From his ‘Of Modern Jewish Theology; (Herborne, 1694)’
Johann a Lent (1654–1696) was a German Reformed theologian and scholar who served as Professor of Church History, Hebrew, and Syriac at the Herborn Academy in Nassau, Germany, from 1686 until his death in 1696. A prominent figure in Reformed intellectual circles, Lent focused on historical theology and Semitic languages, contributing to critical studies of Jewish theology and messianic movements. His work De Moderna Theologia Judaica (Herborn, 1694) exemplifies his rigorous engagement with contemporary Jewish thought, analyzing theological developments and pseudomessianic claims within Judaism. Published in Latin, this text reflects Lent’s philological expertise and Reformed theological priorities, blending scriptural analysis with critiques of Jewish interpretations that diverged from Christian messianic expectations. Lent’s scholarship, rooted in the Reformed tradition, aligned with Herborn Academy’s role as a hub for post-Reformation theological education, emphasizing historical inquiry and linguistic precision. His other notable works include Schediasma historico philologicum de Judaeorum Pseudomessiis (1697), further cementing his legacy as a scholar of early modern Jewish-Christian theological discourse.
Table of Contents:
As many as live this day dispersed among the Jews, with a bold mouth deny the Trinity of the divine Essence, which they call Shelosh, departing from the ancients, the teachers of the highest truth, both before the coming of the Messiah from the prophecies of the prophets, and after the coming of the Messiah from the ancient remaining Catechesis and the key of knowledge. They observe many things, especially Raymundus in the Pugio Fidei published by Voisin, and Galatinus comparing it with the writings of the Hebrews, which sometimes stumbleth, in the Arcana of the truth of the Catholic Religion. And they detest the later ones who apply the voices of Persons, accusing the Christians of perverting the sacred Law, and that they destroy the Unity of the Essence, Yichud, and that they have three whom they worship as Gods. Hence daily from the second article of faith they cry out and shout that God is one, unique, alone, to whom nothing is like; and Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one (Deuteronomy 6:4). And To whom will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? (Isaiah 40:25). But as they establish one divine Essence, so they worship and adore one and only Person, whom they call Jehovah, God, God of Gods, Creator of heaven and earth, God of Israel, the Great God, the Mighty, doing wonders, and so forth.
They laugh at and calumniate the constant doctrine of all ages concerning the Holy Trinity, and bark many things about the impossibility of the Trinity in Unity, that it is of things that can never be. So saith the anonymous Jew in Cocceius’s Considerationes Quæstionum Judaicarum, chapter 61: How is it that Christians build all the foundations of their faith upon things impossible, surpassing all understanding, adverse to reason, such as one and three, God and man, virgin and mother, bread and flesh, wine and blood, one body in many diverse places at one and the same time: not considering that this proposition is true in a finite and created essence, but most false in an infinite and uncreated one; that it fighteth with itself and is contrary to human understanding. Thus speaketh Rabbi Isaac Bar Abraham in Chissuk Emuna, pages 115-116: But God blessed is alone truly one, nor doth anything else truly one exist besides Him; and since He alone is truly one, it cannot be that He is composed of two or three, for that which is composed of two or three is not truly one. Therefore, much more the opinion of those who believe that one is three and three are one, since it fighteth with itself, is false and adverse to human understanding. They say that the Trinity speaketh of the imperfection of unity, and that it is against the divine omnipotence, for if one Person is omnipotent, two are superfluous; yea, that it is against the very immensurability of God, since one Person is the measure of another, as relateth the anonymous Jew in Considerationes Quæstionum Judaicarum, chapter 3.
This most simple unity of God is also demonstrated by manifest reasons, of which, though there be many, we shall bring forth but three. First, if in the divine Essence there were a diversity of persons, there must be some suppositum that distinguisheth them, and that necessarily must be found in one person and not in another. Now, it is necessary that this suppositum have in itself either perfection or imperfection. If perfection, then the persons which lack it are imperfect. If imperfection, then the person in which it is found is imperfect. But in God there can be no imperfection. Therefore, neither can there be diversity of persons. Second, either each of the persons which they affirm to be in the divine Essence hath omnipotence of itself, so that it needeth not the help of the others, or it cannot do all things without the help and operation of the others. If thou settest the first, namely, that each person is omnipotent, then the other two persons are not necessary and are superfluous. If the second, that each person needeth the help of the others, it followeth that none of them is infinite and omnipotent of itself, whereas the divine Essence cannot be superfluous, but must be infinite and omnipotent of itself. Therefore, there is no diversity of persons in it. Third, whatsoever is actually infinite cannot have a measure given unto it whereby it may be measured. God is actually infinite. Therefore, no measure can be given unto Him whereby He may be measured. But if there were diverse persons in the divine Essence, then one would be the measure of the others, so that none of them would be infinite.
That this doctrine cannot be proved from the books of the New Testament itself, and that Jesus our Messiah openly professeth Himself to be the son of man, not the divine Numen, as again speaketh Rabbi Isaac, pages 117-118: Thus also many things are found among the writers of the New Testament which destroy the doctrine of the Trinity, of which I shall adduce some. In Matthew 12:32 it is read: If any man speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Thus far there. The same saying is repeated in Mark 3:28 and Luke 12:10. Behold, by these words men are manifestly convinced that the Holy Ghost and the Son are not one, and therefore much less can three be one. Moreover, it is clear hence that Jesus the Son of man is by no means, as they falsely believe, the Numen, nor hath any wise man called this into doubt. Furthermore, it is written in Mark 13:32: But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only. Thus far there. Behold, from this place also it is proved that the Father and the Son are not one, since the Son hath not knowledge of what the Father knoweth: yea, it followeth that the Son is not God, since He is ignorant of things to come. Add that in the whole Gospel there is found no evident testimony of that Trinity which the Christians hold. Yea, in no place shalt thou find that Jesus calleth Himself God, but rather He attributeth divinity, strength, and power to God blessed, and calleth Himself the minister of God. As in Matthew 10:40: He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. Thus far there. So also He declareth of Himself that He is a man, for in John 8:40 it is read: But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth. And Paul in the Epistle to the Romans 5:15 saith of Him: Through the grace of the man Jesus Christ it hath abounded unto many. In like manner in other places He calleth Himself the Son of man. As in Matthew 20:18: Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests. It followeth there in verse 28: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister: as this thing shall be explained in its place. Finally, the whole matter is also clearly understood from the prayer which Jesus taught His disciples, which they call the Lord’s Prayer, described in Matthew 6: nor did He command to invoke the Trinity, but only one God, and that God of heaven, as is evident from the prayer itself.
They demand of Christians a demonstration of the Trinity, that it is a doctrine not divine but newly invented, as witnesseth the anonymous Jew in Considerationes Quæstionum Judaicarum, chapter 3: How is it proved that there cannot be three persons in one Essence in God? There is no doubt that if this questioner wished to fulfill the office of a good dialectician, he himself should undertake the labor of proving what he demandeth us to prove. For all newly invented dogmas bring with them the obligation of clear demonstration; but they have ready and prepared exceptions and cavils against divine reasons, as appeareth from Rabbi Lipmann’s Memorial Poem, wherewith they are wont to fortify themselves against Christians: What shall I answer to the Epicurean, who cometh to destroy and overthrow the holy law of the faithful, and with proud speech impugneth the unity of God! He first objecteth that in Genesis 1:1, In the beginning God created. Seeking aid from the plural number of the word Elohim. But the heretics have a ready answer: Indeed, the word Elohim signifieth multitude: but the word ‘created’ immediately argueth unity. For it is not written ‘they created’. Therefore, the name of the one God is to be celebrated alone. And this is the usual manner of speaking in Scripture, that in praises, and when the dominion of any is designated, the construction is made in the plural number. For thus in Genesis 39:20, the master of Joseph is called ‘his masters’. In Exodus 22:14, of the owner of the thing lent, it is said ‘its owners were with it’, and altogether in like manner in Deuteronomy 10:17, the one and only God, who presently in the singular number is called ‘the great God, the mighty, and the terrible’, is also called by words of the plural number ‘the Lord of lords’. Moreover, our adversaries rave, objecting the words of Genesis 1:26, Let us make man in our image. Wishing also by these to confirm their opinion concerning God. And there also immediately the answer is inscribed: For thus hath the following verse 27: And God created man, a frail creature, of flesh and blood. But what need was there to institute consultation by His name.
It will appear much more if we consult the Nizzachon Vetus, which answereth to the objections of Christians with these words, pages 4-5: In the beginning God created. If the apostates, or baptized Jews, say: Why is it written Elohim in the plural number? It should have been written Eloah in the singular, if there were no plurality in the Divine. Since, therefore, the latter is not done, it is manifestly inferred that there are two principles, the Father and the Son. It is to be answered: Elohim is sometimes used of one alone, as shall be more fully explained below; and this sense is confirmed by the word in Exodus 7:1, Behold, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh. Furthermore, it is to be said that it is an expression of honor. For princes, who are mere men, yet to this day have it in custom to use the plural number of themselves: We, such and such. How much more doth it befit that, speaking of God, we use this elogium? Nevertheless, God is one eternally, and His name is one, as appeareth from what followeth, for in verse 27 it is said, And He created, not And they created: It is also written in Isaiah 44:24, I stretch forth the heavens alone, I spread abroad the earth by myself. Let us make man. Answer to the apostates: God said to the earth: Let us make man between us. It is given to thee, from thy dust; and I will supply from myself the spirit, whence further it followeth in the text, verse 7, And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground. Behold, this is from the earth: And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life: Behold, this is that the Spirit hath God for author. Wherefore it is significantly said in verse 26, after our image, after our likeness, that is, after thy image and likeness, though thou be dust: and I will make that he have spirit after my image and likeness. For this cause it is said in chapter 3:19, In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken. Solomon also saith in Ecclesiastes 12:7, Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. Let us make man. The heretics say that the word ‘Let us make’ implieth two, namely, the Father and the Son. Similar things have Rabbi Isaac Bar-Abraham in Chissuk Emuna, pages 107-109, Menasseh Ben-Israel in Conciliator, Question 6, Aben Ezra, Rashi, Kimchi, and others in their respective places, to be compared with Rabbi Moses Nachmanides in his disputation with Brother Paul, pages 58-59.
They praise the Anti-Trinitarians, companions of the worst doctrine, especially the Socinians, Servetians, Arians, that with valid arguments, both from Scripture and from reason, they affirm the Unity of God alone, and confute the opinion of the Trinity, as appeareth in the Munimen Fidei, which Rabbi Isaac Bar Abraham composed with a virulent pen against Christians, when he thus speaketh, page 119: Moreover, in our age many of their own wise men, whom they call the Sect of the Ebionites, the Sect of the Servetians, and the Sect of the Arians, have impugned the Sects of the Roman Catholics and Lutherans in this, affirming the unity of God, and overturning the dogma of the Trinity. Hitherto pertain the things which the most learned Nicholas Prutain hath discussed in the book which he composed in the Latin tongue concerning the unity of God, and which is inscribed De Uno Vero Deo, and is a meditation and explication of the divine unity. Likewise, the most erudite Martin Zachvvitz hath published Dialogues in the Polish language, where in the second Dialogue he confuteth with valid arguments drawn from Scripture and reason the opinion of those who embrace the dogma of the Trinity. The same in the book which he named Sermo Trium Dierum, from folio 28 to folio 69, refuteth all the proofs of those who embrace the dogma of the Trinity, which they fetch from the New Testament. In the same manner, many wise men from the sects which I have mentioned above have radically destroyed in their books all the foundations of those who believe in the Trinity.