Particulars
of Christianity:
302
The Trinity
The Trinity:
The Trinity in the New Testament
Introductions
The
Angel of YHWH as YHWH God
The
Angel of YHWH as Distinct from YHWH God
Immediate
Interactive Dialogue
A
Consistent Expectation about Seeing God's Face
Survey
Examining Eternal Past Existence
Establishing
Eternal Past Existence
Distinction
of the Spirit of YHWH
Ancient
Jewish Recognition of Trinitarian Facts
The
Trinity in the New Testament
Addendum
1 & 2
Addendum
3
Having
seen the defining components of Trinitarian doctrine asserted
thematically throughout the Old Testament, we now turn our
attention to the New Testament. At first it might seem that
questions about the Trinity or heresies like Modalism and
Arianism are strictly a matter of explaining potential differences
between the Old and New Testaments. In other words, it is
assumed or perceived that the New Testament teaches the Trinity
and that the Old Testament does not. Consequently, demonstrating
the Trinity in the Old Testament would entirely resolve any
perceived conflicts between the two testaments concerning
the nature of the Godhead. However, starting from the misperception
that the Old Testament does not teach the Trinity, some have
approached the New Testament with a view toward reconciling
its view of the Godhead with an Old Testament view that allegedly
is non-Trinitarian. For this reason, questions have arisen
concerning whether or not even the New Testament presents
the Word and the Spirit as uncreated, eternally distinct consciousnesses
within the Godhead, as created sub-deities (Arianism), or
even as temporary, transient modes of a single consciousness
in the Godhead (Modalism). After all, if the New Testament
doesn’t teach the Trinity, why even question whether or not
the Old Testament does so. Consequently, for the sake of showing
the absolute consistency between the Old and the New Testaments
concerning assertions of the Trinity, we will now move on
to discuss the same issues regarding the New Testament, which
we previously examined in the Old Testament.
The
Pre-incarnate Word as YHWH of
the Exodus Who Appeared to Moses
One
of the prominent and early themes that we established from
the Old Testament was that the figure known as the angel of
YHWH was understood to be YHWH himself visiting men in a humbler,
interactive guise, either of a fiery angel or a man. Consequently,
the first question that we have to ask is whether or not this
understanding is consistent with the New Testament? This doctrine
can be clearly seen by the examination of a few, clear New
Testament passages.
We
have already seen some New Testament attestation of these
facts earlier during our examination of the Old Testament.
In particular, we saw how the book of Revelation described
Jesus Christ as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last,
the beginning and the end. These were the same titles that
the book of Isaiah applied the angel of YHWH, YHWH who led
Israelites during the Exodus. Consequently, both Isaiah and
Revelation identify the angel (or Word) of YHWH with the same,
uniquely diving titles.
Likewise,
we also saw how Revelation described the pre-incarnate Christ
as the Almighty. Moreover, we saw how the term “the Almighty”
in Revelation is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew name by
which God was known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob before he
revealed the name YHWH to Moses in Exodus 3 and 6. And lastly,
we also saw how Revelation referred to the person of Jesus
Christ as “the living one,” “who was and is and is to come.”
Such phrases reflect the very meaning of the name “YHWH,”
which reflects God’s uncreated, always existing status and,
thereby, ascribe that uncreated, eternal status to the person
of the Word.
Consequently,
the application of titles for the angel of YHWH to the person
of Jesus Christ in the New Testament demonstrates that the
New Testament identified Jesus Christ with the angel of YHWH
in the Old Testament. However, these are just a few of the
evidences demonstrating that the New Testament was merely
retaining the Old Testament’s doctrine of the Trinity.
Chapter
1 of John’s Gospel establishes several critical components
of this doctrine. It establishes that prior to the incarnation,
the figure who became Jesus Christ was known as the Word.
It summarily refers to his Old Testament history and visitations
to the patriarchs and prophets with the phrase “He was in
the world.”
John
1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made
by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his
own, and his own received him not…14 And the Word was
made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory,
the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of
grace and truth.
It
establishes that this figure is God and that he was with others
who are also deemed to be God, which relates to their being
multiple, consciously distinct persons within the Godhead
of YHWH. And it places the Word as already existing at the
very threshold of the beginning and as the Creator rather
than a creation in the creation narrative, both of which were
Old Testament indicators of YHWH’s uncreated, eternal past
existence.
John
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the
beginning with God.
It
establishes that the Word is the Creator, the one who spoke,
in Genesis, which would include the reference to the voice
of God walking in the garden in Genesis 3.
John
1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was
not any thing made that was made…10 He was in the world,
and the world was made by him, and the world knew
him not.
And
it establishes that every time YHWH was seen or encountered
in the Old Testament, it was not the figure known as the Father
but the figure known as the Word who was being seen. This
would pertain directly to Moses’ seeing YHWH in 33- 34 as
well as to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the Israelites from
Genesis to Deuteronomy.
John
1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only
begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath
declared him.
Furthermore,
Paul agrees that prior to the incarnation, it was the pre-incarnate
person of Jesus Christ who led the Israelites during the Exodus
journey. As we saw from Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy,
this was the figure known as the angel of YHWH, who led the
people in the pillar of cloud and fire even as they passed
through the red sea. Specifically, in verse 4, Paul refers
to that Rock that followed the Israelites as the pre-incarnate
Christ, stating even that when the Israelites of the Exodus
testing God’s patience, it was the pre-incarnate Christ that
they were testing.
1
Corinthians 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that
ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under
the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were
all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink
the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual
Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ…9 Neither
let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and
were destroyed of serpents.
The
references to “the Rock” that followed the Israelites during
the Exodus is a reference to the pillar, which moved behind
the Israelites separating them from the Egyptian army that
followed them. As Exodus 14 below indicates, this occurred
right before the Israelites passed through the sea. Both of
these events are mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10, who
apparently had this passage from Exodus 14 in mind as he wrote.
And interestingly enough, Exodus 14 is one of the key passages
that we used to demonstrate that the figure known as the angel
of YHWH was indeed YHWH God in a humbler, visiting form. One
of these proofs came from the fact that Exodus 14 uses the
terms “angel of God” and “YHWH” interchangeably to describe
the figure within the pillar, just as Exodus 3 does concerning
the figure within the burning bush.
Exodus
14:17 And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the
Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get
me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots,
and upon his horsemen. 18 And the Egyptians shall know that
I am the LORD, when I have gotten me honour upon Pharaoh,
upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen. 19 And the angel
of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and
went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before
their face, and stood behind them: 20 And it came between
the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and
it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light
by night to these: so that the one came not near the
other all the night. 21 And Moses stretched out his hand
over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back
by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry
land, and the waters were divided…24 And it came to
pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the
host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the
cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians.
Additionally,
the phrase “the Rock,” which Paul uses here in 1 Corinthians
10, is also a specific reference back to Moses’ own words
in Deuteronomy 32, where YHWH who led the people during the
Exodus is referred to as “the Rock.”
Deuteronomy
32:3 Because I will publish the name of the LORD:
ascribe ye greatness unto our God. 4 He is
the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways
are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity,
just and right is he…15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and
kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art
covered with fatness; then he forsook God which
made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation…18
Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful,
and hast forgotten God that formed thee…31 For their rock
is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves
being judges.
In
particular, we note verse 18 of Deuteronomy 32, which states
that this Rock, who is God, is the one that formed the Israelites
as a nation, just as the five books of Moses recount. Furthermore,
there is another important point that follows from the fact
that Paul identifies this Rock, who formed the nation of Israel,
as the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. Specifically, the fact
that it was the pre-incarnate Christ who formed Israel is
what forms the basis of John’s statement that the incarnate
Word, “came unto his own.” He was born as a Jew living among
the Jews, his own people, the nation he himself had directly
formed from the days of Abraham in Genesis and particularly
during the Exodus journey where he gave them their covenant,
government structure, and laws.
John
1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received
him not.
Even
John’s comment that nationally speaking, his own people did
not receive him is clearly a reflection of Moses statement
in Deuteronomy 32 that Israel would forget and forsake the
God who made them, the pre-incarnate Word, the figure known
as the angel of YHWH in Exodus.
It
is clear from such New Testament passages, that the Jewish
men who authored these words were not only well-acquainted
with the Trinity in the Old Testament, but they were directly
affirming the Old Testament understanding that we outlined
in detail during the first half of this study. They are presenting
a consistent picture and they are expressing that in their
eyes, this was a consistent picture. In addition, it must
not go unsaid that by identifying the pre-incarnate Jesus
Christ as YHWH of the Exodus, these first-century Jews (who
were the earliest Christians) believed they were worshipping,
not a different YHWH than the Israelites of the Old Testament,
but the very same figure encountered and worshipped by Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, and Samson’s parents, etc.
Moreover,
in the Old Testament we saw multiple occasions in which one
figure of YHWH expressed his own awareness of distinction
from other figures of YHWH. We find this Old Testament trend
continued in the New Testament as well. Jesus Christ (the
angel of YHWH incarnate, the incarnate Word of YHWH) expresses
his distinction from the figure of YHWH known as the Father
in John 3:35, John 5:19, 20, 43, John 8:28, John 10:25, John
12:44-45, 49, John 14:12, 16, 24, John 15:24, John 17:8, 11,
24, Matthew 10:40-41, Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22, and Mark
13:32. The Father expresses his distinction from incarnate
Word in Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5, Mark 1:11, Mark 9:7, and
Luke 9:35. On these occasions it is clear that the Father
and the Word clearly exist simultaneously. In addition, the
text also distinguishes between the Father, the Word, and
the Spirit in John 1:1-2, 14 (which we’ve already examined),
Luke 11:13, John 14:26, and John 15:26. And the epistles also
assert that these persons of the Godhead are distinct and
simultaneously existing in 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:5,
Galatians 3:20, Hebrews 1:5-9 (quoting Psalms 2:7), Romans
15:6, 2 Corinthians 11:31, 1 John 5:6, 9-11, and 2 John 9.
And finally, just as chapter 1 of John’s Gospel identifies
the Word of God as the Lamb of God, Revelation 1:1, 5:1-7,
19:11-20:12, and 22:1 all distinguish between the Father and
the Word. And Revelation 22:16-17 distinguishes between the
incarnate Word and the Spirit as well. Consequently, like
the Old Testament, the New Testament contains plain statements
that describe the Father, the Word, and the Spirit as distinct
persons who simultaneously exist and interact with one another
and many of these statements are made by the figures of YHWH
themselves.
Since
we have merely listed the supportive passages above, we will
now take some time to briefly examine some of the clearest
of those passages. The first example comes from John 12:28,
where the incarnate Word (Jesus Christ) is praying. During
his prayer he addresses the Father as distinct from himself.
Then, in the second half of the verse, the Father replies,
responding to the Word’s statements. This interactive communication
between different figures of YHWH is exactly what we saw in
the Old Testament and, like those Old Testament passages it
indicates that those figures of YHWH both exist simultaneously
and intercommunicate among themselves in a way that expresses
their own awareness of conscious distinction from one another.
John
12:28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice
from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it,
and will glorify it again.
And
while in John 12:28, the Word addresses another figure of
YHWH with the title “Father,” in Matthew 3:17, the Father
expresses his awareness of distinction from the Word by referring
to the Word by the title “my Son.”
Matthew
1:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
The
very phrase “my Son” shows an awareness of self by means of
the pronoun “my” and also an awareness that the Word is distinct
from him in the sense that there is a figure of YHWH that
is in a position he himself is not in (specifically, the position
of being a “son” to him.)
In
addition, John 17 is an extraordinary demonstration of Trinitarianism.
The passage is filled with the Word expressing “I” and “thou”
distinctions between himself and the figure known as the Father.
But most importantly, John 17 not only demonstrates the distinction
between the Father and the Word, but it also demonstrates
that both of these figures of YHWH existed before creation.
Earlier we established that existing before creation was a
demarcation of eternal, uncreated status and of being the
Creator rather than a creation. This is most clearly seen
twice in the passage, once in verse 5 and a second time in
verse 24, in which the Word specifically states that he and
the Father existed before creation and his words specifically
maintain their distinction from one another at that time before
creation.
John
17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine
own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world
was…8 For I have given unto them the words which
thou gavest me; and they have received them,
and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they
have believed that thou didst send me…11 And now I
am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I
come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name
those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one,
as we are…24 Father, I will that they also,
whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that
they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me:
for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
And
concerning the distinction between all three persons of the
Trinity, we find the following explicit statements in Luke
11 and John 14. In Luke 11, the Word is speaking and he refers
to both the Father and the Spirit rather than saying “I” or
“me,” thereby expressing his perception that he is distinct
from the figure known as the Father and the figure known as
the Spirit. Moreover, because he refers to the Father and
the Spirit separately, the Word here plainly certifies that
the Father and the Spirit are not the same figure but distinct
from one another. And again, this distinction cannot merely
be an illusion of human perception since it is the Word himself
who asserts this distinction.
Luke
11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts
unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly
Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
John
14 is filled with “I” and “he” distinctions between the Word,
the Father, and the Spirit in which the Word refers to himself
with the pronoun “I” and refers to the Father and the Spirit
with the pronoun “he.” And like Luke 11, the Father and the
Spirit are listed and spoken of separately rather than being
regarded as the same.
John
14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give
you another 243 Comforter, that he may abide
with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth;
whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not,
neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with
you, and shall be in you. 26 But the Comforter, which
is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,
he shall teach you all things, and bring all things
to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
In
addition in verse 16, the Word clearly distinguishes between
himself and the Spirit when he refers to the Spirit as “another
comforter.” The Greek word for “another” is “allos” (Strong’s
No. 243), which simply means “another” or “other.” The definition
for “allos” is below.
243
allos
a
primary word; TDNT - 1:264,43; adj
AV
- other(s) 81, another 62, some 11, one 4, misc 2; 160
1)
another, other
For
Synonyms see entry 5806
If
you follow the cross-reference to the synonym at the end of
the definition for “allos,” you find a further definition
for “allos” as meaning “243 generally denotes simple distinction
of individuals.” Clearly, the Word’s use of “allos” here to
refer to the Spirit demonstrates that in the perception of
YHWH himself (in the person of the Word), the figure known
as the Word and the Spirit are distinct individuals, not the
same individual in two different forms or roles as Modalism
teaches. Furthermore, the Greek word for “Comforter” is “parakletos”
(Strong’s No. 3875), which literally means “one called to
someone’s side or aid.” Consequently, according to the Word,
it would not be the Word himself who was sent back by the
Father to help his disciples but it would be another individual,
a figure known by the title “the Spirit of YHWH,” who was
sent to help them.
And
this distinction between the Word and the Spirit is also expressed
by means of their simultaneous existence in two different
locations as described in the book of Acts. In Acts, the Spirit
of YHWH is understood to have come to earth to be with the
disciples while the incarnate Word himself (Jesus Christ)
remained in heaven with the figure known as the Father. In
Acts 1, Luke 24, and John 16, Jesus states that the Holy Spirit
will be sent from the Father to the disciples. And in all
of these passages, the Spirit’s coming to the earth from the
Father is associated with the Word’s going away from the world
to the Father. Clearly, the Spirit is not simply the same
person as the Word in another form.
Acts
1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy
Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto
me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and
unto the uttermost part of the earth. 9 And when he had
spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and
a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while
they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up,
behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also
said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?
this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven,
shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
Luke
24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father
upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until
ye be endued with power from on high…51 And it came
to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them,
and carried up into heaven.
John
16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient
for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter
will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto
you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the
world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of
sin, because they believe not on me; 10 Of righteousness,
because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more…16
A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little
while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.
Acts
2 describes the actual coming of the Spirit to the earth to
be in the disciples, just as Jesus had foretold in Acts 1,
Luke 24, and John 16.
Acts
2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,
and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave
them utterance.
Ac
2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted,
and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy
Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
In
Acts 8, the Spirit first speaks to Philip and then later picks
him up in one location and carries him away to another location.
Acts
8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near,
and join thyself to this chariot…39 And when they were come
up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away
Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on
his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and
passing through he preached in all the cities, till he
came to Caesarea.
In
Acts 10-11, which Peter recounts in Acts 11, the Spirit comes
upon the first Gentile converts, just as he’d come upon the
disciples in Acts 2.
Acts
11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell
on them, as on us at the beginning.
As
late as Acts 19, we see the Spirit on earth coming upon disciples.
Ac
19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them,
the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues,
and prophesied.
In
contrast, when speaking to the crowds about repentance in
Acts 3, Peter instructs them that Jesus Christ (the incarnate
Word) remains in heaven and cannot return until a sufficient
number of Israelites believe on him. (Paul also expresses
this doctrine identically in Romans 11:15, 25-26, stating
that when all Israel converts on a national level, the dead
will be resurrected, which is an event that takes place at
Jesus’ return according to Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17.)
Acts
3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that
your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing
shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And
he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached
unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times
of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by
the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
So, as we can see, prior to the death, resurrection, and ascension
of the Word into heaven, the Spirit was in heaven with the
Father. Then, after the Word’s ascension, the Word was to
remain in heaven with the Father while the Spirit was sent
from the Father to the disciples on earth. As we said earlier,
clearly the Spirit is not simply the same person as the Word
in another form. And clearly, these plain facts demonstrate
that the figures known as the Father, the Word, and the Spirit
exist simultaneously and in different locations from one another.
Moreover, this is similar to passages as early as Genesis
19:24, when YHWH on earth (visiting Abraham in the guise of
a man) calls down fire from YHWH out of heaven. So, this New
Testament doctrine is one that is, in fact, carried over from
the earliest Old Testament theology and view of the Godhead.
It is not a New Testament invention.
Furthermore,
we have seen the distinction between the Word or angel of
YHWH and the Spirit of YHWH in the Old Testament. Likewise,
these statements from first-century Jews (who were the first
Christians) demonstrates that they understood the angel of
YHWH and the Spirit of YHWH to be simultaneously existing
and distinct throughout the Old and the New Testaments. These
early Jews and early Christians were not Modalists.
Does
“Son” Mean the Word Was Created?
We
have already seen that the New Testament maintains Old Testament’s
assertions concerning the divinely-expressed distinction,
the simultaneous existence, and the eternal, uncreated status
of three conscious figures of YHWH. However, we now turn to
one prominent New Testament claim that at times might bring
confusion to this issue. Specifically, we now turn to what
the New Testament means when it refers to the Word being “the
Son of God.” Does this son-ship indicate that the Word (the
Old Testament angel of YHWH) is a creation (and therefore
only a sub-deity of some kind)?
Specifically,
the Bible uses this “father-son” terminology to refer to sentient
beings created directly by God. Luke 3:38 states that Adam
was the son of God, given that he was brought into being directly
by God with no intervening parents.
Luke
3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth,
which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
The
angels, including the adversarial angels (i.e. Satan) are
referred to as the sons of God in Job, which makes sense since
the angels were also created directly by God with no intervening
parents.
Job
1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to
present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among
them.
Job
2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came
to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also
among them to present himself before the LORD.
In
Job 38, God speaks of who was and who was not present on the
early days of the creation week when God laid the foundations
of the land and limited the boundaries of the waters. This
was before man was created on Day 6 of Genesis 1 and yet the
sons of God are present at this time. Therefore, this term
“the sons of God” can only be a reference to the angels.
Job
38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations
of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who
hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath
stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations
thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons
of God shouted for joy?
Daniel
likewise seems to extend this term “son of God” to those who
have an angelic appearance.
Daniel
3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose,
walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt;
and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
And
even more generally, the title “sons of God” is applied to
all men who are spiritually reborn by God. John 1 speaks of
this directly.
John
1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power
to become the sons of God, even to them that believe
on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor
of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of
God.
Just
3 chapters later, John’s Gospel explains that we become the
sons of God when we are reborn, regenerated, or recreated
by the Spirit.
John
3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except
a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born
of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit
is spirit.
Paul
likewise speaks of men becoming sons of God when we believe,
receive, and follow the Spirit of God.
Romans
8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they
are the sons of God. 15 For ye have not received the spirit
of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit
of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit
itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the
children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs
of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer
with him, that we may be also glorified together. 18
For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are
not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall
be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creature
waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Galatians
4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth
the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
And
like John, Paul’s understanding that we become sons of God
when we are reborn by the Spirit is connected to us becoming
“new creations.”
2
Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in
Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed
away; behold, all things are become new.
Galatians
6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth
any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Consequently,
there is the understanding in the Bible that the terminology
of the Father-son relationship is a metaphor for the Creator-creation
relationship, particularly with regard to sentient creations.
As a result of this fact, some have erroneously gone on to
conclude that since the Word of YHWH is regarded in the New
Testament as the Son of God, he therefore should be understood
to be a creation, even if a very high-ranking or even the
first creation, effectively a sub-deity of sorts.
However,
the problem is that the application of the title “Son” to
the Word does not in any way refer to his divine nature. The
New Testament teaches that the Word is God and also man. We
saw the divine nature of the Word attested to plainly earlier
in John 1.
John
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the
beginning with God.
However,
as we also saw earlier, chapter 1 of John’s Gospel is likewise
explicit that in addition to his divine nature, at the incarnation
the Word also took on a human nature. This is expressed in
the phrase “and the Word was made flesh.”
John
1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among
us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten
of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
So
clear was the New Testament understanding that the Word had
acquired a human nature, that in John’s epistles he used the
denial of this teaching as an indication of heresy.
1
John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit
that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is
of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this
is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard
that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2
John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world,
who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Of
course, there are many other New Testament passages attesting
to the Word taking on a human nature at the incarnation in
the womb of Mary, where he was conceived as any human child
would be except for the lack of a human father. However, what
is significant here is that it is the Word’s acquired human
nature, since it is created, that makes the Word a son of
God. In fact, John’s reference to the Word as begotten of
the Father and being seen by men in chapter 1:14 is only used
as a restatement further explaining what he means by the Word
becoming flesh and dwelling among men.
John
1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten
of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Consequently,
it is quite clear even from the beginning of the New Testament
that the begetting or son-ship of the Word is only connected
to his incarnation, to his created human nature. He is not
a son with regard to his divine nature only with regard to
his acquired humanity. And since his son-ship refers to his
human nature only, this term does not make any indications
whatsoever that the divine Word was created. In fact, quite
the opposite is true. Since the Word only became a son at
the incarnation and not before, this actually proves that
prior to the incarnation, the Word was uncreated and eternal.
This
New Testament proof for the uncreated status of the Word by
means of his “son-ship” occurs in Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5, which
are quotations that apply Psalms 2:7 to the incarnate Word.
Psalms
2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said
unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten
thee.
Hebrews
1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time,
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And
again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a
Son?
Hebrews
5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made
an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my
Son, to day have I begotten thee.
The
key element in these three passages is the word “to day” or
“this day.” These words clearly indicate that the “son-ship”
of the Word began at a certain point, on a particular day.
However, in these passages one figure of YHWH is also clearly
already speaking to the Word before “that day” on which this
son-ship occurs. If son-ship conveys creation, then prior
to that particular day, the Word was neither a son nor a creation.
And that fact, in turn, demonstrates his uncreated, eternal
status prior to the incarnation, when he became a son when
he himself obtained a human nature, which is a created nature.
In
other words, prior to becoming a son at the incarnation, the
Word did not have a Creator-creation, Father-son relationship
with God. The absence of this Creator-creation, Father-son
relationship to God means that the Word was not originally
a creation or a son at all. In short, the son-ship of the
Word at the incarnation demonstrates prior to the incarnation,
the Word had never experienced any manner of being created
but was uncreated and eternal. Once again this is proof that
the Word is no created sub-deity or recently formed extension
of YHWH but he himself is the “I AM,” the uncreated, the existing
one, YHWH.
Furthermore,
at this point we should also turn our attention to the New
Testament book of Hebrews, which absolutely rules out the
suggestion that the Word is a mere created being or angel
of any kind, even the highest angelic being. Hebrews is repeatedly
explicit that the Word is not an angel, for none of the statements
made concerning the incarnate Word were said about any angel,
nor did any angel ever experience such things.
Hebrews
1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as
he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than
they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time,
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again,
I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the
world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship
him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels
spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto
the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is
for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the
sceptre of thy kingdom…13 But to which of the angels said
he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine
enemies thy footstool? 14 Are they not all ministering
spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be
heirs of salvation?
In
short, the Word is contrasted to angels, or more specifically,
the angels are distinguished from the Word, throughout the
opening chapters of the book of Hebrews. For example, if the
Word was merely an angel, then how could the author of Hebrews
ask, “unto which of the angels said he at any time, ‘Thou
art my son?’” If the Word was an angel, even perhaps the highest
angel, then the answer to this question would have been simple.
The answer would have been, “Easy. God said that to an angel
when he said it to the Word.” Even more clearly, in verse
8, the Word is contrasted to the angels in the sense that
they are deemed mere spirits and servants while the Word is
called “God” when the figure known as the Father says to the
Word, “thy throne, O God, is forever.”
Consequently,
as we saw in Zechariah 2-3, even though the title “the angel
of YHWH” was used with regard to the pre-incarnate Word, this
figure was understood not to be a mere angel. Nor was the
title understood as an indication that he was an angel. After
all, in those chapters of Zechariah, this particular figure
is still referred to as “the angel of YHWH” even in the midst
of other godly angels. Consequently, this title was not applicable
to angels in general, but instead it was uniquely applied
as a means of distinguishing this figure from even the godly
angels.
And,
of course, beyond these specific proofs in the New Testament,
we should not forget all the other proofs that we examined
earlier, which demonstrated the uncreated, eternal existence
of the figure known as the angel of YHWH. The Old and the
New Testaments are both clear that the Word is not a creation.
On
a related note, in verse 16 of Hebrews 2, the author writes
that the Word “took not on him the nature of angels; but he
took on him the seed of Abraham.”
Hebrews
2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of
angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
First,
we should note that the phrase “the seed of Abraham” is a
reference to human nature in contrast to angelic nature, which
is made plain in verses 9 and 14 below. Second, this statement
in verse 16 is not a denial that the Word took on the guise
of an angel in the Old Testament, such as during his interactions
with Moses and Israel during the Exodus. Rather, it is a statement
about the incarnation. Moreover, the statement itself assumes
that the Word exists eternally as something other than either
an angel or a man. And when the Word took on the nature of
a created being, when he actually acquired a created nature
(rather than just the temporary guise of one), it was not
an angelic nature that he took on, but a mortal, human nature
that he took on. And the text is clear that the reason for
this was so that he could experience death.
Hebrews
2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than
the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory
and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death
for every man…14 Forasmuch then as the children are
partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took
part of the same; that through death he might destroy
him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And
deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime
subject to bondage. 16 For verily he took not on him the
nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of
Abraham.
Humans
are mortal and can die. Angels are immortal and cannot. So,
when the eternal, uncreated Word took on a created nature,
in order to be able to die, he took on a human nature, not
an angelic one. That is what this passage is saying. It is
not denying that the Word ever took on the guise of an angel.
It is only denying that at the incarnation he actually took
on the nature of an angel. This statement is a reference to
the nature that the Word took on at the time of the incarnation,
not a reference to the Word’s entire history in the Old Testament.
(Furthermore,
it also very important to note that we do not assert or believe
that the Word actually became an angel or a man in any of
his Old Testament visits. Instead, as we have indicated all
along, he merely took on the guise or appearance of a mere
angel or man. This is distinct from the incarnation since
at the incarnation, he actually took on human nature and became
human himself, rather than just appearing as a man (or an
angel) as he did throughout the Old Testament. Likewise, the
same can be said concerning the figure known as the Spirit
of YHWH. This is YHWH operating in the guise of a spirit or
angelic being as well. But although he operates in that guise,
he has not actually acquired that nature as the Word does
in the incarnation.)
Now,
as we finish this examination of New Testament proofs that
the Word of YHWH is not an angel or a created being of any
kind but is the very uncreated, eternal YHWH himself, we must
turn to one last passage in the book of Hebrews.
Previously,
we quoted Hebrews 1:4, which states that the Word was “made
so much better than the angels.” Likewise, we quoted Hebrews
2:9, which states that “Jesus was made a little lower than
the angels.” The word “made” in these passages does not refer
to the Word being created. In Hebrews 2, it refers to the
incarnation, the creation of his human nature and says nothing
of his Divine existence. In Hebrews 1, the word “made” refers
to God elevating him above the angels after he had humbled
himself to live as a man, “a little lower than the angels.”
Neither case refers to his Divine nature being created. How
can we be sure of this?
First,
the context of Hebrews 1-2 is clearly not describing the creation
of the Word, but instead it refers to the Word as God in chapter
1:8 and then proceeds through chapter 2 to describe how God
became man, suffered, died, and afterwards was glorified.
This is clearly a description of God humbling himself and
then being elevated again after this voluntary lowering of
himself. Thus, the “being made” is a reference to this process,
not to being created and the immediately surround context
demonstrates that plainly.
Second,
as we mentioned earlier, chapter 2:16 of Hebrews is clear
that the Word had to “take on” a created nature. And in doing
so, he didn’t take on an angelic nature but a human nature.
The fact that the Word had to “take on” a created nature and
the fact that he did not take on an angelic nature, both demonstrate
that the Word existed as an uncreated being prior to the time
when he “took on” a created nature.
Third,
if we expand the context a little further, we arrive at a
later chapter in the same book, Hebrews 7. Hebrews 7 speaks
of the Word and provides explicit assertions that he is uncreated.
Here the author of Hebrews regards the Old Testament record
of the king and priest named Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18-20)
as a foreshadowing of the Word.
Hebrews
6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even
Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest
of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the
slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 To whom also Abraham
gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King
of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which
is, King of peace; 3 Without father, without mother, without
descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;
but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
This
connection between Melchizedek and the Word is not random,
but comes from God himself in Psalms 110:1-4, which Hebrews
6:20 is citing. In this Psalm, God promises to make the Messiah
a priest in the order of Melchizedek. And consequently, on
the basis of this promise, the author of Hebrews understands
the record of Melchizedek to have relevant comparisons to
the Messiah himself. And the key comparison that the author
makes is found in verse 3. In verse 3, the author of Hebrews
states that since the account of Melchizedek does not record
his father or mother or his birth or death, the written record
itself becomes a foreshadowing of the Word of God. As is plain
from the text itself, the author understands that the absence
of an ancestral record, birth, or death for Melchizedek parallels
the fact that the Messiah would be “without father” or “mother,”
“without descent” or ancestry, and having “neither beginning
of days, nor end of life.”
Now,
the human nature of the Word had a mother. He was conceived
in the womb of Mary who was his mother (Matthew 1:16-18, Luke
1:30-32). Furthermore, due to his miraculous intervention
by which he caused a woman to conceive without male seed,
God is credited as the Father of the Word’s humanity (Luke
1:35). (This is similar to God being crediting as the Father
of Adam in Luke 3:38, a fathering that did not involve normal
reproduction but merely direct creative action on God’s part.)
So clearly the Word’s human nature is not without mother.
And certainly the Word’s human nature did not always exist
but had a beginning at the conception in Mary. Consequently,
these statements do not apply to the Word’s acquired human
nature. Instead, they clearly refer to the divine nature of
the Word, explicitly stating that the divine nature of the
Word is un-fathered (including by God the Father), is without
ancestry or lineage leading up to his incarnation, and has
no beginning of his life nor ending. Since the phrase “no
beginning of days” is specifically mentioned in the text,
it is unavoidably plain that the Word is uncreated and without
beginning but always existed. The author’s point here is simple,
the description of Melchizedek was written in such a way as
to prove that when the Son of God, the Messiah, came it was
the uncreated Word who would be that Son and Messiah.
In
conclusion, we can see that the identification of the Word
as “the Son of God” does not mean that the Word was a creation.
Instead, only in the sense of acquiring a created human nature
did the Word become God’s Son and only at a particular point
later in his existence. Prior to this, he existed uncreated.
Having now concluded our demonstration that the defining components
of the Trinity are clearly taught in both the Old and the
New Testaments, we will move on to one final aspect of this
study, a summary discussion of the reasoning and meanings
behind the titles “Word of YHWH,” “Angel of YHWH,” “Spirit
of YHWH,” and even “Father.”
Old
Understanding the Titles of the Trinity
The
persons in the Old Testament stories and the authors of those
accounts use the terms “Word of YHWH,” “angel of YHWH,” and
“Spirit of YHWH.” However, in contrast to Exodus 3:1-5 concerning
the name YHWH, there are no instances in the Old Testament
(or New Testament for that matter) where someone actually
announces themselves with such titles. These titles are clearly
approved of by God as accurate by virtue of the fact that
he inspired their recording in scripture. However, it is important
to note that there is no place where these titles or names
are revealed directly by God as the titles by which he knows
himself.
Consequently,
these titles might best be regarded as naming conventions
developed early on by God’s people to designate what they
had experienced and/or by the authors to make certain delineations
when recording events. However, as indicated already, the
suggestion that these are naming conventions rather than revealed
self-titles for God does not undermine their accuracy as methods
of recording and delineating the actions of different Persons
of the Trinity. Again, this accuracy is attested to by the
fact that God would inspire the recording or codifying of
such naming conventions during the writing of scripture. Having
clarified these basic concepts, we now move on to discussing
the function of each individual naming convention or title.
First,
the term “Word of YHWH” most clearly denotes YHWH as a speaker
and similarly YHWH as a message-bringer to men, as we often
see him particularly in the Old Testament prophets. Likewise,
this operation is also what is designated by the related title,
“the angel of YHWH.” Like its Greek counterpart “aggelos”
(Strong’s No. 32), the Hebrew word for “angel” (“mal’ak,”
Strong’s No. (04397) means “messenger.” In stating these simple
facts, there is not much controversy.
Furthermore,
it is also clear from the earliest and most frequent Old Testament
precedent with Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, and Samson’s parents,
that the Word or angel of YHWH first and most often appeared
as a man to those whom he visited. Since the term “Spirit
of YHWH” was used from as early as the first chapter of Genesis,
during the earliest interactions there would have a been a
distinction between YHWH in the visiting guise of a man and
YHWH in the visiting guise of a spirit. The title “the angel
or messenger of YHWH” referred to YHWH in the visiting, message-bringing
guise of a man. The title “the Spirit of YHWH” denoted YHWH
in the guise of other spirit-beings, rather than as a man.
Only centuries later would the figure of YHWH who formerly
visited in the guise of a man to the patriarchs also appear
in the guise of a fiery angel to Moses and the Israelites
during the Exodus journey. (In addition, only in the case
of Moses on the particular day described in Exodus 33 and
34 did Moses see him in a fully glorified state, during which
he was not allowed to see his face lest Moses die.) But by
this time, the distinguishing naming conventions had already
been developed.
In
addition, the fact that this is a naming convention, which
became a technical term through normalized usage in the Old
Testament, is also indicated by its seemingly developmental
nature. For instance, in Genesis 1 the text simply designates
YHWH as a speaker with the phrase “And God said,” while Genesis
3:8 adopts the convention “the Voice of YHWH walking in the
garden.” (As indicated previously in the study, by the time
of Jesus and his apostles, the Jews already interpreted Genesis
3:8 as a reference to the figure known as the Word of YHWH
walking in the garden.) And, of course, the Israelites prior
to Jesus’ day reflect this understanding of Genesis 3:8. After
all, it was these early persons and authors themselves who
first adopted these designations to identify this figure of
YHWH in the Old Testament passages after Genesis 3:8. This
includes their early uses of the title “the Word of YHWH”
in Genesis 15:1-4 and the title “the angel of YHWH” in Genesis
16:7-11 and 22:11-15.
As
indicated above, the fact that the figure, known as “the Word
or the angel of YHWH,” was first experienced by men in the
guise of a man is significant because it helps to explain
the reasoning behind the title, “the Spirit of YHWH.” Even
from Genesis 1, the Word of YHWH is seen acting with a counterpart
known as “the Spirit of YHWH” who aids the Word of YHWH in
accomplishing what he declares. As indicated above, the designation
“Spirit” here is likely a contrast to the appearance of the
Word or angel of YHWH as a man. Hence, in the most basic terms,
one designation referred to YHWH in the guise of a man and
one designation referred to YHWH in the form of the category
of beings called spirits. (The term “spirit” would in this
sense be referential to the beings commonly known as “angels,”
which denotes not their nature but their function as messengers
– Psalms 104:4, Hebrews 1:7, 13-14). In short, there are terms
denoting YHWH in the guise of a man bearing a message (the
Word, the angel) and there are terms denoting YHWH acting
as a spirit (the Spirit of YHWH). This seems to be the earliest
usage of these terms.
The
New Testament then simply utilizes these Old Testament designations
to identify its personages in terms of these Old Testament
activities. Consequently, Jesus Christ is identified as the
incarnation of YHWH the speaker and message-bringer that was
experienced by the Jews throughout their Old Testament history.
And the Holy Spirit is identified as being “the Spirit of
YHWH,” YHWH as a spirit or in the guise of a spirit being
(in contrast to the guise of a human being) throughout the
Old Testament.
However,
the roles signified by these titles are by no means fixed.
In other words, these titles should not be understood to denote
fixed or inherent differences between the individual Persons
of the Trinity. Instead, these titles should be understood
as descriptions of the actions of figures of YHWH in
the Old Testament. And very early on in the Old Testament
those actions became the basis for distinguishing between
those figures themselves. In other words, these titles
differentiate between the Persons of the Trinity by identifying
each Person in terms of the actions or roles they have taken
on. But ultimately the titles are not absolute, unique, or
inherent on to only one particular Person of the Trinity.
Instead, these titles are somewhat interchangeable based upon
the fact that the actions or roles they denote are shared
by other members of the Trinity. The following three examples
will demonstrate this plain fact.
First,
as we have seen in our study, the Spirit of YHWH is described
in the New Testament as distinct from the figure of YHWH who
was identified as the Word or angel of YHWH throughout the
Old Testament. Jesus Christ (who the New Testament identifies
with the figure known as the Word or angel of YHWH in the
Old Testament) refers to the Spirit of YHWH as “another Comforter,”
which literally means “another advocate, helper, aid, etc.”
The term “another” designates the Word or angel of YHWH (ultimately
incarnate and named Jesus) as the first advocate or helper
that comes to visit and assist men. The Spirit of YHWH is
considered by the incarnate Word to be a distinctly different,
second advocate.
However,
after his death and resurrection, the incarnate Word ascends
to heaven to reside on the heavenly throne of YHWH with the
figure of YHWH known as “the Father” until the time of his
return. At that point, the Holy Spirit comes and takes over
the role of angel or messenger of YHWH, and is even designated
as such on occasions in the New Testament. In taking on the
role of the angel of YHWH, a role previously occupied by the
figure known as the Word, the Spirit becomes a second advocate,
just as Jesus declared. The figure of YHWH as Spirit in the
Old Testament can clearly serve as YHWH as speaker or messenger,
as he does after the ascension in the New Testament. And after
the ascension of the incarnate Word, the New Testament specifically
titles the Holy Spirit as “the angel of YHWH” in Acts 8:26-29,
Acts 12:7, Acts 12:11, Acts 12:23 (compare to Acts 5:1-9),
Acts 27:23, and Revelation 1:1, 10 (compare to John 14:16-17,
26, John 15:26, John 16:7-14, Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29 and
3:6, 13, and 22). As a result, the term “the angel of God,”
which is one of the main titles by which the Second Person
of the Trinity was identified in the Old Testament, is now
being applied instead to the Third Person of the Trinity.
With
the figure of YHWH that was formerly known as the Spirit of
YHWH now in the role of messenger or speaker to men, it becomes
clear that the title the “angel of YHWH,” is not uniquely
a designation of the Person known as the Word of God. It is
not a description of inherent distinctions in natures among
the Persons of the Godhead. Instead, the title is clearly
a description of the actions of one particular figure
of YHWH in the Old Testament. And very early on in the Old
Testament those actions became the basis for distinguishing
between that figure of YHWH and others. But after the ascension,
that role and the actions it entailed were overtly transferred
to another figure of YHWH since the Word, who’d formerly held
that title and role, was now going to remain in heaven rather
than visiting men on earth.
Second,
the Word and the Spirit are very clearly involved in the creation
of the universe as indicated plainly in Genesis 1 and elsewhere
throughout the Old and New Testaments. Since the title “Father”
as applied to YHWH designates his identity as the Creator
as well as his loving and guiding authority over his creation,
this term “Father” is also ultimately applicable to the figures
known as the Word and the Spirit as well. For example, Isaiah
9:6 applies the title “Father” to the Word. Likewise, Deuteronomy
32:18 is speaking of the angel of YHWH when it refers to God
“begetting” Israel.
Third,
the question arises as to why one specific Person of the Trinity
designated by the title “the Spirit of YHWH,” when God is
Spirit and all three Persons are therefore Spirit? The answer
is that this Person of the Trinity bears this title because
of his history of acting in the guise of a spirit-being on
par with the spirit-beings known as angels and in contrast
to the Person of YHWH who visited men initially and frequently
in the form of a man bearing instructions. This is in contrast
to the perception that the title “Spirit” refers to an inherent
natural distinction between this Person and the other two
Persons of the Trinity. Under that explanation the title “the
Spirit of God” makes no sense because the supposed distinction
that it allegedly reflects does not exist given the fact that
all the Persons of the Godhead are Spirit. To solve this dilemma,
all that is necessary is to understand that the titles affirm
the distinctness of the Divine Persons because the titles
distinguish them based upon the history of their individual
interactions with men. In this case, the title “Spirit of
YHWH” refers to the history of this particular Divine Person
who interacted with men in the Old Testament in the guise
of an ordinary spirit.
So
what do we learn from these examples? We learn that if we
understand these titles to designate inherent differences
in the Persons of the Trinity, then the titles make no sense
since they refer to traits that all Persons of the Trinity
share. And if we mistakenly think that the different titles
are the proof or the basis of their eternal distinctness from
one another, then the fact that they share the traits designated
by these titles fundamentally undermines their eternal distinctness.
And with their eternal distinctness now blurred by the fact
that they share the very traits reflected in the titles, Modalism
gains a foothold.
Instead,
we must recognize that these titles do not reflect inherent
differences between the Divine Persons and that the proof
of their eternal distinctness from one another lies in other
proofs, such as those we’ve outlined over the course of this
study. (For example, their intercommunication with one another
and their own statements expressing self-awareness of conscious
distinction from one another.) In this way, the eternal distinctness
of the Divine Persons is maintained. And not only is their
designation by these titles explained but the interchangeable
application of these titles and traits to all Persons of the
Trinity is also explained without resorting to or creating
an opportunity for Modalism.
As
we summarized above, the roles signified by these titles are
by no means fixed. The titles do not denote fixed or inherent
differences between the individual Persons of the Trinity.
Instead, these titles are descriptions of the actions of
figures of YHWH in the Old Testament. And very early on in
the Old Testament those actions became the basis for distinguishing
between those figures themselves.
And
although these titles are ultimately interchangeable rather
than representative of inherent differences between these
figures of YHWH, there are several reasons why these titles
are maintained throughout the New Testament, even after the
incarnate Word ascends into heaven and the Holy Spirit becomes
the messenger or angel of YHWH to men.
First,
these figures of YHWH are known by and have come to be identified
by their actions in the Old Testament. And maintaining the
identification of New Testament personages with those Old
Testament figures is of central importance in the New Testament
for both doctrinal and continuity purposes.
Second,
no other figure of YHWH (neither the Father nor the Spirit)
has a distinct name such as Jesus. Instead, all these figures
are deemed with the name YHWH. Consequently, there is no other
way to distinguish one from the other apart from these established
Old Testament designations.
And
third, the activities of these figures are not arbitrary in
either the Old or the New Testaments. But instead the activities
of these figures are specifically enacted to demonstrate to
both men and immortal spirit-beings (angels) how to relate
to God and how God relates to them. YHWH takes on a guise
of men (known as the Word) to relate these truths to men and
the guise of angels (known as the Spirit) to relate these
truths to angels. A figure of YHWH also remains transcendent
of creation, thus occupying the designation of “Father” in
relation to both groups (men and angels). Since these exemplifying
roles continue to some extent after the incarnation and ascension
until the plan of YHWH is complete, the designations still
apply. The figure of YHWH known as the Word who originally
appeared in the guise of a man, still exemplifies for men
God’s intentions for our behavior and reward. The figure known
as the Spirit still exemplifies for angels God’s intentions
for their behavior in service to man despite their elevated
nature. And the figure known as the Father still represents
the position of God as transcendent Creator, the loving and
supreme authority over creation to whom angels and men must
direct their obedience and worship.
This
is exemplified in John 17:3. John 17:3 is not a declaration
by the Word from the perspective of his own divine nature.
Rather in John 17:3, a man is speaking who himself has already
been identified earlier in the same book as the incarnation
of the Old Testament figure known as YHWH God, specifically
YHWH the Word. Speaking as an incarnate man, he is
exemplifying the attitude men should have, which is one of
the primary functions of his incarnation. In this role as
a man, YHWH as the Word refers to the Father (the title that
designates God’s role as Creator and supreme authority) as
“the only true God.” With this statement he is speaking as
a man exemplifying the attitude that all men must have with
regard to the Creator. All men must regard the Creator as
the only true God. Thus, this is not a denial of the Word’s
own status as the supreme deity (which the same book already
affirms) but an instance in which the Word is utilizing the
designation “Father” to refer to YHWH’s transcendent status
as Supreme Creator while at the same time the Word is speaking
as a man and exemplifying how men should relate to and regard
their Creator.
It
should be stated here at the end that the defining components
of the Trinity are upheld rather than undermined by this understanding
of such titles as naming conventions. This view explains rather
than denies the fact that there are three co-equal and co-eternal
Persons of the Godhead of YHWH.
For
example, being equal and co-eternal, all can be considered
“Father” and “Creator” in the same right. Similarly, both
the Word and the Spirit at times act as the angel or messenger
to men, yet this fact does not make them one and the same
person. Nor does it make them mere transient or created modes
of a single Person. If these titles are understood as reflecting
actual eternal and inherent differences in nature between
the Persons of the Godhead, then the overlapping or sharing
of the traits designated by the titles ultimately undermines
the ability to sustain that the Persons are eternally distinct.
In contrast, once these titles are recognized as being naming
conventions and the proof for eternal distinctiveness of the
Trinity is understood to rest on other evidences outlined
throughout this study, then the co-equal and co-eternal status
of three distinct Persons will not be mistakenly confused
or discarded in light of the fact that all they share the
attributes reflected in their respective titles.
In
conclusion, this analysis seems to be the most evident, reasonable,
and well-attested explanation for the titles of the Trinity,
accounting for all the statements, all the overlap concerning
activities and roles, and all the applications of those titles
to the Persons of the Trinity in both Testaments. In short,
this understanding of these titles as naming conventions is
essential to a sound argument for and defense of the Trinity.