[07/02/19]
Considering the Persons of the One God, it strikes me there are two primary matters to address. The first is perhaps the easier: Do we indeed find Biblical evidence for this multiplicity of Persons, with perhaps an adjunct question as to whether this is found, as it were, from the beginning? The second question must be how it is that these three are distinguished if in fact they are equally, wholly, and essentially God? It seems likely that as we examine the first question, it shall provide us with some answers to the second.
i. How Many Persons?
I have to say that the clearest evidence for this multiplicity of Persons is found, not surprisingly, in events from the period of Christ’s Incarnation. The obvious example is that of His baptism. Given the desire to see evidence of the Trinity in both Old and New Testaments, it is perhaps fitting that the clearest picture of this event emerges in Matthew 3:13-17. Matthew, after all, is writing for a Jewish audience, and as such tends to seek more to establish the connection of this new covenant with the ancient faith.
John the Baptist is out baptizing, that being what he does, and Jesus comes to him to be baptized. John is rather set back by this, for he knows who Jesus is, and knows his own need to be baptized by this One Who is the Messiah. But, Jesus asks him to allow it, “for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Mt 3:15). What is that all about? It might help to remember that John, by Jesus’ own definition, was a prophet, serving under the Old Covenant, and we might even say serving as the culmination of the Old Covenant. Here is the close of that book, and the opening of the new in Christ. But, Jesus doesn’t come to overthrow the old order, rather to reestablish it as it was intended. John’s baptism, as we learn, was a call for sinful man to prepare for the arrival of sinless King. Is it any wonder that John took offense at the idea of that very sinless King seeking baptism? But, the King’s sinlessness required it of Him. If He is sinless, He must in fact comply with the whole of the Law, obeying every command of God. If this baptism which John administered was by the command of God, and if by that command men were called to submit to baptism, then to baptism Christ must submit, for He, too, is a man.
And see the result! No sooner is He up from the water when, “Behold, the heavens were opened, and he [John] saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased” (Mt 3:16-17). Clearly, we have three distinct individuals involved here, apart from John. We have Jesus emerging from the water, clearly a man. We have the Spirit descending through the sky to land upon Him in the form or likeness of a dove, a being at once visible and yet fantastic. We have also the voice of One yet in the heavens, wholly spirit, formless and unseen, so far as the eyes of man are concerned, and He speaks of His Son, which would rather plainly identify Him as the Father.
I want to pause for a moment on this appearance of the Spirit, though. My usual NASB translation leaves one with the impression that this was, so far as the natural eye could discern, a dove alighting on Christ, and would leave it to the spiritual discernment of John to recognize it as something more. But, the actual term used, hosei, indicates something nearer to being ‘as if’ a dove. Mark uses the term hos, ‘in that manner’ (Mk 1:10), or perhaps the same term. Manuscripts differ in that regard. Luke specifies a bodily form, something physical, and yet still that idea of hos, or hosei, in the manner of, or as if. It is not, so far as we can see, a literal dove possessed by the Spirit. But, John gives us an idea of just how it is that the Baptists discerned more than a bird in this event. “He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God” (Jn 1:33-34). His witness? “I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him” (Jn 1:32).
At risk of over-stressing the point, I think our authors attempt to make plain that this was no ordinary dove, and I might even suggest, not likely to be mistaken for one. It had similarity of appearance. But, amongst other things, one does not find a dove ‘descending out of heaven’. We have several around the place, and I can assure you, it is quite possible to discern the course of their arrival, tracing it to some tree or wire or rooftop from which they arose. There is an arc to their travels, from earth to earth. Not so, it would seem, with this dove-like Spirit that descended upon Jesus and remained. Here, too, is something that points to a matter beyond the physical realities of a bird. First, the idea that a dove was going to readily alight on a man when birds are on the menu of man makes this scene highly unlikely from the outset. But, then there’s that note about the dove-like creature remaining. It ‘abode’. Don’t press it too hard, but there is no mention of it leaving, and given the prior word given John, I think there was an expectation of the Spirit not leaving.
My point is that we are given a word painting of the event. There was much about it which exceeded the capacity of language. We are not accustomed, after all, to voices out of heaven, audible to all. We are not accustomed to creaturely apparitions; indeed, we would fear of slipping into some form of animism by accepting the idea. It does seem rather like some of the Indian legends, doesn’t it; the spirit of the wolf or the crow or what have you alighting upon a warrior to impart some preternatural ability? But that is not what we are seeing. This is something other – entirely other. It is not a dove-spirit. It is the Spirit, in a manner not unlike that of a dove alighting. But, it is no dove, nor was it likely to be mistaken for one. If it were, the voice from the heavens must surely have put paid to that thought. These were events beyond what might be written off as superstitious overreaction to natural phenomena. One might hear the thunder as the gods roaming about the heavens or some such, but one was unlikely to discern clear speech in that thunder. Nor would one expect to hear thunder in what seem likely to have been clear skies. After all, if it was a dark and stormy day, who in their right mind would be out in the water? Who would be around to be baptized? But, I push too far into speculation.
One might be inclined to ask how Matthew would know about these events, given that, so far as we can tell, he joined the disciples later. But, we do have what must be Peter’s recollections in Mark’s recounting of events, and we have also John’s accounting, who was quite clearly present from the outset. I would add that the qualifications that were elucidated as the Apostles sought to identify a replacement for Judas would seem to make clear that at that juncture, all in their number had been present from this event onward. It’s possible, although we are not told that it is so, that Matthew was indeed present this day, along with James and John and Peter and Andrew. It’s possible that like them, he went back to his normal employments after this event, only to be called later by this Lamb of God.
[07/07/19]
As a next step, I turn to the beginning of John’s gospel, and consider it in light of the beginning of Genesis. John writes, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being” (Jn 1:1-3). This is clearly a choice of wording John has made precisely so as to put us in mind of the first words of the Bible. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Ge 1:1). That passage proceeds to present God declaring the creation into existence in each of its categories of existence, culminating in the making of man. As such, what Genesis describes encompasses ‘all that has come into being’, and ascribes the creation thereof to God.
So, what is John describing? Is he identifying Jesus as the God of the Old Covenant? It’s clear from the subsequent discussion in John that the Word is Jesus, God Incarnate. It’s also clear that John tells us this Word was God, but he also, quite carefully, adds the precedent statement that the Word was with God. How is this to be held together if indeed this is the same God of the Old Covenant, and the God of the Old Covenant is One? If this were in fact saying that Jesus and God are one and the same Person, there could be no with, and if John is describing multiple gods somehow, then we can’t have, ‘the Word was God’.
Yes, the Jehovah’s Witnesses would argue that there is an indefinite article missing in our translation, and Jesus is only identified as agod, but that has problems all its own. First, the rules of Greek grammar do not support the claim but rather insist that we interpolate a definite article, such that if we must have an article, we understand it to be ‘the Word was the God’. Second, for John to suggest a multiplicity of gods would run headlong into conflict with God’s prior revelation. “I am the LORD, and there is no other. Besides Me there is no god… There is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other” (Isa 45:5-6). He is, ‘the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and calamity’ (Isa 45:7a). But, if He’s the one forming light and darkness, the one we meet in the opening of Genesis, how is the Word creator of everything? It can only hold together if they are in fact describing the same being, the same God.
So, we have this Word, the Son, Who was and is both with God and ‘very God of very God’. However it is we identify God in the Old Testament, the Son is He, and yet the Son is with Him. As we proceed through the gospels, John’s most assuredly included, we see this Son who is God praying to God, seeking instruction from God, and otherwise interacting with God. This must be utter nonsense if in fact the Son on earth and God in heaven are absolutely and utterly identical. Then, too, we have the Spirit involved, as we saw in the baptism scene. Clearly there are multiple something involved here, and yet, “the LORD our God, He is One.”
Well then, is there evidence for this multiplicity of Persons in the Old Testament? I must, of course, suggest that there is. We can go back to the description of Creation, where God is creating, and also, the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters (Ge 1:2). We could consider God’s choice of phrasing as He proceeds. “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (Ge 1:26a). Yes, I suppose one could hear that as a royal ‘we’, but I must wonder on what basis a wandering nomadic populace without a king would be speaking in such fashion. Is it not likely that if we are hearing such a royal ‘we’ it is because we are interpolating our own speech forms back into this much earlier writing? Not being any sort of authority on ancient languages or cultures, I may be incorrect about this, but it does seem at least a little odd for the religious text of a kingless society to speak in such ways. Perhaps, however, as a nation whose God was their king, it’s not entirely out of the question.
There is also, however, the matter of the many Messianic psalms. I think particularly of Psalm 110, with its frequently being quoted in the New Testament as evidence for the deity of Christ. “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet’ […] Though art a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:1, 4b). Mention of Melchizedek requires us to think of one with no beginning and no end, an eternal priesthood. Such a priesthood requires one who is Himself eternal, and in this case, one who is also enthroned alongside God. Since we know quite clearly that God does not share His glory with another, and that throne is assuredly the very badge of His glory, it must be that He shares His glory with none other than Himself, but Himself in the Person of Messiah, the Son.
We can turn to Daniel. “I kept looking in the night visions, and behold with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away, and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed” (Dan 7:13-14). The nature of that kingdom, like the nature of the order of Melchizedek, does not permit of a human fulfillment. It requires an eternal being of ultimate power and holiness. Indeed, to even have such a being sharing the throne and the priesthood was something that was set forth as being out of reach, out of bounds, for mankind.
How about Ezekiel? One thinks of his living creatures with four faces (Eze 1:4-10), and if I’m not mistaken there have been attempts to associate this vision with the Godhead. Certainly, it’s a vision of the heavenly realms. However, I observe that there are multiple such beings, and that each of them is described as bearing this fourfold image of man, lion, bull, and eagle. I’m not sure we can bring this to bear on matters of the Trinity. In fairness, I’m not sure at all just what is in view here. Let’s try somewhere else, perhaps as God speaks to Ezekiel in the vision of the dry bones. The LORD speaks, and says, “I will put My Spirit within you, and you will come to life” (Eze 37:14). We hear a similar message in Joel. “I am the LORD your God and there is no other” (Joel 2:27). There it is again, that claim to uniqueness of being. “And it will come about after this that I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind” (Joel 2:28a). But, if by pouring out His Spirit, He is somehow lessening Himself, He has become changeable and cannot be God. If He remains in heaven and His Spirit is on all mankind, how does that work? Granted, He is omnipresent, everywhere at one and the same time, yet there is something about this pouring out upon and indwelling of man that seems like it must require a vacancy in the throne room of heaven. Perhaps I am simply stuck with my human understanding and temporally, physically limited perceptions.
It does, however, seem clear enough that the visions of Old point to, or at least hint at this multiplicity of persons. Some would go so far as to find more than three, and that’s another problem we must now wrestle with. The primary source of this idea comes, I think, from the Revelation of John, with its multiple references to the seven Spirits of God.
[07/04/19]
We see reference to these seven spirits almost immediately, even in John’s introduction. He begins by identifying himself as the author, and Jesus Christ as the giver of the revelation he records, which is indeed a prophecy to be heeded (Rev 1:1-3). Not having studied this particular book in any detail, it strikes me that these first three verses read almost as a forward by another hand, with John’s actual introduction following, but I would not offer that as more than an observation in passing. At any rate, in verse 4, John provides something nearer a standard epistolary greeting. “John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne” (Rev 1:4). And there it is. Who or what are these seven spirits? Our translations are of mixed opinion as to how this should be capitalized. The NIV notes that this could be translated as the sevenfold Spirit, but as the term pneumatoen is provided in plural form, I’m not sure I see how that works. But, then I’m no more a grammarian than a historian.
What is relatively clear is that the number seven plays an important role in the symbolism of John’s revelation, seven being a number of perfection, completion. It may simply be, then, that by pointing to the sevenfold nature of the Spirit, or Spirits, or spirits he is addressing the perfect, complete nature of the Spirit. In like fashion, as he addresses this text to the seven churches in Asia, and these seven are given name as things proceed, it seems more symbolic in intent than specific. That is to say, we may be wise to look at those seven churches as representative of particular states of development common to churches, for better or for worse. It may also be that in addressing the seven churches, John’s intent is likewise to indicate the complete church, although the nature of the messages delivered to them in their turn would preclude seeing them as exemplifying the church perfected.
At any rate, the same phrase in regard to the Spirits of God returns in the letter addressed to Sardis. “And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: He who has the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars, says this: ‘I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.’” (Rev 3:1). This just adds difficulty to difficulty, doesn’t it? For now we have an angel of the church being addressed, and that angel is pronounced dead, presumably dead in sins. You know, to the degree that we think of particular angels being assigned to particular churches, I don’t think it enters into our thinking at all that such an angel might be as dead as are we. The angel is sent to protect and guard, is it not? What value a guard that is as sin-prone as those he guards from sin? I think it likely that interpreters are correct who view this as addressing the pastor of said church, he being an appointed messenger of God, which is the base meaning of angel.
But, what are we to make of the seven Spirits, or for that matter the seven stars? Well, as concerns the stars, we have a relatively direct answer given. “The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches” (Rev 1:20b), and here’s news: Jesus is He who ‘holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lampstands’ (Rev 2:1). Those lampstands, in that same defining statement, are the churches. Examine this but briefly, and the message is plain enough, I think. First, Jesus is in and amongst His Church. Second, those who minister to the Church are under His authority. All beings are in fact under His authority, but this is a special case. They are wielders of authority themselves, insomuch as the preach His word and shepherd His sheep. But, their authority is always at second hand, as it were, being authoritative only insofar as it remains true to Authority. He holds them in His right hand. They are His to dispose as He pleases, and they can, in fact, do no other than His good pleasure. And yet, as He writes to Sardis, to this angel of the church, this star in His right hand, “you are dead.”
I belabor this image somewhat both because it is difficult, as is the whole of this text, really, and because I think it offers some limited support for understanding the seven spirits as something other than the Holy Spirit. Observe again that introduction to Sardis. “He who has the seven Spirits of God.” He holds them, as it were. We might see some implication of His keeping them, which would be comfort indeed, given the message. Let me look to the next occurrence of our phrase, though, found in Revelation 4:5. “There were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.” That would seem to point us back to the initial image of the seven lampstands, which are the churches, or if you please, the Church in its sevenfold, complete representation. It would seem to convey much the same message; that Christ is with His Church. He is in her midst, and she is ever before His watchful eye. The ministers, the spirits of the Church, if you will, are in His presence. The last image we have is of the Lamb with its seven horns and seven eyes, which eyes, we are told, ‘are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth’ (Rev 5:6).
[07/05/19]
The combined picture really speaks to me of the Church militant. The Church in its manifold manifestations is indeed sent out into all the earth. It brings us right back to the Great Commission, doesn’t it? But, before I turn to that text, I want to give a moment to Isaiah 11, which some would take to present the Old Testament view of this sevenfold spirit. This passage is one in which Isaiah looks forward to the day of Messiah, writing of a shoot that will spring up from the stem of Jesse and bear fruit (Isa 11:1). Jesse being the father of David, this points us down the Davidic line, the royal line. But does it indeed point us so far down the line as Messiah? Given where this ends, I think we can accept that it is. For, when His kingdom is fully established, a reign in which calf and lion are no longer prey and hunter, but both sufficiently pacific that a young boy can lead them (Isa 11:6), we are told that His people will give praise to God. They will say, “Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid; for the LORD GOD is my strength and song, and He has become my salvation” (Isa 12:2).
But it is nearer the start of this message that we find our reference to the Spirit. “The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD” (Isa 11:2). Now, for this to indicate seven distinct spirits would require us to accept that each ‘spirit of’ is a distinct spirit. Any such understanding must then require that we see the spirits of wisdom, understanding, counsel, strength, knowledge, and reverence as somehow separate from the Spirit of the LORD, and that would seem to present us with rather a major difficulty, for this LORD is all-wise, all-knowing, and all-powerful. Would not, therefore, the spirits of these characteristics be His not in part but in full? If not, then it would seem that in these spirits there is a portion of knowledge, wisdom, and power that He does not in fact possess, in which case we must discount the entire deity of God and the veracity of those Scriptures which demonstrably declare Him to be what He apparently is not.
This, however, will not be necessary if we recognize that those six clauses provide a description of the one Spirit. The Spirit being God, He is in fact possessed of all wisdom, all strength, all knowledge, and it would be hard to imagine a being with a more perfect reverence and respect for God than Himself.
What we in fact see here is a relatively clear depiction of the Trinity. There is the Son to be found in the Branch from the root of Jesse. And lest there be any doubt as to His identification, we can look to Zechariah. “I am going to bring My servant the Branch” (Zech 3:8). “Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD. Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices” (Zech 6:12-13). This clearly points us past any earthly king to arise in the lineage of David, for in them, the two offices of priest and king were never to be found joined in one person, but in Christ we have not only king and priest, but prophet as well. That, however, needs its own proper place in the text, and this isn’t it.
But, we have the Branch, the Son, come to earth to save His people, and then we have the Spirit of the LORD resting on Him. But, how shall that Spirit rest on Him if it is not indeed something separate from Him? And, if He delights in the fear of the LORD, is it not clear that there remains this third person, this third entity, if you will, in heaven? And yet, it is one LORD that Isaiah tells us ‘will again recover the second time with His hand the remnant of His people’ (Isa 11:11). It is one LORD that ‘will utterly destroy the tongue of the Sea of Egypt’, striking the Nile with His scorching wind (Isa 11:15). It remains one LORD of whom the people sing, “Behold, God is my salvation."
As to the unity of these three, and as to their number, I think there can be no more compelling evidence than the Great Commission, of which I previously made mention. Hear what Jesus says. “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Mt 28:18). Stop for a moment. If it has been given, then one must have been the giver. There’s a challenge for us, which you must forgive me for delaying until we consider the Person of Jesus more fully. For the moment, let us continue. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19). That name is singular. It is not a formula of three names, each of which one must be baptized into, but one name that encompasses the three Persons.
It is well to recollect the connection of name and authority at this juncture, for the two are intimately connected. To act in the name of is to act on the authority of, or more properly, under the authority of the one named. This is the significance of our prayers being offered in the name of Jesus. It is not that by appending His name to the request we seal the deal, or somehow render our prayers acceptable. Rather, it is the expectation that our prayers are offered as reflecting that which He has authorized. Our prayers are not self-centered shopping lists but acknowledgement of our submission to His will. Where this is so, our prayers will of necessity reflect His will and not our fleshly desires.
Coming back to the Great Commission, what we see then is one name, one authority, exercised in three Persons. The baptism into which we are called to bring the nations is one of fealty and submission to the Triune Godhead. We do not worship one beyond the others, nor to the exclusion of the others, but we worship God – the one God – in His three Persons of Father, Son, and Spirit. This is admittedly a challenge. How could it not be? We are trained from earliest days that one cannot be three nor three one. We are trained by experience to expect that in any organization there must be one who is on top and in charge, to whom all others are necessarily subordinate. But, here we have three co-equal Persons. Our key is to retain carefully in mind that these three are in fact One, must be One. As such, there is no power struggle amongst them, for they are in fact One Being, One God with One Authority held in fullness by each Person individually, and all three simultaneously, for what any one Person is, all three Persons must necessarily be.
ii. How Are the Persons Unique? How the Same?
Here, we hit a bit of a dilemma. If all three Persons must necessarily be all that any one Person is, how are there three Persons? The very idea of personhood conveys to us a sense of individuality, of uniqueness. The saying that there will never be another you may be quaint, but it is also accurate. Why is that? It is because each of us is a unique, individual person. Now, I suppose we must extend that quality of uniqueness to individual animals and plants as well. Like us, there are many similarities to be found amongst the individual instances of this breed or that, but they are found in such an array of combinations that each individual instance we encounter is in fact unique from all others. A dog owner, for example, will have no particular challenge in identifying his dog out of a field of dogs of the same breed. I suppose here it is easier because the personalities of the individual dogs are more evident. Try that with a fish, for example, and the challenge would increase significantly, in part because we do not really understand the personalities of fish. But, I wander, don’t I?
So, what is it that renders the three Persons unique, and if they are unique, how do we continue to hold that what holds for any one must hold for all? The most obvious uniqueness, it seems to me is the Incarnation of Jesus, the Son. Here we find the Son of God taking up human form, and while we see Father and Spirit fully involved in the process, we do not at any point read of Father taking bodily form to live as a man; we do not read of the Holy Spirit emptying Himself of His prerogatives to live in the humble flesh of a servant. Is this not uniquely the Son’s action? Indeed, so far as we can discern it is. What of the Spirit, sent at the behest of Father and Son to serve as Advocate, as Lawyer and Tutor, to those whom the Father has called to be His own? Here is one whom the Son says is another Advocate (Jn 14:16), so He is not entirely unique in that role, but Jesus also says it is better for us that He has come and the Son has gone, as it were, ascending into heaven (Jn 16:7). There is a distinction made here, isn’t there? And we also have Jesus declaring that the Father to Whom He is going is greater than He (Jn 14:28). But, if they are all equally the same in glory and power and knowledge and love and truth and all those other essential characteristics, how can this be?
I’m not certain I am fit to provide an answer, but I shall have to try, even if the answer is given only to myself, but I do think perhaps the model of marriage, which God instituted as a creation ordinance might prove helpful. We read that God saw that it was not good for man to be alone and therefore made a suitable helper for him (Ge 2:18). Here is aid for man, given, and lest we suppose this somehow infers an inferior position for the helper, it is well to note that God is often the one who helps. For example, “May He send you help from the sanctuary and support you from Zion” (Ps 20:2). Indeed, coming forward to the New Testament, that very term by which Jesus speaks of the Spirit, and by inference, of Himself, which some translations present as Advocate is in other translations Helper – paraklete. Here is one who comes alongside to help. Back in Genesis, we have one created to be alongside, indeed so close as to be accounted ‘one flesh’ (Ge 2:24). Imagine that! Here are two individuals, two persons, being declared effectively one being.
But, pause a bit longer on this image. Why was it unwise for man to be alone in the first place? What was it God saw was missing in this one created in His image? He was created an eternal being, so it wasn’t a matter of reproduction. There was no particular need to reproduce, at least not for preservation of the species or any such motivation. But, God had created this man in His (Our) image (Ge 1:26). He had created man as image-bearer, however this is not a matter of superficial, external resemblance. Indeed, it could be said that in our having this body of flesh and bone, we least resemble God Who is Spirit. I surmise that the issue God saw was the absence of fellowship.
God is Perfect. In Himself, and in Himself alone, apart from any external manifestation or work of His, He is complete. To be complete, He must be possessed of fellowship. Otherwise, He would have a dependency upon some outside being for fellowship, whether it be His followers here on earth, or some other, more ethereal being. God does not, however, obtain His fellowship from those angelic beings around His throne. He cannot, really, for they are not really like Him. God does not obtain His fellowship from the body of believers here on earth. The idea that a god’s existence depends on his having those on earth to remember and honor him is pagan foolishness. A god that depends on the worship of his followers is no god at all. Our God is not like that. He has no outside dependencies, and this includes the need for fellowship. He has fellowship within Himself, in and amongst the three Persons of His Being, and this fellowship has persisted longer than time itself. “In the beginning God” (Ge 1:1). God IS the beginning. He is also the End, whether we choose to consider that as the termination point, or the purpose. “For from Him, and to Him, and through Him are all things” (Ro 11:36).
So, He looks upon this man made in His image, made to serve as His representative here on earth, and sees that as things stand, this man lacks a crucial part of God’s image, that of fellowship. He makes another, bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh (Ge 2:23), to be his suitable helper; one who will be so closely joined with him as to effectively create a single being, one flesh. These two were, we read, ‘both naked and were not ashamed’ (Ge 2:25). Here we see an intimacy such as we can scarcely imagine, although I suspect none can look upon it without longing for like experience. There is something in us that craves, all but demands, a partner to whom we can be so fully open about ourselves. There is, perhaps, nothing we find more potentially embarrassing than exposing every inch of flesh, and it’s not mere prudery that makes us so. To be thus exposed is to have every blemish, every imperfection, every shortcoming exposed to another’s eye, and that is something the ego really cannot accept. But, that’s what intimate fellowship demands, and that is what God, in His perfect intent for marriage, provides. It is our sinful flesh that leaves us hungry for that intimacy because even in this closest of relationships, we are yet unwilling to stand fully exposed.
Is it any wonder, then, that Scripture reveals God having so fiercely protective a view of marriage? This isn’t just about some ideals of human relations, and it’s not just preservation of the species. It’s a modeling of that which God is in Himself, One Being in multiple Persons. It is not a perfect representation, or an exact analogy. I don’t think we can look at the Persons of God and find one in a wifely role. But, neither do we find that one Person is somehow inferior to the others. Again, when God creates woman as a suitable helper, it is not the assigning of a subordinate role, but the creation of an equal, one with whom man can share fully and completely. Adam clearly recognized this in his first meeting. “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh!” I don’t think that was merely recognition of what God had done to bring her about, although he does clearly acknowledge that ‘she was taken out of Man’. But, it is more the recognition that here is something uniquely other from the rest of creation. Over the rest, he was to exercise dominion, but here was a true partner. Here was fellowship.
[07/07/19]
This example may help in another regard, for within this one flesh relationship, there do remain, I see, distinct roles and organization. These are not – and here it is needful for us to be exceedingly clear – distinctions in worth or power or authority. They are the necessary division of labor, if you will. They are actions taken by the individual persons in pursuit of choices made by the one couple. They are acts of mutual support, whereby the needs of the whole, the one flesh couple, can be more readily met by the contributions of the individual members.
Here, too, the model is carried forward in the Church itself, an organism repeatedly described as a body composed of many members. The members are not identical, either in form or function, yet they make up a unified, singular whole: the Church, the body of Christ. There is an equality amongst the members. No one is greater or more magnificent or more necessary than the other – a lesson we unfortunately have to relearn from time to time, and usually the hard way. But, this one body functions in one Spirit for one Lord in one purpose of glorifying God and enjoying Him forever. They work, in this one purpose, uniquely, each contributing his gifts to the effort as the Spirit has seen fit to gift him. They work to build one another up, that the whole body may benefit and grow together. There is, then, a oneness here, but also a multiplicity.
And within that multiplicity, by God’s design and intent, there is in fact an organizing structure, and within that organizing structure, there are ranks of office. There are, so far as the earthly organization goes, the apostles as first authority under Christ. And yet, I observe that there is no first apostle among the apostles. They are twelve or thirteen men of equal stature in the Church. Under them, on a more local scale, we find prophets, and then teachers in the church (1Co 12:28). These, two, have a certain authority, found in the proclamation and exposition of God’s Word, which is our Authority. It’s interesting that in remembering this list, I keep wanting to slide elders in there, but they are not found in the two lists Paul provides as to these chief equippers of the saints. We find evangelists and pastors added in Ephesians 4:11, but not elders. Back in 1 Corinthians, the focus is primarily on gifts rather than offices, however, and in Ephesians, it would seem the issue is that of equipping for ministry. I will wait until some other time to consider this, for my focus at present is not on church organization, but rather on the nature of the Trinity, and while the former may shed some little light on the latter, it cannot do so if it is made a distraction.
Returning to my current theme, what do I see in this? Are apostles greater, more worthy in God’s sight, than, say, the prophets or the pastors? In the final analysis the answer must be no, for all are found sinful, and all are redeemed, if they are redeemed, on the sole basis of Christ’s righteousness given as atonement for their sins. That is to say, they are redeemed because God chose to do so, not because of any inherent worth in themselves. So, in the most critical, most essential sense, all who are the called of God are equal in His sight, equally redeemed, equally loved, equally welcomed as sons and daughters, part of the one, unblemished bride of Christ.
And yet, even here we find evidence of distinction made. The parable of the talents, for example, suggests a varied reward for varied achievement (Mt 25:14-30). There is the sense that some will have just barely managed to gain entrance, practically singed by the fires of hell. If all are equal, how can this be? I conclude that our sense of what constitutes equality has been corrupted by our sinful nature to as great a degree as everything else we touch upon. In the political parlance of our times, we have come to accept that equality must consist in equality of outcome. But, the reality would seem to be that equality consists not in identical outcomes but in identical, intrinsic value. As beings created in the image of God, we have an inherent worth that is indeed equal. It is, sadly, equally marred by sin in this present existence, but it is equally restored by the work of Christ on our behalf, and we can reasonably propose that when we stand before Him, we will be equally shining bright in the glory of His presence, finally reflecting Him as we were intended to do.
But, back to the Trinity. What does all this tell us about the uniqueness of the individual Persons of the Trinity? It certainly tells us that as concerns the essential character of godhood, or those essential characteristics that are necessary to the being of God, there is absolute equality. This must include Love and Wrath and Justice and Mercy and Holiness and Faithfulness and every other characteristic we find embodied in perfection in the godhead. It must also encompass those omnis that I considered in the previous sections. They are equally all-knowing, equally everywhere present, equally all powerful. It is that last one that presents us with a bit of a stumbling block, I think, for it is clear that there is some sort of rank or office that defines each of the Persons of the Trinity.
Jesus insists that the Father, to Whom He is about to return, is ‘greater than I’ (Jn 14:28). How can this be, if Father and Son are equal in all things, equal in power and authority and majesty? I would attribute the comment to Jesus’ humanity, except that He is speaking of His ascension, an ascension by which He goes to take up His rightful, heavenly throne. That is not the work of a man, but of God. Even were we to try such a ploy to explain the statement, I think we would run into difficulties with having so fully divided the divinity and the humanity of Christ, but I’ve enough to wrestle with here without trying to address that at the same time.
There is, then, some fashion in which the Father is greater than the Son while remaining co-equal. I am reticent to take that to the point of setting Jesus as subservient to the Father’s command, albeit He has in fact obeyed every command, and done solely that which (observe this carefully) He sees the Father doing. Let’s look at this just a bit. “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner” (Jn 5:19). As an aside (like I needed one further), it’s interesting the degree to which we turn to John’s gospel for these matters. But, look closely. We tend to hear this as saying the Son can do nothing but what the Father commands, but that is not, in fact what it says. There is an exception clause made: “Unless it is something He sees the Father doing.” It is not, then, capitulation to a higher power. It is not passive obedience given to doing what is commanded, although all that is commanded, He assuredly does. It is the action of a true son. He sees in his father the model for life, and as such, sets himself about the task of modelling that which he sees his father doing. It is not obedience, abject or voluntary. It is active choice, the desire to be like the ideal.
Later, Jesus says further, “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge, and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me” (Jn 5:30). At the same time, however, we need to hark back to the earlier statement. “Whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.” I would submit that the resolution of these two declarations requires us to recognize that the perfect fellowship and unity of the Godhead is entirely present in both. Jesus can do nothing on His own initiative alone, for His initiative and the Father’s are one. He cannot seek His own will apart from the Father, for He is never apart from the Father, and so His actions are ever taken according to the will of Him who sent Him, because they are in perfect and complete accord in every matter of the will.
Further, I would propose that just the declaration that what the Father does, the Son likewise does goes much farther than the events then current. If we go back to the creation, which we are told was done in full by the Father, we find also that nothing of that which was created was created apart from Christ. “Apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being” (Jn 1:3). Father and Son, while their specific activities and contributions to the deed may differ, never act apart from one another, but always in unity. We may, indeed we must require that as concerns the Persons of the Trinity, only the Son is found to have taken to Himself this human nature. We may, indeed we must require that as concerns the Persons of the Trinity, only the Spirit is found distributing gifts and bringing us back to mind of the Word of God. We may, indeed we must require that as concerns the Persons of the Trinity, only the Father, what? Only the Father commands, I suppose. But, that puts us back to a hierarchy, an all-powerful that is just a smidge more all-powerful in one than in the other two. This requires further thought. “The Father is greater than I.” And yet, “The Father and I are One.”
[07/08/19]
In further pursuit of this division amongst oneness I turn to 1Corinthians 8:6. “For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” To be clear, Paul is not describing two gods, but one God. Neither is he assigning Jesus Christ a lesser, sub-god status. Jesus, the Word, was with God in the beginning, and He was God (Jn 1:1). That is not a statement at odds with Paul’s theology, for Paul’s theology is John’s theology is Peter’s theology is the one Gospel of Jesus Christ come to redeem a people for His name’s sake, a people called by the Father, drawn by the Father, and given to the Son as a gift, a bride of great price.
But, in Paul’s words we do see a distinction, however fine a distinction it may seem to us. All things are from the Father, but by the Son. We exist for the Father, and through the Son. It is those tiniest of words, the prepositions that make the distinction. God spoke and it was. There is something of the voice of command in that, I suppose, as much as I am currently concerned to descry any sort of hierarchy in the arrangement of the Trinity. God spoke and it was, but how was it? It was, we are told, by the Son that creation was created. Remember? Apart from Him did no thing come into being that has come into being. We also see that on many occasions Jesus, at least so far as eye is able to discern, took no action other than to speak, and it was. He spoke and a child was healed. He spoke and the raging winds and seas became calm. It is not, then, a separate power belonging to the Father that spoke the world into existence. Indeed, in that Jesus is declared to be the Word of God, we are being told, at least in some way, that Jesus is God spoke. That is horrid English, but it serves the purpose. Perhaps if I put quotes around it, it would look better, but then that would also imply that Jesus is just an expression of the Father’s will, and not fully independent God in His own right.
There is much in what Jesus proclaims that could readily lead one to see Him as less than fully independent, but I must again remind that what we see of Jesus is primarily Jesus in His humanity. In fairness, where we see Jesus in His humanity, His deity is likewise present. It is a mistake to think that He ceased being God for the duration of His earthly ministry. God cannot cease being God, not even for a moment, else He is not unchanging, which being a necessary essential of God’s being, would mean that He was not God at all.
Does Jesus’ humanity fully explain the subservient aspect of His ministry? I don’t think so. Again, we have those pesky prepositions. Creation is from the Father, but by the Son. The Father remains the primary source, I think I have my source terms right. In Him it starts, or perhaps better to say by Him. But, then we seem to have borrowed a preposition from the Son. In some sense, however, it remains the Father Who has taken the initiative in Creation. I won’t go so far as to say He alone decides to create. That’s a step too far. The Trinity decides to create. It falls to the Father to make pronouncement of the decision, and it falls to the Son to enact the decision. That is what I see in the from and by.
Now, here is a point we do well to pay great attention. We exist for the Father, through the Son. That first part speaks to the purpose of our being, the end for which we were begun. I could turn to the Westminster Catechism’s opening question here, and observe that our chief purpose is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. That’s the Father in view, primarily. I could turn, better yet, to Jesus’ declaration in regard to the greatest commandment. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, all your strength” (Mt 22:37). Full on commitment and adoration is called for, commanded even, and it’s an old commandment, for Jesus is but reinforcing the Law of Moses in this (Dt 6:5), which is to say the commandment of the God. Now, we might argue that Jesus is speaking of God, as it were, inclusively, in all Three Persons, but He is Person Two, and there is nothing here to indicate self-inclusion.
Turn as well to the prayer model He gives to His disciples, and we see it directed Father-ward. Here is your primary object of worship, even your exclusive object of worship: the Father (Mt 6:9). Yet, we also have His instruction to pray in His name, and it is repeated instruction for emphasis. “I chose you and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask of the Father in My name, He may give to you” (Jn 15:16). Note the purpose of asking, or more properly the purpose for granting: That your fruit should remain. It is purposeful prayer, and the purpose is fully directed toward the fruitful expansion of the kingdom of Christ. “In that day you will ask Me no question. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything, He will give it to you in My name” (Jn 16:23). Interesting isn’t it, that this promise comes in the midst of addressing ‘that day’?
This is actually rather shocking to recognize. This whole section, form John 16:23 thru John 16:26 is conditioned on ‘in that day’, and yet we receive it as if it were a present tense, already possessed and undeniable right. “Until now you have asked for nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be made full” (Jn 16:24). That certainly sounds present tense, doesn’t it? And there is assuredly much within us that would prefer it were so. But, that’s more of genii-wishing than holiness. We want what we want when we want it, and generally we want it now. But, behold! “In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I will request the Father on your behalf; for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from the Father” (Jn 16:25). This is looking forward to the new heavens and the new earth, when God’s children stand before Him without spot or blemish, every vestige and every ravaging result of sin removed. In that day, we can be assured that our asking is in perfect alignment with His name. Now? I would not serve a God so utterly foolhardy as to entrust such guaranteed power of answer into the hands of foolish and sinful man. He might as well have left Adam to eat from the tree of life at the outset, if that was the case. He didn’t. Neither does He entrust some guaranteed positive answer to ‘anything you ask’. That would be quite probably the greatest evil ever done, and God does not do evil.
If, in fact, there is a present tense component to this at all, and I suspect there is, it lies in this: That those things asked in full and proper accord with Christ’s will, God’s will, are in fact granted. At the same time, the love and the mercy of God will not approve that request which would, however rightly motivated, in fact hinder His purpose. When we pray ‘in His name’, it is not as appealing to Him as reason to grant our request. It is not even asking that God would hear it as if He had said it, at least not fully so. Yet, it is an appeal to His authority, His majesty, His perfection and holiness. Thing is, that appeal only bears weight with God if in fact the appeal accords with His perfection and holiness, which is to say, only if that prayer is one authorized by His authority.
We have that other preposition to consider yet, that whereas we live for God, we live through the Son. “I AM the Bread of Life. He who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst” (Jn 6:35). “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand” (Jn 10:27-28). And finally, as Son prays to Father, “Thou [Father] hast given Him [Son] authority over all mankind, that to all whom Thou hast given Him, He may give eternal life. And this is eternal life: That they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent” (Jn 17:2-3).
He gives life to whom He will, to all whom the Father has given Him; His sheep. As such, we see that He gives life to all whom the Father wills, for it remains that the Father has given Him His sheep, and it remains that His sheep hear Him and follow Him. No one can snatch them out of His hand. Why? “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand” (Jn 10:29). Ah, so Jesus is not God, then, right? The Father is greater, and the real guarantor of our security, is that not what He has said? Yes, but, behold what follows immediately upon that statement. “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30). Lest there be any doubt as to the claim made by that, the reaction of those who heard should put paid to it. They take up stones to stone Him, and when He asks what for, they answer, “Because you make Yourself out to be God” (Jn 10:33). But Jesus counters with the reality. “The Father is in Me, and I in the Father” (Jn 10:38).
This again takes us into the scene of perfect fellowship, the heavenly fulfillment of that one-flesh relationship modeled in marriage. This is not, I think, mere analogy, nor is it hyperbole. It is simple statement of Truth. The Persons of the Trinity, while they have their unique roles and offices, and while they undertake actions that are specific to their individual Personhood, are so fully One that where One Person acts, all are Present and active. It is not that Jesus acts apart from the Father, or that the Father speaks apart from the Son. The Father is present in the Incarnation, although the Incarnation is uniquely spoken of the Son. The Son is in the heavenly throne room throughout His earthly tenure, although He ascends and returns hence at the close of that tenure. He returns, but in truth, He never left. He is in the Father who is in Him. “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9). Yes, they have seen the Father in that the Son perfectly represented and obeyed Him, but they have also seen the Father because He is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father. He is One.
[07/09/19]
But, where is the Holy Spirit in all this? Thus far, if we have been able to distinguish a distinction, it has been between Father and Son. We see some evidence for His distinct being in the many references of God’s Spirit being upon this person or that. The references begin even with the record of Creation, where we find that the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters (Ge 1:2). We have many references to the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of the LORD, coming upon this one and that, whether the judges (Jdg 6:34, Jdg 11:29, etc.), the prophets (1Sa 19:20, 2Chr 24:20, etc.), or the kings (2Chr 15:1, 2Chr 36:22, 2Sa 23:2, etc.). I would like to focus for a moment. “The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue. The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me” (2Sa 23:2-3a). Here I see the Trinity brought to bear in all three Persons. And observe: The Spirit of the LORD, the Holy Spirit, spoke His word by David. Here we have the Spirit in a unique role of inspiration and gifting God’s children. The God of Israel said. Here is the Father, who called Israel into being and it was, as He called creation into being and it was. We see Him in a unique role as the originator of what is said. That is to say, those words the Spirit puts on the tongue of David have their origin in the Father. The Rock of Israel spoke to me. Here is the Son, the Mediator, as Paul identifies much later. “The rock was Christ” (1Co 10:4b). He is pointing to the rock from which the waters flowed in the wilderness, but where was David finding reference to the Rock of Israel if not in this original image? This Christ, this Rock, is also in a unique role mediating the word God spoke to David.
Once more, we are struck by the prepositions. God spoke, and word was borne to David by the Son, the Rock. David was empowered to speak that word by the Spirit. We see, then, God the Trinity acting as one, and yet we see the Persons of God distinctly in their varied roles. No one is more authoritative, for the word that results is one word, not three different messages.
Coming forward to the promised Son of David, we hear this: “The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are downtrodden, to proclaim the favorable year of the LORD” (Lk 4:18-19). He is, of course, reading the text of Isaiah 61:1-2, and it is perhaps telling that He stops just short of, “and the day of vengeance of our God.” That was not the immediate mission. It waits for a later date. But, the Son states plainly, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Lk 4:21). Observe the Trinity in this. It is the Spirit of the LORD, the Holy Spirit who is upon the Son, anointing Him for service. It is the LORD’s declaration that has determined that this is the time, the favorable year, and as we look further into the ministry of the Son, we find it is the Father’s declaration and example that define all actions of the Son. But, it is the Son that bears this word to man, and brings it to pass. He does so in the power brought by the Holy Spirit, the gifts given by the Holy Spirit.
Later still, facing accusation that He acts as an agent of the devil, Jesus observes, “If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Mt 12:28). Here again I see evidence of the Trinity in unified action through the distinct agency of His individual Persons. The kingdom if God gives presence to the Father, and immediacy of presence. If His kingdom has come upon you, then it must surely be that He Himself has come upon you. Again we see the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, as the agency by which the Father’s power is given into the hands of man to pursue His will. And, of course, we see the Son of God, the Son of Man, mediating that kingdom to those whom the Father is pleased to call His own, as well as impinging that kingdom up against those who insist on remaining opposed.
We see that the Apostles in large degree speak indiscriminately of the Holy Spirit (Ro 5:5), the Spirit of God (Php 3:3), and the Spirit of Christ (Ro 8:9). I am choosing examples from Paul’s writing simply to demonstrate that this variation is not a matter of different personalities amongst the Apostles. We also find Him spoken of by His older identification as the Spirit of the LORD (Ac 5:9). The message is sufficiently plain. This Holy Spirit, sent by Father and Son, is the same Spirit of whom it was written that He came upon this one or that one. He is the same Spirit, and He is so fully of one accord with Father and Son that He is spoken of as their Spirit. Here again is that perfection of fellowship. We know that scripture uses this phrase, ‘spirit of’, to indicate characteristics that fully inform the character of an individual. We are called to seek the restoration of our brother, for example, ‘in a spirit of gentleness’ (Gal 6:1), to be imbued with a spirit of wisdom, revelation, and knowledge (Eph 1:17). Note the prayer in which those words come. “that the God of our LORD Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him.” Once again, the Trinity is fully present in His Persons; Jesus the LORD, Father the glory, Spirit the wisdom and knowledge imparted. We might present them as the channel of action, the purpose of action, and the means of action. That may seem too impersonal, but as God works in and through man, it seems this is a relatively constant motif.
