly.

The purpose of this chapter is therefore not to argue against any particular theological conclusion.

Rather, it seeks to identify precisely where interpretation begins.

Only once that point has been recognised can competing interpretations be evaluated on equal terms.

Chapter 4 — What Does “YHWH” Refer To?

4.1 The Fundamental Question

Throughout the previous chapters, one principle has repeatedly emerged: grammatical form alone does not determine the identity of a referent. Speakers may refer to themselves in the third person, alternate between different forms of personal reference, or employ titles in place of pronouns without introducing another individual. Consequently, the mere appearance of the divine name within divine speech cannot, by itself, answer the question of whom that name denotes.

This observation brings us to one of the most fundamental questions in the interpretation of the Old Testament.

What does the name “YHWH” actually refer to?

At first glance, the question may appear almost unnecessary. Surely the answer is obvious: YHWH refers to God.

Yet such an answer, while true, remains insufficiently precise for the discussion before us.

The issue is not whether YHWH is God.

The issue is what the divine name denotes when it appears within the biblical text.

Does it function as the personal name of one particular divine person?

Does it designate the divine essence irrespective of personal distinction?

Can it refer to the God of Israel without specifying which divine person is acting?

Or does its meaning vary according to literary and theological context?

These are not speculative questions.

They are questions of lexical reference, and they must be answered before conclusions can responsibly be drawn from passages in which YHWH appears to speak of YHWH.

Beginning with the Text Rather Than Theology

The temptation in theological discussion is to begin with a doctrinal framework and then read individual passages through that framework.

A Trinitarian may instinctively understand every occurrence of “YHWH” as potentially referring to the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit according to context.

A Unitarian may instinctively understand every occurrence as referring exclusively to the Father.

Both approaches, however, risk allowing theological conclusions to answer a question that ought first to be examined exegetically.

The present study therefore adopts a different methodology.

Rather than beginning with later theological formulations, it begins with the language of the Old Testament itself.

The question is not, “Which doctrine is true?”

The question is, “How does the Old Testament use the divine name?”

Only after answering that question should broader theological implications be considered.

The Name and Its Referent

Every proper name possesses a referent.

When Scripture speaks of Abraham, Moses, David, or Isaiah, the name identifies a particular individual.

The reader is expected to recognise the person to whom the name refers.

The divine name is no different in this respect.

It also possesses a referent.

The difficulty lies in determining precisely what that referent is.

Does the name identify an individual in the same way that “David” identifies David?

Or does it function differently because it is the covenant name of Israel’s God?

This distinction is crucial.

If “YHWH” functions primarily as the covenant name of the God of Israel, then the appearance of that name within divine speech does not immediately answer questions concerning personal distinction within the Godhead.

The name simply identifies the covenant God.

Whether that covenant God is speaking of Himself, whether another divine person is in view, or whether some other literary phenomenon is taking place remains a further interpretive question.

The name alone does not settle the matter.

The Assumption That Must Be Examined

Many discussions of passages such as Genesis 19:24 proceed on an unstated assumption.

The assumption is that because the text contains two occurrences of the divine name, each occurrence must refer to a different divine person.

Yet this conclusion does not arise from the grammar itself.

Rather, it depends upon a prior assumption concerning the referential force of the divine name.

Unless it can first be demonstrated that “YHWH” necessarily identifies one specific divine person rather than functioning as the covenant name of Israel’s God, the conclusion cannot simply be read from the text.

Indeed, if the previous chapters have established anything, they have demonstrated that grammatical repetition alone is insufficient to determine the identity of a referent.

Context must always perform that work.

This observation does not decide the interpretation of Genesis 19:24, Zechariah 2, or any other disputed passage.

It simply establishes the question that must first be answered before those passages can responsibly be interpreted.

A Question of Semantics Before Theology

For this reason, the present chapter is concerned first and foremost with semantics rather than systematic theology.

Before asking whether one divine person may speak of another, we must first determine what the Old Testament means when it uses the name “YHWH.”

Only once the referential range of the divine name has been established can individual texts be examined with confidence.

The argument of this chapter is therefore deliberately modest.

It is not an attempt to prove or disprove the doctrine of the Trinity.

Neither is it an attempt to identify every occurrence of the divine name with a particular divine person.

Its purpose is more foundational.

It seeks to establish what the name itself contributes to the interpretation of a passage—and, equally importantly, what it does not.

For unless we first understand what “YHWH” denotes, we cannot responsibly determine what it means when YHWH appears to speak of YHWH.

4.2 Is “YHWH” a Personal Name or a Covenant Name?

The question posed at the close of the previous section naturally leads to another.

How does the Old Testament itself employ the divine name “YHWH”?

At first glance, the answer appears obvious. Like Abraham, Moses, or David, YHWH is a proper name. It identifies the God who revealed Himself to Israel and distinguishes Him from the gods of the surrounding nations. Yet this observation, while entirely correct, does not fully resolve the issue before us.

The question is not whether YHWH is a proper name.

The question is what kind of referential work that proper name performs within the Old Testament.

This distinction is crucial because much of the debate surrounding passages such as Genesis 19:24 assumes that the divine name functions in precisely the same manner as an ordinary human proper name. If that assumption is mistaken—or at least incomplete—then significant theological conclusions built upon it require fresh examination.

The Divine Name as the Covenant Name of Israel’s God

The first appearance of the divine name as a self-revelation occurs in Exodus 3.

When Moses asks what he should say if the Israelites inquire after God’s name, the Lord responds:

“I AM WHO I AM… Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”

The revelation continues:

“Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.” (Exodus 3:15)

Several features deserve careful attention.

The divine name is immediately connected with covenant history.

YHWH is not introduced as an abstract philosophical designation but as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The name identifies the God who entered into covenant with the patriarchs and who now remembers His covenant promises by delivering their descendants from Egypt.

Throughout the Pentateuch this covenantal emphasis remains dominant.

Again and again, the expression “YHWH your God” reminds Israel not merely of God’s existence but of His covenant relationship with His people.

The name functions as the identifying name of Israel’s covenant Lord.

It distinguishes Him from every other object of worship.

This covenantal function should not be underestimated.

The Old Testament consistently employs the divine name to answer the question:

Which God?

The answer is:

YHWH—the God of Israel.

The name therefore serves primarily to identify the covenant God rather than to explain the internal manner of His existence.

The Divine Name Is Not Normally Used to Distinguish Divine Persons

This observation leads to an important implication.

Throughout the Old Testament, the divine name is never ordinarily introduced in order to distinguish one divine person from another.

The biblical writers never explain that one occurrence of YHWH refers specifically to one person while another occurrence refers specifically to another person.

Indeed, no passage pauses to clarify that the reader should understand the name in such a way.

Instead, the name functions consistently as the covenant name of the one God whom Israel worships.

This point is significant because it highlights the difference between identification and differentiation.

The divine name unquestionably identifies Israel’s God.

Whether it simultaneously differentiates divine persons is another question entirely.

The Old Testament itself rarely, if ever, treats the name in this latter manner.

Consequently, interpreters should exercise caution before assuming that every occurrence of YHWH carries such a distinction.

That conclusion must arise from contextual evidence rather than from the name itself.

Proper Names Do Not Always Resolve Personal Identity

An analogy may help clarify the issue.

Suppose a historian writes:

“Caesar issued the decree that Caesar’s empire should endure.”

The repetition of the name “Caesar” does not require two different Caesars.

The proper name identifies the same ruler in two different grammatical positions.

Whether the sentence speaks of one Caesar or two Caesars depends entirely upon the surrounding context rather than upon the repeated occurrence of the name itself.

The same principle applies throughout ordinary language.

Proper names identify.

They do not automatically distinguish multiple individuals bearing the same designation.

The interpreter must determine the referent from context.

The divine name functions similarly.

The repeated occurrence of YHWH tells the reader that the God under discussion is Israel’s covenant God.

It does not, simply by virtue of repetition, determine whether one divine person is speaking of another or whether God is referring to Himself through ordinary third-person self-reference.

That conclusion requires further contextual evidence.

The Old Testament’s Primary Concern

This should not surprise us.

The primary theological concern of the Old Testament is not to explain the internal distinctions within God’s being.

Rather, it is to proclaim the uniqueness of Israel’s God over against every rival deity.

Repeatedly the prophets declare:

“I am YHWH.”

“I am YHWH your God.”

“That they may know that I am YHWH.”

These declarations function polemically and covenantally.

They distinguish the God of Israel from Baal, Molech, Chemosh, the gods of Egypt, and every other false object of worship.

The emphasis lies upon divine identity in relation to the nations.

The divine name therefore answers the question:

Who is the true God?

It is not ordinarily answering the question:

Which divine person is presently speaking?

To assume the latter without explicit contextual indicators risks asking the divine name to perform a function that the Old Testament itself does not consistently assign to it.

A Semantic Observation Rather Than a Doctrinal Conclusion

At this point, an important clarification must be made.

Nothing in the present discussion denies that the Father is YHWH.

Neither does it deny that the Son is called YHWH in the New Testament’s application of Old Testament texts, nor that the Holy Spirit fully shares in the divine identity.

Those are theological questions requiring their own careful examination.

The argument here is considerably more limited.

It concerns the semantic force of the divine name within the Old Testament.

The observation is simply this:

The name YHWH ordinarily identifies the covenant God of Israel without, by the name alone, specifying distinctions of person within the Godhead.

Accordingly, when interpreters encounter a passage in which YHWH appears to refer to YHWH, the divine name itself has not yet resolved the identity of the referent.

The text still requires interpretation.

The Hermeneutical Consequence

This brings us to the central implication for the present study.

If the divine name functions primarily as the covenant name of Israel’s God, then the mere repetition of that name cannot bear the theological weight sometimes placed upon it.

A statement such as:

“YHWH… YHWH…”

does not, by itself, establish two divine persons any more than repeated references to “David” automatically establish two Davids.

The interpreter must ask a further question:

What does the context require?

Does the passage provide clear contextual indicators that distinguish one speaker from another?

Does it explicitly identify different agents?

Does it contain literary features that demand interpersonal dialogue?

Or does it comfortably fit within the already established biblical phenomenon of divine illeism?

Only after these contextual questions have been answered can a responsible theological conclusion be reached.

This is not an attempt to minimise the significance of the divine name.

Quite the opposite.

It is an attempt to allow the name to perform the function the Old Testament consistently assigns to it. YHWH identifies the covenant God who has revealed Himself to Israel. Questions concerning personal distinction within that one divine identity are not ordinarily answered by the name itself but by the broader literary and theological context in which the name appears.

Recognising this distinction protects the interpreter from attributing to the divine name a semantic precision that the biblical writers themselves do not explicitly claim. It also ensures that subsequent discussions of passages such as Genesis 19:24 begin with the text’s actual linguistic data rather than assumptions imported from later theological reflection.

Conclusion

The discussion throughout this chapter has sought to answer a deceptively simple question: What does the divine name “YHWH” refer to?

The answer, as the Old Testament consistently demonstrates, is that the name identifies the covenant God of Israel—the God who revealed Himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, redeemed Israel from Egypt, entered into covenant with His people, and alone is worthy of worship. In this respect, the divine name functions as the unique identifier of Israel’s God, distinguishing Him from every false deity and every object of pagan devotion.

At the same time, the evidence presented has shown that the Old Testament does not ordinarily employ the divine name to distinguish between divine persons. The name identifies who Israel’s God is; it does not, by itself, answer questions concerning which divine person may be acting or speaking in a particular passage. That is a separate interpretive question, one that must be resolved by the surrounding context rather than by the semantic force of the name alone.

This distinction is of considerable importance for the present study.

Many discussions of passages in which YHWH appears to speak of YHWH proceed as though the repetition of the divine name itself establishes interpersonal dialogue within the Godhead. Yet such a conclusion goes beyond what the name itself communicates. The grammar tells us that YHWH has been mentioned; it does not, without further contextual evidence, identify whether the reference is to divine self-reference, to one divine person speaking of another, or to some other literary phenomenon already recognised within biblical discourse.

The previous chapters have demonstrated that Scripture contains genuine examples of divine illeism and that biblical language freely alternates between different forms of personal reference without necessarily introducing a new referent. Those observations now assume even greater significance. If the divine name itself does not specify personal distinctions, then its appearance within divine speech cannot be treated as decisive evidence that multiple divine persons are in view. Such a conclusion may ultimately prove correct in a given passage, but it cannot be derived from the repetition of the name alone.

This is not an argument against the doctrine of the Trinity, nor is it an attempt to deny that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share fully in the divine identity. Rather, it is an argument for careful exegesis. Theological conclusions, however important they may be, should arise from what the text requires, not from what the interpreter assumes the divine name must imply.

Accordingly, the burden of interpretation now shifts where it properly belongs: to the individual passages themselves.

Each text must be examined on its own literary, grammatical, and historical merits. The interpreter must ask whether the immediate context actually requires a distinction of divine persons, or whether the passage is more naturally understood as another example of the rhetorical flexibility already observed throughout Scripture. Neither possibility should be excluded in advance, and neither should be assumed without demonstration.

Only by proceeding in this manner can we avoid confusing grammatical observation with theological inference. The presence of the divine name is the beginning of the interpretive task, not its conclusion. It identifies the covenant God of Israel with clarity and consistency, but it does not, by itself, resolve every question concerning the personal referent intended in a particular context.

With these methodological principles firmly established, we are now prepared to examine the passages most frequently cited in support of intra-divine dialogue. The chapters that follow will therefore move from general linguistic principles to detailed textual analysis, asking in each case not what later theology might permit, but what the biblical text itself actually demands.

Overview of the Argument Developed Thus Far

The purpose of this study has not been to argue either for or against the doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, it has sought to examine a more fundamental hermeneutical question: What conclusions may legitimately be drawn from passages in which God appears to refer to Himself in the third person?

Many modern discussions begin with disputed texts such as Genesis 19:24 or Zechariah 2 and proceed directly to theological conclusions. The present study has deliberately taken a different approach. Rather than beginning with controversial passages, it has first sought to establish the broader linguistic and literary principles that govern biblical discourse. Only after those principles have been established can individual texts be examined responsibly.

The argument has therefore developed cumulatively through four interconnected stages.

Chapter One: Establishing the Existence of Illeism

The opening chapter demonstrated that third-person self-reference, commonly known as illeism, is a genuine and widespread feature of biblical language.

The discussion began by defining illeism as a rhetorical phenomenon rather than a theological category. At its most basic level, illeism simply describes the practice of a speaker referring to himself or herself in the third person. The phenomenon is well attested in both ancient and modern literature and carries no inherent theological significance.

Having established the definition, the study surveyed numerous examples of human illeism throughout Scripture. Figures such as Lamech, Jonathan, David, Moses, and Abigail all employ forms of third-person self-reference or relational self-designation while remaining the sole speaker. These examples demonstrated that biblical authors regarded such shifts as entirely natural. The phenomenon cannot therefore be regarded as unique to deity.

Attention then turned to Jesus Himself. The Gospels reveal that Jesus consistently refers to Himself as “the Son of Man,” frequently preferring this third-person designation over ordinary first-person pronouns. Importantly, however, the study argued that the theological significance of these sayings derives from the title “Son of Man” and the surrounding context—not from the grammatical fact that Jesus speaks of Himself in the third person. Illeism provides the rhetorical vehicle; it does not itself establish Christ’s divine identity.

The chapter concluded by examining divine illeism within the Old Testament. Passages such as Genesis 9 demonstrate that YHWH occasionally refers to Himself in the third person while remaining the sole speaker throughout the discourse. This finding proved particularly significant because it established divine illeism as a genuine biblical phenomenon independent of later Trinitarian debates.

The principal conclusion of Chapter One was therefore methodological: illeism is neither uniquely human nor uniquely divine. It is a recognised rhetorical device employed by a wide variety of biblical speakers. Consequently, the mere presence of illeism cannot function as a uniquely divine marker.

Chapter Two: The Fluidity of Biblical Person-Reference

Having established that illeism exists, the study next considered the broader phenomenon of personal reference within biblical language.

Modern readers often assume that changes in grammatical person indicate changes in speaker or referent. Biblical Hebrew, however, exhibits considerably greater rhetorical flexibility.

Through detailed analysis of passages such as Abigail’s speech to David in 1 Samuel 25, the study demonstrated that biblical speakers freely alternate between first-person pronouns, second-person address, third-person titles, relational expressions, and honorific designations while maintaining exactly the same referent throughout.

Abigail moves naturally between “you,” “my lord,” “thy soul,” “the soul of my lord,” “me,” and “thine handmaid” without introducing new participants into the conversation. The grammatical forms change repeatedly; the identities of David and Abigail do not.

This observation carries important hermeneutical implications.

A change in grammatical form does not necessarily indicate a change in referent.

The identity of the person being discussed must always be determined by context rather than by grammatical person alone.

This principle significantly weakens arguments that rely upon third-person references as automatic evidence of interpersonal dialogue.

Chapter Three: Distinguishing Grammar from Interpretation

With the linguistic data established, the study then addressed the relationship between grammatical observation and theological interpretation.

The central argument of this chapter was that there exists an important distinction between what the biblical text explicitly states and what interpreters infer from it.

When Scripture records that YHWH refers to YHWH, the grammatical observation is straightforward.

The speaker has employed the divine name in the third person.

What the grammar does not determine is the identity of that referent.

Whether the occurrence represents divine self-reference, one divine person speaking of another, or another literary phenomenon is an interpretive question rather than a grammatical fact.

This distinction becomes particularly important once divine illeism has already been established.

Before Chapter One, an interpreter might reasonably have assumed that any third-person reference to YHWH necessarily indicated another divine person.

After demonstrating that YHWH Himself sometimes employs third-person self-reference, that assumption can no longer be maintained as self-evident.

The existence of divine illeism creates an alternative explanation that must be considered.

This does not prove that every disputed passage represents divine illeism.

Neither does it disprove Trinitarian readings.

Rather, it changes the burden of proof.

The interpreter must now demonstrate why a particular passage cannot be understood as an instance of divine illeism before concluding that it depicts communication between distinct divine persons.

Thus, “one divine person speaking of another” is shown to be an interpretive conclusion rather than a grammatical necessity.

Chapter Four: The Referent of the Divine Name

The final methodological chapter examined the semantic function of the divine name itself.

Rather than assuming that the repeated occurrence of “YHWH” automatically distinguishes different divine persons, the study asked a more basic question:

What does the name YHWH actually denote within the Old Testament?

The evidence demonstrated that the divine name functions primarily as the covenant name of Israel’s God. It identifies the God who revealed Himself to the patriarchs, redeemed Israel from Egypt, and entered into covenant with His people. Throughout the Old Testament, the name consistently distinguishes Israel’s God from every rival deity.

What the divine name does not ordinarily do is specify distinctions of person within the Godhead.

The Old Testament does not habitually employ the name YHWH to identify one divine person over against another. Consequently, the appearance of the divine name within divine speech does not, by itself, answer questions concerning the identity of the particular speaker or referent.

Once again, context must perform that work.

Accordingly, repeated occurrences of the divine name cannot independently establish interpersonal dialogue within the Godhead. Such conclusions require additional exegetical evidence.

The Cumulative Force of the Argument

Taken individually, each chapter establishes an important but relatively modest observation.

Taken together, however, they produce a coherent hermeneutical framework.

First, third-person self-reference is shown to be an ordinary rhetorical feature of biblical language.

Secondly, biblical discourse freely alternates between different forms of personal reference without changing the identity of the speaker or referent.

Thirdly, the recognition of divine illeism demonstrates that third-person references to YHWH possess more than one plausible explanation.

Finally, the semantic function of the divine name itself is shown to identify Israel’s covenant God without, by the name alone, resolving questions of personal distinction.

The cumulative effect of these findings is not to invalidate Trinitarian interpretations of disputed passages, nor to establish non-Trinitarian conclusions by default.

Rather, the study establishes a methodological principle that governs every subsequent exegetical discussion:

Neither third-person self-reference nor the repeated occurrence of the divine name can, by themselves, establish that one divine person is speaking of another. Such conclusions must arise from the wider literary, grammatical, historical, and theological context of each individual passage.

The discussion is therefore intentionally redirected away from assumptions embedded within grammatical form and toward careful contextual exegesis.

Only after these foundational principles have been established is it appropriate to examine the passages most frequently cited in support of intra-divine dialogue. The chapters that follow will therefore move from methodology to exegesis, evaluating each disputed text on its own merits while allowing the biblical evidence—not prior assumptions—to determine the theological conclusions.

 

• If you liked this study please subscribe hereYou can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

  Help me keep this site free for all. Join our Patreon membership here