Scriptural Sources of the Trinity
by Ralph N. Olander, January 1, 2006
Good Morning.
When Jim Rapp, on behalf of the Worship Committee, asked if I would
give a talk on the scriptural sources of the Trinity, I paused for only
a brief moment before I agreed. I hadn’t really given it much thought
before except I knew vaguely what William Ellery Channing had said
about it. Knowing that, I thought it would be fairly easy, and I
had an interest in knowing more exactly.
Are there references in the scripture, the Bible, about the triune nature of God?
After some research, I found my suspicion was correct. The answer is no.
Thank you very much and have a good day.
What? I have more time? Okay, here’s a little bonus coverage.
Okay. Forgive me for being so glib about this, because, given the
persistent devotion to the Trinity by most Christians over the
centuries, there must be a cause, a rationale. Indeed, I found
there is quite a body of theological scholarship on the issue that
argues the truth of the Trinity despite a lack of explicit reference in
the Bible.
It is not my aim today to critique the agreements supporting the notion
of the triune nature of God. Channing did it far more eloquently than I
could. Arius, the 4th century proponent of the oneness of God and
the man whose agreements ignited the reaction that ironically ended up
in Trinitarianism being made a formal doctrine of the early church, and
made Unitarianism one of the foremost of the early heresies, had
greater powers of persuasion than I will ever have.
Neither is it my intention to mock the concept of the Trinity and the
arguments for it, though obviously, as a Unitarian Universalist, I
don’t buy into it. As a UU, and especially as I have learned more, I do
respect the views of those who hold to the Triune nature of God. I do
not promise, however, that my skepticism won’t leak out from time to
time.
First a little history. The first centuries after Jesus, in which
religion wasn’t just one compartmentalized aspect of life–it was daily
life, was a jambalaya of varying and competing notions about god and
divinity. There were the many deities of the pagan Romans, Yahweh
of the Jews, and the God of the small but rapidly growing community of
Christians, basically a mix of former Jews and pagans who were
worshiping Jesus Christ, the Son, in addition to God the Father.
All were simmering around in a pot forged from Platonic and
Aristotelian philosophies on the nature of the Divine: the realm of
absolute form, the Unmoved Mover.
One Clement of Alexandria, one of the pagans converted to Christianity,
was able to reconcile the Semitic God of the Bible to the Greco-Roman
ideal. He went so far as to call Plato the “Attic Moses.” Clement
further believed that Jesus was God. Christ was the divine Logos become
man so that the rest of mankind had a model to follow for attaining the
ideal. (Did I say the philosophies of Buddhism and Hindu were
also spicing up the jambalaya?)
At about that time, a man named Sabellius posited the notion that the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were akin to the three masks
(personae) that actors wore to assume a role and be audible to an
audience. God, in fact had three masks, or personae. God in
three persons.
These ideas were not really dominant. As I said, it was a
jambalaya of many competing ideas and doubts. One of these was
the question that if Jesus was God, then how could God suffer on the
cross–was it really suffering, If God, as a god could not be said to be
capable of suffering, what did this do to the foundation of Christian
idea of Jesus suffering on behalf of all mankind as a savior.
So there was arguing and debating at all levels of society. This
social unrest became evident to Constantine who had just made
Christianity the official State religion. In May of 325 he called the
best and brightest to Nicea to hash out the problem and come to some
sort of conclusion.
Arius was the chief proponent of the Unitarian nature of God and the
human nature of Jesus, having popularized it among the masses with
songs and persuasive silky oratorical style. A man named Athanasius was
his chief opponent. After much debate, and probably a lot of backroom
politicking, Athanasius carried the day. Thus the belief in the divine
nature of Jesus Christ was affirmed as doctrine. At the end of
the Creed, one line was added without much notice: “We believe in the
Holy Spirit.” That’s all that was said about that.
Though made official, just saying it was so didn’t necessarily make it
so as there was constant philosophical, theological (and political)
jockeying for decades to come.
Later, three men Basil, Bishop of Caesarea, his brother Gregory, Bishop
of Nyssa, and their friend Gregory of Nazianzus, living in a region of
Eastern Turkey called Cappadocia (hence they were called the
Cappadocians) arrived at the explanation that though God was of one
“essence,” unknowable to humans, he had three “expressions’ with which
he made himself known to us. These expressions were of course the
three persons: Father Son, and Holy Spirit.
I didn’t delve into all the arguments these people actually used at the
time, but the Bible was certainly a prime source, as well as prevailing
philosophies on the nature of man, which as I said were
Greco-Roman. Figuring the agreements couldn’t have changed much
over the centuries (Yes, the Trinity is supported by Scripture; No, the
Trinity is not found in Scripture.) I looked to see what is being
argued these days. Where? The Internet , of course.
There seems to be two types of argument: Trinity is implied in the Bible because of:
Frequent juxtaposition of the three terms, and the interchangeability
of what persons in the Bible, including Jesus, call the three persons.
Here’s what one person, Paul Kroll, has on a website owned by the Worldwide Church of God:
“Those who do not accept the Trinity doctrine reject it in part because
the word "Trinity" is not found in Scripture. Of course, there is no
verse that says "God is three Persons" or "God is a Trinity." This is
all quite evident and true, strictly speaking, but it proves nothing.
There are many words and phrases that Christians use, which are not
found in the Bible. For example, the word "Bible" is not found in the
Bible.
“More to the point, opponents of the Trinity doctrine claim that a
Trinitarian view of God’s nature and being can’t be proven from the
Bible. Since the books of the Bible are not written as theological
tracts, this may seem on the surface to be true. There is no statement
in Scripture that says, "God is three Persons in one being, and here is
the proof. . ."
“However, the New Testament does bring God (Father), the Son (Jesus
Christ) and the Holy Spirit together in such a way as to strongly imply
the Trinitarian nature of God.”
He goes on to cite three Biblical passages. The first seems to be
the foremost of all I saw submitted in evidence by all the
proponents–Matthew 28:19
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;”
Others have also argued that this passage demonstrates the three-in one
nature of God because it doesn’t say “names of the Father, the Son, and
so on. The singular “name” is evidence.
Another citation is 2 Corinthians 13:14:
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.”
Mr. Kroll cites a handful of other passages, most that, in my opinion,
don’t demonstrate proof by juxtaposition as well as these two. He
goes on to say:
“Certainly, such passages show that the New Testament faith is
implicitly Trinitarian. Of course, it’s true that none of these
passages say directly that "God is a Trinity. . ." or "This is the
Trinitarian doctrine. . ." But they don’t need to. As mentioned above,
the books of the New Testament are not formal, point by point treatises
of doctrine. Nonetheless, these and other Scriptures speak easily and
without any self-consciousness of God (Father), Son (Jesus) and Holy
Spirit working together. The writers show no feeling of strangeness in
joining these divine Persons together as a unity in their salvific
work. “
You may judge for yourself if you are convinced by such an argument.
I found other discussions. One particularly thorough one is by Dick
Tripp, an Anglican Clergyman in New Zealand. I’ll draw heavily from his
piece on the Exploring Christianity website
(http://www.christianity.co.nz/index.htm) that centers on the
following method of proof: In order to prove the Trinity one has to
find citations that:
1. Prove the person-hood of each–the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
2. Prove the divinity of each.
Person-hood for these purposes is defined as "One who has substance,
completeness, selfexistence, individuality, and rationality.
I think that the proponents I read thought that the person-hood God the
Father and Jesus Christ, the Son was pretty self-evident because they
didn’t go into it. And I wouldn’t argue with that if one operates
under the same assumption as they: that God and Jesus exist and act as
the whole Bible relates. No they take a lot more pains to show
that the Holy Spirit is a person because they figure that people would
be inclined to doubt that something called a spirit, or ghost might be
interpreted to be a mere force or energy.
Some of the passages offered in proof:
John 14:26 - 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.
John 14:16-17 - 16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you
another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even 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.
An important point here is made that the pronoun “he” is used. One wouldn’t refer to a non-person as a “he”.
There are a number of other such citations given, all, interestingly, from John.
Another point has been made that only persons can be “fellowshipped”,
as in the Corinthians verse I cited earlier-- except that the in the
translation that I used (King James), the word “communion is used: “The
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion
of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. The version (unspecified) I
saw in the internet agreement read: “"The grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be
with you all" .
I’m not sure what this says about the validity of the argument, when it
seems to be tied to only one of many different translations....
Many passages show the Holy Spirit as having a mind, speaking, guiding, etc.
Okay, so the Holy Spirit has personhood, as it (he) is referred to by the people in the Bible.
Now for God-ness. God the Father is explicit so the rest of the
argument is about the divinity of Jesus and the divinity of the Holy
Spirit on the same level, equal to God the Father.
A number of people refer to Jesus as God:
Doubting Thomas upon meeting the resurrected Jesus and touching his
wounds in John 20:28: And Thomas answered and said unto him, My
LORD and my God.
Paul in Colossians 2:9 - For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
His pre-existence before coming into this world is constantly assumed
and sometimes directly stated, as in John 1:1,14.: In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. (Remember, Word = Logos = Christ) And 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.
I guess the best statement about the god-hood of Jesus would be from
himself: Here is a fairly definitive statement, from John
10:30-38:
30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to
stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you
from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews
answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for
blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are
gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and
the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath
sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said,
I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me
not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that
ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
Well, John the Gospel writer seems to think Jesus was God, and Paul seems to also, and John says Jesus thought he was also.
What about Holy Spirit as God? Again there are a multitude of passages in which people relate one to the other.
Mr Tripp points out:
“To begin with, the very fact that his full title is the Holy Spirit
(used about 90 times in the New Testament) points to his divinity. God
is supremely the Holy One in the Bible (Isaiah 57:15). Jesus spoke of
the Spirit as the Holy Spirit, as he was later to address God as Holy
Father (John 17:11).
“One argument is that Paul's language can fluctuate between God,
Christ, and Spirit, depending on the emphasis of a given passage. For
example, he can speak of the power of God (2 Corinthians 4:7), the
power of Christ (2 Corinthians 12:9) or the power of the Holy Spirit
(Romans 15:19), all of which are at work in his life. This says much
about how Paul viewed Christ and the Spirit in terms of deity and
inter-relationship. Or note 1 Corinthians 12, where the subject changes
from God in verse 6, to the Spirit in verse 11. Similarly in Acts 5, to
lie to the Holy Spirit (verse 3) is to lie to God (verse 4).
“In the New Testament,” he says, “there is no difference between
the way the presence of the Holy Spirit is spoken of and the presence
of God. The presence of the Holy Spirit is the presence of God.”
Mr Tripp goes on, “One of the most significant descriptions of the Holy
Spirit in the New Testament is "the Spirit of life" in Romans 8:2: “For
the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the
law of sin and death.”. He is the one who "gives life" (2 Corinthians
3:6). God in the Old Testament is supremely the living God, the source
of life in all that lives. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of life
because he is the Spirit of God. Significantly, Jesus is also spoken of
as "the author of life" (Acts 3:15).”
So where does that bring us? As I said when I began, the evidence
takes the form of juxtaposition of the three terms, and the
interchangeability of what persons in the Bible, including Jesus, call
the three persons. Is that proof? It is certainly a
rationale. But I don’t know I’d go so far as to call it rational
or logical. In the end that doesn’t matter to the adherents of
the Trinity because if it should confound the rational examination,
they find it easy to fall back on Matthew 19:26: But Jesus looked at
them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all
things are possible.”
Or, as the Eastern Orthodox Church held, that if the idea of the
Trinity confounded reason, it was good because (like many of the
Eastern mystical traditions) contemplating it led to a mindlessness
that helped one get closer to the ineffable essence of the divine.
Now to buy into all this depends on one crucial assumption that, in
fact, is the one mentioned and disputed by Channing: If you assume that
the Bible is the unerring word of God, then all else follows. If,
however, as Channing says, the Bible is the work of men writing in the
context of their times, it must yield, like any other writing of men
to interpretation by the light of God-given powers of reason.
Karl Barth once said that The Trinity is the Christian name for
God. Well, let it be so and peace to them. And peace to you.
Thank you.