Does the Trinity Make Sense?

by Josh Moody (November 2002)

Further Reading:
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (IVP, 1994), 226-261
Colin E. Gunton, The One, The Three, And The Many, (CUP, 1993)

Argument Outline:
1. The Trinity is implicitly taught in the Old Testament of the Bible
2. The Trinity is explicitly taught in the New Testament of the Bible
3. Jesus places the Trinity at the heart of his Commission to the Apostles
4. Church history gives evidence of the importance of believing in the Trinity, and the difficulty of formulating correct terms to describe it.
5. The Trinity is strictly a mystery. This does not mean that it is not reasonable. The Trinity does make good sense. But it does mean that ultimately it is beyond human reason fully to understand it, or fully to depict it, or fully to express it.
6. The Trinity is foundational to various social, relational and communicative functions of life. Without a conscious belief in the Trinity our experience of sociality will be greatly diminished, our relationships impoverished, and our communication destabilized. The Trinity is the sole way in which the unity and diversity of life can be held together.
7. The Trinity therefore makes sense for those who accept the teaching of the Bible, for those who accept the teaching of Jesus, for those who respect the teaching of Church tradition, for those who are willing to accept that God is coordinate with but superior to their minds, and for those who recognize the plurality and essential unity of reality. It makes sense biblically, Christologically, traditionally, reasonably, and experientially.

1.The Biblical Evidence

Because the word ‘Trinity’ does not appear in the Bible, it is sometimes thought that the concept of the Trinity is extraneous to the Biblical material. Actually, though, the Bible does implicitly and explicitly teach the nature of the Trinity. It does so by asserting three connected matters. The Bible teaches that God is three persons. It also teaches that each person is God. And it teaches that God is one. Put together this means that the Bible teaches the Tri-unity of God, or the ‘Trinity’. What’s more, the Bible connects the dots of this teaching by, in various places, speaking of the three persons of the Trinity as one and co-equally divine. It may be said then that while the word ‘Trinity’ is absent from the Bible, and much of Christian inherited language used to describe the Trinity is theological formulations from later centuries, the concept of the Trinity is firmly rooted in the Biblical material itself.

a. The Old Testament

i. There are references in the OT where God refers to himself in plural terms (Gn 1:26, 3:22, 11:7; Is 6:8). Genesis 1 has been understood by some to mean that God is speaking in ‘royal we’ or addressing the ‘heavenly angels’. Neither of these are very likely; there is no parallel Hebrew occurrence in the Old Testament were God is definitely shown to employ this plural to mean the ‘royal we.’ And the idea that God is addressing the angels – who make no appearance otherwise in the text – seems specious.

ii. The name of God in the OT is itself plural: ‘elohim’, one of the OT names for God is a plural form (with a singular verb) hinting at the plural nature of God.

iii. There are also references to Angel of Lord who is identified with, yet distinct from God (Ex 3:2-6; Jdg 13:2-22). Angel means ‘simply’ messenger and in other places indicates the supernatural angelic messengers of God; in these references, though, the messenger, while distinct from God, is also identified with God.

iv. The OT also refers to the Spirit as God’s personal agent (Gn 1:2; Ne 9:20; Ps 139:7; Is 63:10-14).

v. The OT speaks of the wisdom of God, particularly in Prov 8, as a personalized outgoing of God to the world, and of the Word of God, the creative utterances of God (Ps 33:6, 9; cf Gn 1:26). There are also prophecies which identify the long-awaited Messiah with God (Ps 2; Is 9:6f). This OT material does not amount to full doctrine of Trinity but in presenting plurality within God’s unity these OT passages clearly anticipate the fuller NT teaching.

b. The New Testament

i. Several NT passages presuppose, imply or state God’s Tri-Unity (For instance: Mt 3:13-17; 28:19; Jn 14:15-23; Acts 2:23f; 2 Cor 13:14; Eph 1:1-14; 3:16-19).

ii. Each person of the Godhead is asserted to be divine. The Father is God (Mt 6:8f; 7:21; Gal 1:1). The Son is God (Jn 1:1-18; Rom 9:5; Col 2:9; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8-10 [and v3]). The Spirit is God (Mk 3:29; Jn15:26; 1 Cor 6:19f; 2 Cor 3:17f).

c. As a whole then we may say that the Bible teaches three propositions about the Trinity of God. It teaches us that God is three Persons. It teaches us that each Person is God. And it teaches us that God is one. It therefore teaches us that God is a Tri-Unity or a ‘Trinity.’

i. God is three Persons. This means that the Son is not Holy Spirit and the Father not HS etc. For Jesus: John 1:1-2 that ‘with’ God shows distinction. John 17:24. 1 John 2:1. Hebrews 7:25. For HS: Since HS in several Trinitarian passages put in coordinate relation to Father and Son he must also be a person. Places where masculine pronoun he (Gk ekeinos) is applied to HS (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13-14). From rules of Greek grammar, as the word ‘spirit’ (pneuma) is neuter, not masculine, it would ordinarily be referred to with the neuter pronoun ekeino. Noun counselor or comforter (paracletos) used normally of person. Other personal activities ascribed to HS, teaching (Jn 14:26), bearing witness (Jn 15:26; Rom 8:16), interceding or praying on behalf of others (Rom 8:26-27), searching the depths of God (1 Cor 2:10), knowing the thoughts of God (1 Cor 2:11), forbidding or not allowing certain activities (Acts 16:6-7), speaking (Acts 8:29; 13:2; etc), evaluating and approving a wise course of action (Acts 15:28), and being grieved by sin in lives of Christians (Ephesians 4:30). Also if HS understood simply to be power of God a number of passages would not make sense, because in them the HS and his power or power of God are both mentioned. Luke 4:14, Acts 10:38 (also Rom 15:13; 1 Cor 2:4).

ii. Each Person is fully God. God the Father is clearly God – evident from first of the Bible. God the Son is fully God. John 1:1-4. Gk text echoes opening words of Gn 1. JW challenged interpretation of John 1 translating ‘the Word was a god’ implying that the Word was simply a heavenly being but not fully divine. They justify this translation by pointing to the fact that the definite article (Gk ho ‘the’) does not occur before the Greek word theos (‘God’). They say therefore theos should be translated ‘a god.’ “However, this interpretation has been followed by no recognized Greek scholar anywhere, for it is commonly known that the sentence follows a regular rule of Greek grammar, and the absence of the definite article merely indicates that ‘God’ is the predicate rather than the subject of the sentence. This rule called “Colwell’s rule” is covered as early as chapter 6 of a standard introductory Greek grammar: see John Wenham, The Elements of NT Greek, (CUP 1965), p 35. The rule is simply that in sentences with the linking verb ‘to be’ a definite predicate will usually drop the definite article when it precedes the verb, but the subject of the sentence, if definite, will retain the definite article. So if John had wanted to say ‘the Word was God’ John 1:1 is exactly the way he would have said it. The inconsistency of the JW’s position can further be seen in their translation of the rest of the chapter. For various other grammatical reasons the word theos also lacks the definite article at other places in this chapter, such as verse 6 (‘There was a man sent from God’), verse 12 (‘power to become children of God’), verse 13 (‘but of God’), and verse 18 (‘No one has ever seen God’). If the JWs were consistent with their argument about the absence of the definite article, they would have to translate all of these with the phrase ‘a god’, but they translate ‘God’ in every case. For Jesus see also John 20:28, Hebrews 1, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, Romans 9:5, Colossians 2:9. The HS is also fully God. Once understand that other two Persons God, then Trinitarian passages like Mt 28 take on significance for the doctrine of HS. Also Acts 5:3-4, 1 Corinthians 3:16, Psalm 139:7-8 (omnipresence of God), 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 (omniscience of God). John 3:5-7 compare 1 John 3:9: something only God can do.

iii. God is One. One of the most familiar passages about this is Deuteronomy 6:4-5. See also, Exodus 15:11, 1 Kings 8:60, Isaiah 45:5-6, Isaiah 45:21-22, 1 Timothy 2:5, Romans 3:30, 1 Corinthians 8:6, James 2:19.

iv. The Bible therefore teaches that God is three in one, a ‘Trinity’. This triple formula of God as Trinity appears frequently in the New Testament: see, for example, 1 Cor 12:4-6; 2 Cor 13:14; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Thess 2:13-14; 1 Peter 1:2, Rev 1:4-6.

d. The Authority of Jesus. The fact that the Bible as a whole teaches the Trinity is also to complemented by the personal authority of Jesus. The Trinity was not supplemental to Jesus’ teaching but central to it as witnessed by his Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20. Here he urges us to baptize disciples in the name (not names) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If we are followers of Jesus we will be believers in the Trinity.

2. What Church History Shows Us

a. It matters. During the 4th century BC the church spent much time trying to work out form of language which was in accord with the Biblical teaching regarding the Trinity. There were heroes and villains. Foremost among the heroes was one Athanasius who almost single-handedly prevented the church from sliding into what would have been in effect a capitulation to pagan intellectualism and a denial of the divinity of Christ. Sometimes this long drawn out debate is characterized as simply over a single letter, the Greek ‘iota’ because at one point the focus of the distinctions was on those who agreed to the term homoousios (the same nature) and those who agreed to the term homoiousios (similar nature). But as is often the case in Theology small differences in terminology mask large distinctions of belief. The Arians (so-called for following one Arius) could only say that the Son was ‘similar’ to the Father not of the ‘same’ substance as the Father. However you cut up it up this was a denial of the full divinity of Christ and needed refuting. The Athanasian Creed (now thought not to have been written by Athanasius but still a good rendition of what he taught though formed rather later) stood firm on the issue. At first the Council of Nicea AD 325 and the Council of Cappadocia AD 381 the church confirmed the Biblical belief in the Tri-Unity of God. In between the two Councils, there was much political maneuvering, as the Arians had substantial political power. Athanasius, then, was chased from city to city but in his unwavering commitment to the Theological Trinity of God is a model for both the significance of this doctrine and the faithfulness of those following the Bible’s teaching. So Herman Bavinck says: “Athanasius understood better than any of his contemporaries that Christianity stands or falls with the confession of deity of Christ and of Trinity.” And further, “In the confession of the Trinity throbs the heart of the Christian religion: every error results from or upon deeper reflection may be traced to, a wrong view of this doctrine.”

b. It’s subtle. Many of those who attempted to express Biblical faith regarding the Trinity actually came to say things that were not quite Biblical with regard to the Trinity. The early church father, Origen, in particular, at least on one side of his Theology leaned towards a version of Theology that was not quite full blown Trinitarianism. This was because he was trying to guard against the confusion of the persons engendered by heretical Gnostic teaching; in fact though he ended up so emphasizing the distinctiveness of the persons that he suggested their basic lack of unity. Most contemporary mistakes about the Trinity are traceable to historical errors regarding the Trinity. There are three essential positions about the Trinity which are not really Biblical and do not, in one way or another, give full deity to all the Persons of the Trinity and to the oneness of God at the same time.

i. Modalism. This is sometimes called ‘Monarchist Modalism’ but basically the Modalist position is one which seeks to describe the different members of the Trinity in terms of human different roles. For instance, someone might be a father to their children, a husband to their wife, and truck driver at work. But this is not really a good description of the Trinity because it suggests that the different persons of the Trinity are only apparently different – like different roles in different circumstances – rather than actually different.

ii. Subordinationism. While there is a sense in which there is a subordination of role within the Trinity (the Son voluntarily submits to the Father) there is no subordination of identity. The Subordinationist position, however suggests, in one way or another, that Jesus and the Holy Spirit, while very important supernatural beings are not deities on the same level as the Father.

iii. Adoptionism. This is the view that the Son became God at the moment of His baptism, that he was not eternally God, as John chapter 1 tells us that he is.

c. The limits of language. All of these false views are driven by the need to try and bring rational expression to a doctrine that in its essence is beyond the reaches of rational reduction. In Similar vein is the more modern view called ‘Unitarianism’. This is the view that God is simply one. Originally attempted to be established from the Biblical text but because (as we’ve seen) the Biblical text really can’t be warranted to produce this view, now become a more purely rationalistic position.

d. The limits of analogy. Various analogies for the Trinity have been suggested down throughout the ages. All of them have had their limitations. God is not really like a three-leaved clover, because the leaves are not genuinely separate. Nor is God really like the three properties of water (water, steam, and ice) for at no time is water all three, as God is three in one eternally. Nor is God like a tree, with roots, trunk and branches, for these are all parts of the same entity. Some of the analogies come near to suggesting heresies (like the idea that God is like a person who is at home a father, at work a bus driver and towards his wife a husband, which is really a modalist view of God). Even the famous ‘psychological’ analogy of Augustine has its pitfalls. Better to use a form of words that expresses the three in oneness of God and leave the reconciliation of these realities to the realm of mystery.

e. The usefulness of the historic creeds. The Athanasian Creed (c 8th century) says, “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance.”

3. Rationality and Mystery of the Trinity

To claim that the Trinity is rational is, in a certain sense, obviously false. That is, the Trinity is not rationalistically establish-able. It is, however, rationally defensible, and is not itself against the principles of rationality. The Trinity is not a self-contradictory statement (which would be irrational). Christians are not asked to believe that God is one and at the same time that God is not one. They are asked to believe that God is one and that at the same time he is three. This is clearly a mystery, but it is not irrational, and in fact is rationally defensible.

a. The reasonableness of the Trinity. Sometimes people say that as one plus one plus one equals three so Christians really should be honest and say they believe in three ‘gods.’ But this is to misunderstand the theology (as well as the math). For instance, while 1+1+1=3 it is also true that 1x1x1=1. In other words, we are dealing with something beyond math when we come to the Trinity and simplistic analogies with mathematical equations can only show us that they can’t decide one way or another about the Trinity. More, we can also say that as we are dealing with the infinite God, the concept of infinity itself is a much nearer mathematical equation to that of a single unit. And, as it happens, infinity+infinity+infinity=infinity. And we believe in an infinite God.

b. The relevance of the Trinity. The Trinity is, as we’ve seen, very relevant to the maintaining of orthodox Christian theology. What’s more, the Trinity itself is also foundational to various intuitions we have about life. We intuit that the world is immensely diverse. We also intuit that reality is somehow a ‘universe’ (not a ‘multiverse’). This plurality and unity of reality needs an ultimate reality which is also diverse yet united and the Trinity ensures this. We can also say that our communication depends upon the inner-communicativeness of the Trinity. As God constantly and self-sufficiently communicates within the Persons of the Trinity so human communicativeness is dependent upon this reality to life. Indeed our very relationality is dependent upon ultimate reality being relational; if God is a pure monist unity then he is not relational and I, in his image, am not relational either.

c. The irrationality of other views of God. If we take God to be a pure monist unit, this has significant consequences for our view of reality. If God is not relational in his essence – he is a single entity – then either we are not relational either (as made in his image) or creation is a grand relational experiment upon the part of God. He needs us to relate to him and is learning about relationships as he goes on. If we’re in such a relational bargaining position with God we could make our obedience to him contingent on him removing uncomfortable aspects of the Decalogue. And his faithfulness to us is not guaranteed, as that faithfulness is a relational issue that he is finding out about. And his love – which in the Bible is utterly gracious towards us – is actually a mutually dependent love, and gradually the whole of our view of salvation and life becomes undermined.

d. The necessity of the Trinity for orthodox views of salvation. The complexity of the Trinity might tempt us to leave it well alone; but in fact just about everything that matters in Christianity hangs on the truth of God’s three-in-oneness. EG Mk 2:5-7 correct in seeing that only God can forgive sins and therefore Jesus must be God to do so (God not undifferentiated being). So God’s forgiveness depends on him being a Trinity. Similarly with HS; if not God himself at work within us, Christian claims about the activity of the HS are a delusion, unrelated to supernatural reality. “Thus the entire fabric of Christian redemption and its application to human experience depends wholly on the three-in-oneness of God. The Trinity is as important as that” (Bruce Milne, Know The Truth).

Conclusion: In a world where we are increasingly on the search for relational reality, might not our desires be met in an encounter with the ultimate relational being, God, who as three in one, is constantly communicating, loving, relating to himself? And who is, in essence, love, (1 John 4:16), because he loves as each member of the Trinity relates to each other. This over pouring of love towards us is gracious, not selfish, and is not only experientially required but also foundationally necessary for all human relationships whatsoever.