Our Triune God: The Wonder of the Story (SBD 8)

[Note: I am attempting to keep these SBD installments under 2000 words each, but that is--of course--quite inadequate for the topics covered. Consequently, these contributions are more programmatic than they are explanatory or defenses of the positions stated. You may access the whole series at my Serial page.]

The divine ontology is Being-in-Relation—the Christian narrative describes God as one and three.

Trinitarianism has a checkered history at the practical level. In the average congregation, or ministerial gathering, or seminary classroom, the subject of the Trinity comes as bad news rather than good. Just when we have struggled to believe in God, Christians also believe that God is, in some inexplicable way, both one and three. This incomprehensible affirmation seems to have nothing to do with daily life.

It is as if Christians come to know God first, and then tack on the Trinity as an addendum. Whether God is triune or not becomes insignificant to discipleship. When it appears that the God is better understood without the doctrine of the Trinity, some regard it as superfluous, though it may be reverently acknowledged as a mystery. When it seems incompatible with divine unity it is jettisoned by others.

But the confession of a Triune God is eminently practical and theologically rooted in God’s redemptive-historical self-revelation. Trinity is the Christian doctrine of God.

Economic Trinitarianism

We cannot begin with abstract ideas of threeness and oneness in discussing the Trinity. Instead, we begin with the concrete threeness of the Christian Scriptures. The starting point for Trinitarian thinking is the narrative of God where the Father, Son and Spirit participate in revelatory events (historical acts).

Christians did not begin talking about threeness because they were fond of the number. Rather, as they experienced God in Jesus through the Holy Spirit, they spoke in terms of three. The starting point for understanding the Trinity is the economic Trinity—God’s self-revelation in the narrated history of redemption. Jesus, the Son, prayed to the Father who poured out the Spirit upon him. This economic revelation is an authentic revelation of the God’s own identity (immanent Trinity, e.g., God’s own transcendent life before the creation). In the history of redemption, the one God is revealed as, in some sense, three.

The God of Israel is one God. There is no other. Israel confessed this monotheistic faith through the Shema: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 4:6). Paul unpacked the Shema where the Father is the one God and the Son is the one Lord (1 Corinthians 8:6). Christians reinterpreted the Shema as the affirmation of God’s community as well as unity.

The God of Israel sent the Son into the world—born of woman (enfleshed), born under the law (an Israelite)—who prayed to the Father as “Abba.” The Son who shares the reality of the Father as theos (God; John 1:1; Romans 9:6) became flesh and dwelt within the cosmos (John 1:14). As the monogenes theos (“the only God,” John 1:18), nestled in the bosom of the Father, he is the exegesis of the Father. The Son reveals the Father since he is one with the Father. The confessed identity of the Son—distinct in person but united as theos—moved Christians to worship the Son along with the Father (Revelation 5:13).

When Jesus, the Son of God, ascended to the right hand of the Father, the Father through the Son poured out the Holy Spirit upon Israel at Pentecost (Acts 2). By this Spirit believers cry out to the Father through the Son as “Abba” (Galatians 4:6; Romans 8:15-17). The Incarnate Son was the first Paraclete, the Spirit is the “other Paraclete” whom the Son promised he would send from the Father (John 14:16). The Spirit appears as the medium of the communion of Jesus with the Father and the means by which believers participate in Christ. This is clear in terms of the resurrection and the indwelling of the Spirit in Rom. 8:11-15. The Spirit is the one through whom we have fellowship with God—the Spirit is the presence of God among us since Jesus did not leave us as orphans (John 14:18).

The Christian experience of God is a communion with the Father, Son and Spirit. The presence of the Spirit is our communion with the Father through the Son (2 Corinthians 13:14; Ephesians 2:18, 22). Consequently, the very structure of salvation within Pauline texts (as an example) is triune (three-fold). Here are a few representative texts:

1 Corinthians 12:4-6: “the same Spirit…the same Lord…the same God.”
Ephesians 2:18: “for through him [Christ] we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.”
Ephesians 4:4-6: “one Spirit…one Lord…one God and Father of us all.”
2 Corinthians 1:21-22: “God who makes both us and you to stand firm in Christ…set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts.”
Galatians 4:4-6: “God sent his Son, born of a woman…because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts.”
Titus 3:4-6: “But when the kindness and love of God our Savior….He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior.”

The three are one in their divine work to redeem humanity. The Father elects through the redemptive work of Christ as the Spirit renews God’s love in our hearts. This is a divine work from beginning (election) to end (transformation) which the Father accomplishes through his Son in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Johannine Trinitarianism

The Farewell Speech in the Gospel of John (chapters 14-16) depicts God as a three-fold (communal) unity. The four triune statements in the speech underscore the distinct personal identity of the Father, Son and Spirit but their shared communion in the unitary work of redemption and shared life (John 14:16-17; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7, 16).

The shared communion is characterized by love and mutual indwelling. This is quite explicit in the relationship between the Father and Son as each dwells in the other and they share a love for each other (John 14:10-11; 15:9; 17:21, 26). The Spirit represents and is the medium by whom the Father and Son continue their work in the redemptive story once the Son goes to the Father (John 16:28). As Jesus glorifies the Father and not himself, so the Spirit does not glorify himself but the Son (John 16:14). Precisely by not speaking of himself but bearing witness to Jesus, he shows himself to be the Spirit of truth. Distinct from the Father and the Son, he nevertheless belongs to both.

The Gospel of John pictures what some have called the “mystery of divine interpenetration” or “inness” (John 10:38; 14:10, 20; 17:21, 23). It represents an ineffable union, an intimacy transcending our finitude. Even though they are one, they are not one person. It is a unity in community—a communal oneness; it is organic and familial. The Father, Son and Spirit live in full transparency, love and mutuality.

The Triune God is the epitome of unity and diversity—united as theos they are also a community of love. They are the ground of the cosmos—God as Being-in-Relation. The cosmos is, at its root, both one and many, both one and three. Relationality is the cosmic ontology and this is rooted in the Christian doctrine of Trinity.

Iconic Trinitarianism

Andrei Rublev painted the “Holy Trinity” around 1411. He was beatified by the Russian Orthodox Church as “St. Andrei” solely for the extraordinary intensity and majesty of this icon. The image embodies the essence of Trinitarian dogma.trinit1

The icon portrays the visit of the angels to Abraham in Genesis 18 but excludes Abraham and Sarah from the picture in order to focus on the dogmatic meaning of the Trinity. The three sit around a table with a chalice as the centerpiece. The figure on the left—the Father—is arrayed in an indistinct gold (a transcendent tone), the figure in the middle—the Son—in brown (an earthy tone), and the figure on the right—the Holy Spirit—in green (the vibrancy of living earth). Each one is also dressed in blue to represent their equality—they are divine. The unity and diversity of the triune life is thus pictured in vivid colors.

Rublev depicts the theophany in an open circle with their heads gracefully inclined toward each other. The circular pattern embodies the theological idea of perichoresis—the loving dance of the Triune persons. Their faces are filled with peace and harmony while their gestures are gentle and loving. The Father and Son look at each other lovingly while the Spirit looks at the chalice as if to descend upon the cup. The chalice represents the Eucharist which is the center of Orthodox liturgy and its theology of redemption. The Eucharist is communion with the Triune God.

The open circle invites others to come to the table and experience the divine community. We are invited into the inner circle of God’s own life to sit at the table of God with God. This is salvation. As the ancient Orthodox sang (Lossky, The Meaning of Icons, 201):

“The blessed Abraham saw the Trinity,
as far as man can,
and regaled It as a good friend.”

So What?

Relationality—communal subsistence—is woven into the fabric of the cosmos itself. God is not an isolated, single monarch whose only relation is to rule. God is a community of equals (they share the divine nature) united in mutual love. The perichoretic love within the Trinity is a love willing to be vulnerable that sovereignly decides to enter into relationship with others. This is the heart of who God is as Creator and Redeemer. All forms of human love, then, are faint reflections of that Triune love internal to God’s own life.

The communion of the divine persons is a model for human community: family, church, and society. The doctrine of the Trinity provides the theological resources for communal life and relationality. We-in-the-plural images God (though it has been defaced by sin). This cautions against the individualism of modern culture as well as the individualistic soteriology of much modern theology (including Evangelicalism).

The doctrine of Trinity assures us of God’s economic presence through the incarnation and indwelling Spirit. God as Immanuel came in the flesh but now God dwells among us and within us as the Holy Spirit. The presence of the Spirit is the presence of God who links heaven and earth (2 Corinthians 13:14; Ephesians 2:18). The Father did not orphan us, that is, he has not left us without his personal presence. That presence is not mediated by some inferior being, angel or mediator but by his own Spirit in our hearts. God is still with us as the indwelling Spirit.

The triune picture of God grounds missionary theology. The divine community shares an intimate and full love for each other, but also extends that love in both creation and redemption beyond that community. In creation, the divine community shared its love with others. It invited those who are made in their image to participate in the joy of communion. In redemption, the divine community shared its love with a hostile and sinful humanity. The incarnation itself is the great missionary project and the model of all missionary activity. God himself came to a hostile world to invite it back into communion with the divine community. If the divine community is a model for the church and the church is to be one just as the Father and Son are one (John 17:20-21), then the church must ground its missional spirit in the doctrine of Trinity.

Liturgically, we praise the Father through the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit. This doxological approach keeps the economic roles of the Trinity in focus, preserving the fountainhead of the Father, recognizing the redemptive instrumentality of the Son and honoring the empowering presence of the Spirit. The Christological and pneumatological dimensions of Christian liturgy reflect the newness of God’s work in the present age. We do not worship God in the abstract but we worship the Father because he has acted in Jesus for our sakes and God is present among us by the Spirit. Liturgy, therefore, reflects the triune nature of God as the Father is praised through Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit.



16 Responses to “Our Triune God: The Wonder of the Story (SBD 8)”

  1.   Howard Holmes Says:

    From many places in the NT it seems evident that those guys thought of at least two gods: The father and the son; God and Jesus. Let’s omit the Holy Ghost for the moment as he is just too confusing. How can we argue that they saw they as separate being? A related question is how can we argue that they we even concerned with trying to reconcile them into being one (a real stretch of mind)?

    • Avatar of johnmarkhicks  John Mark Hicks Says:

      Howard, I don’t find it so difficult in its basics. The writers experienced three but yet believed they were one. This is how God showed himself according to the Christian narrative. Exactly how to construe threeness and oneness is a subject of some debate and I fully acknowledge that though we have some apprehension of this through which we experience divine presence, I do not comprehend the transcendent reality of the immanent Trinity.

      •   Howard Holmes Says:

        My question was in relation to what the writers “believed”. You said they experienced three, yet believed one. I am doubting the last part of your statement. Where is the indication that they believed one?

        • Avatar of johnmarkhicks  John Mark Hicks Says:

          My variation of language is confusing. “Experienced” is why they believed; they believed the three are one and the one is three, in my opinion. John 17:20-26 expresses the oneness as well as 1 Corinthians 8:6 (where Paul interprets the monotheistic Shema in a binary way).

  2.   rich constant Says:

    kinda like in particle physics, Howard
    a particle of an atom cannot occupy the the same space in time at the same time that it is observed,
    the observer only knows that it was there.

    i think that is the way it works…

    any way sorta kinda :-)

    rich

    just, john mark , because you are one good peice of work… :-)

    :-) although john mark is our quantum physistist of
    theology … :-)

  3.   rich constant Says:

    p.s.
    sense god is the great inventor of quantum mechanics
    the one that spoke into existence the ORDER out of himself as a physicists explains what is not there but was…
    john mark explains what is there because it is revealed.
    and becomes the lens through which some of us gain insight into what god brought and made manifest through his apostals and profets .

    by the way john mark thanks
    rich
    just a little something to giggle about as you get older my friend :-)
    it is the truth to me thou
    rich

  4.   Howard Holmes Says:

    With regard to John 17, it reads to be to arguing against the trinity in that Jesus compares his and God’s oneness to the same oneness he desires for his disciples. Certainly he does not envision the unity of his disciples to be some sort of weird “oneness” which is created by the contortions we have to go through to make Jesus and God into one. Jesus (to me) is giving evidence that he viewed he and God as separate as he viewed Peter and James. Perhaps I am missing something. What is there that supports the idea that the writer of John saw anything other than two individuals?

    Ditto to I Cor 8:6. I guess this is why we cannot even begin to understand the Bible alike. Paul says there is one God whom he identifies as the father, and one Lord whom he identifies as Jesus. These are separate. Jesus is not even equal to God, much less one with God. Surely a good Jew like Paul never saw Jesus as God!

  5. Avatar of johnmarkhicks  John Mark Hicks Says:

    Howard, the writer of John believed Jesus and the Father are both theos, that the Son is the monogenes theos who lives with the Father and exegetes the Father. Their oneness transcends our finite oneness and yet we are called into the communion of love to be one with their life. The Father and Son are distinct but one.

    One, I think, should read 1 Corinthians 8 against the backdrop of the Shema. Here is the good Jew Paul affirming that the Lord our God is the Father and Jesus. Yahweh is undertood by Paul as known, revealed and identified in the God the Father and the Son. And, actually, Paul calls Jesus theos in Romans 9:6.

    I would suggest a reading of Richard Bauckham’s God Crucified: Monotheism and New Testament Christology for a discussion of this topic, that is, Jewish monotheists acknowledging that Jesus is part of the identity of Yahwheh.

    •   Howard Holmes Says:

      I do not disagree with your first paragraph. The writer probably did view Jesus as theos. My point was not that the writer viewed him as theos, but that he did not view God and Jesus as one which was a post-NT idea. My response was to your suggestion that the John 17 passage suggests an idea of the trinity (three in one) does not resonate with me. In John 17, he is suggesting oneness between God and Jesus was in thought, purpose, mind, etc in the same way that disciples could “be one.” Not as a single entity or person, but one in purpose, etc. When the writer says man and woman are one flesh, he is not expecting us to believe they are not two individuals. If a first century pagan told the writer of John, you are just like us in that you have more than one god, he would have agreed. To affirm “their oneness transcends our oneness” is to say something the writer never said. It is merely to affirm the doctrine of the trinity which is not found in the NT (IMHO).

      As for Romans 9:6, I assume you meant 9:5. The word “human” in “the human ancestry of Christ” as well as the “who is God over all” appears out of context and, for my money, will assume it was added by some later editor to tidy up the theology. I’m fairly certain we cannot agree on that, so I shall not try.

      Have a good day.
      Howard

      • Avatar of johnmarkhicks  John Mark Hicks Says:

        Your conjecture on Romans 9:5 is simply that since there is not textual history to support your point.

        When we read that there is one theos (monotheism) yet both the Father and Son are theos, it seems to me that their oneness transcends what finite creatures can approximate.

        •   Howard Holmes Says:

          Yes, but is that in one place where there is a claim of one theos and a claim that Father and Son are theos? We have a passage in Romans calling Christ theos (one reason to suspect it is if it is the only Paul reference to such–strange, very strange that such a central doctrine has one reference–again, I argue from context (the idea doesn’t fit) and also the fact that doctoring of text to fit later theology is common.

        • Avatar of johnmarkhicks  John Mark Hicks Says:

          It does fit the context as the Messiah is the glory of Israel who is the glory of theos. It is not Paul’s only reference as Titus 2:13–our great God and savior Jesus Christ– and Philippians 2:6 (equality with theos indicate. The references to theos are unusual in Paul because his Shema is that one Yahweh (Lord) is God the Father and the Lord Jesus. He maintains a consistency, with exceptions, of refering to the Father as theos and Jesus as kurios. I don’t think context and Pauline usage helps your case and thus seems to me pure conjecture based on a presupposition that it is not possible for Paul to use the language. It is a conjecture without any text critical support in the MSS.

  6.   Howard Holmes Says:

    Taking Romans 9: There is no indication that “divine glory in any way is referencing Christ. Paul is talking about characteristics of Israel. They were the adopted sons, they were bathed in God’s glory, theirs was the covenant. Nothing here about Christ at all. Even when he finally mentions Christ it is only to tie in the fact that Christ was of Israel as well showing an additional way in which Israel was special to God. Putting in the word human actually detracts from Paul’s point. Again, the “who is God overall, forever praised” is out of place in the paragraph, much less the sentence. It is an entirely different subject, unrelated to what he is saying. Again, I don’t know why I am arguing that point. I realize I have (accepting your word) no MSS support. Seems plausible to me, however, in light of Paul’s other letters and statements.

    It is not without significance the Paul consistly applies Kurios to Jesus and theos to God. This has to have significance. It was not just an oversight; it was a habit.

    As for Titus, I do not think there is a chance Paul wrote Titus. We are hopelessly apart here if you think he did. At least, I have scholarship on my side on that one.

    As far Philippians 2, let us ask Paul in that context, “Was Jesus eternally equal to God? Was Jesus eternally God?” Paul answers that in the context saying that God exalted Jesus to he highest place after his death. If Jesus was eternally God, there was no possibility of exalting him to the highest place. If Jesus was eternally God, there is no higher place to which he could go.

    • Avatar of johnmarkhicks  John Mark Hicks Says:

      Howard, this will be my last response as I think we have sufficiently covered the ground for those who are interested in seeing the differences here.

      I don’t think it is out of place, but doxological as Paul often does. In recalling the gifts to Israel Paul climaxes in the greatest honor–the descent of the Messiah who is then praised as God over all.

      His use of theos and kurios does have significance. He sees the Father and Jesus as distinct but yet sharing the reality of the confession of the one God in the Shema. I agree it is a habit with a point.

      There is a significant amount of scholarship that sees Paul as the author of the Pastorals, but I will not contest the point here except to say that it was at least written by Pauline disciples.

      Paul says the one who existed in the form of theos did not exploit exploit equality with theos for selfish purposes (cf. TNIV, NRSV) but rather became a human being. In becoming a servant as a human, God the Father (2:11) exalts Jesus. This is the language of Philippians 2 itself.

      Peace to you, Howard.

  7.   rich constant Says:

    Howard
    think about this
    Jesus and the holy spirit say OK so you think this will fix it if they break it . god says yes and they agree…although they didn.t have names back then.

    no higher place:
    unless he willingly falls in a righteous manner and stays without sin for our redemption. gods good vindicated… then 1cor.15
    blessings

    i hope that is too simple….in the new creation we all get new names…

    •   Howard Holmes Says:

      It doesn’t resonate since I do not believe that man can “break it.” It is too good to be broken by a mere mortal. It is very fine the way it is, always has been and will continue to be. I do not believe we need to believe there is anything wrong with me or the world to commune with God. It seems we could all start where we are today and find agreement. Can we not agree that this is great?

      Howard

Leave a Reply