The answer to that question is simply the Incarnation and the coming of the Holy Spirit. That is, the Trinity is revealed by the Son coming
in the flesh and the Spirit descending upon the church. Therefore, the
Trinity is revealed not in the Old Testament, or even in the New Testament, but rather in between the testaments, in the ministry of Christ
and the founding of the church. These events are recorded for us in
the New Testament, but they took place before a word of the New Testament was written. Warfield again puts it well:
We cannot speak of the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, if we study exactness of speech, as revealed in the New Testament, any
more than we can speak of it as revealed in the Old Testament. The
Old Testament was written before its revelation; the New Testament after it. The revelation itself was made not in word but in
deed. It was made in the incarnation of God the Son, and the outpouring of God the Holy Spirit. The relation of the two Testaments
to this revelation is in the one case that of preparation for it, and
in the other that of product of it. The revelation itself is embodied
just in Christ and the Holy Spirit. This is as much to say that the
revelation of the Trinity was incidental to, and the inevitable effect
of, the accomplishment of redemption. It was in the coming of the
Son of God in the likeness of sinful flesh to offer Himself a sacrifice
for sin; and in the coming of the Holy Spirit to convict the world
of sin, of righteousness and of judgment, that the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead was once for all revealed to men.'
To grasp this reality is truly exciting! The Trinity is a doctrine not
revealed merely in words but instead in the very action of the Triune
God in redemption itself! We know who God is by what He has done
in bringing us to himself! The Father, loving His people and sending
the Son. The Son, loving us and giving himself in our place. The Spirit,
entering into our lives and conforming us to the image of Christ. Here
is the revelation of the Trinity, in the work of Christ and the Spirit.
This explains why we don't find a single passage that lays out, in a
creedal format, the doctrine of the Trinity. Warfield continues:
We may understand also, however, from the same central fact,
why it is that the doctrine of the Trinity lies in the New Testament
rather in the form of allusions than in express teaching, why it is
rather everywhere presupposed, coming only here and there into
incidental expression, than formally inculcated. It is because the
revelation, having been made in the actual occurrences of redemption, was already the common property of all Christian
hearts."
The disciples were, indeed, "experiential Trinitarians." They had
walked with the Son, heard the Father speak from glory, and were now indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Those early believers, hearing the testimony
of the first followers of Christ, could not help but speak of the Father,
the Son, and the Spirit. So it follows that
Precisely what the New Testament is, is the documentation of
the religion of the incarnate Son and of the outpoured Spirit, that
is to say, of the religion of the Trinity, and what we mean by the
doctrine of the Trinity is nothing but the formulation in exact language of the conception of God presupposed in the religion of the
incarnate Son and outpoured Spirit.'
THAT CLOSER LOOK
The following section is meant to provide a base from which those
who wish to "dig deeper" can begin. It is only meant as a starter. A
number of works exist that can help the believer dig deeper into the
many questions that have been asked, and answered, on the doctrine
of the Trinity.6
Over the years, Christian theologians have struggled with these issues and, as a result, have produced expanded, more specific definitions of the Trinity that help us to more clearly understand how the
truths presented in Scripture relate to one another.7 It should be remembered that no matter how technical we become in our definition,
we are still giving the same definition we gave in the first chapter:
"Within the one Being that is God, there exist eternally three coequal
and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit." We expand upon the definition for the sake of clarity (believe
it or not!), and we become more technical so as to exclude certain
errors that have been promoted down through the history of the
church. I will use the definition provided by Dr. Louis Berkhof in his
Systematic Theology:
1. There is in the divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia,
essentia).
2. In this one divine Being there are three persons or individual
subsistences, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3. The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of
the three persons.
4. The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine
Being is marked by a certain definite order.
5. There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons
are distinguished.
6. The church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the
comprehension of man.'
The "simpler" definition is really merely a "boiled down" version
of what we have here. This longer rendition will help us to understand
why we use the specific terms we do in defining the Trinity.
1. There is in the divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia, es-
sentia). This is Foundation One: monotheism. Yet, as we can see, it
goes beyond the mere statement that there is only one true God numerically speaking. It makes a further statement: the divine Being is
"indivisible." That is, you can't chop God up into parts. He is "simple,"
in the sense that He is not made up of different "parts." God's being
is either entire, whole, or it is not God's being at all.
We struggle to express ourselves clearly here, for how does one describe the "being" of God? Terms have been used down through the
centuries, such as essence, or in Greek, ousia, or in Latin, essentia. It's
the "stuff of God." I like to say it is that "which makes God, God."
Because He is unique, His being is unique as well. Whatever the
"being" of God is, creatures don't have the same thing. Our biggest
problem is that we think very physically. We want to think of being as
something you can put under a microscope or weigh on a scale. But
it isn't, especially since we know that "God is spirit."9 He can say
through Jeremiah, "'Can a man hide himself in hiding places so I do
not see him?' declares the LORD. `Do I not fill the heavens and the
earth?' declares the LOUD."10 And Solomon reminds us of this truth
when he says of God, "Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot
contain You; how much less this house which I have built."" God's
being is not limited by time and space but is eternal and without
bounds, omnipresent.
2. In this one divine Being there are three persons or individual sub sistences, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is Foundation Two. Yet we
note the fact that another term is offered to help define the word "person," that being "subsistences." Why suggest this term? Because we are
wont to read into the term "person" all sorts of physical limitations
that should not be thought of at all when speaking of the Trinity. Many
people, when they hear of "three persons," visualize three men standing side by side. Yet this is not at all what we are talking about when
we speak of "person." But then again, does "subsistence" mean anything to most of us? What we are talking about are personal distinctions
in the divine Being. We are talking about the "I, You, He" found in
such passages as Matthew 3, where the Father speaks from heaven, the
Son is being baptized, and the Spirit descends as a dove. While trying
to avoid the idea of separate individuals, we are speaking of the personal self-distinctions God has revealed to exist within the one, indivisible divine essence.12 Theologians speak of each of these subsistences
as being marked by particular "incommunicable attributes." What we
mean is that you can tell the Father from the Son, and the Son from
the Spirit, by how they are related to each other, and by what actions
they take in working out creation, salvation, etc.13 We will talk more
about this below. For now we emphasize the fact that the Father, Son,
and Spirit are distinguished from one another, and yet these distinctions do not lead to a division in the one Being that is God. This leads
us to the next point:
3. The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the
three persons. This is Foundation Three. The statement asserts that the
Father is in full possession of the entirety of the divine essence; the Son
is in full possession of the entirety of the divine essence; and the Spirit
is in full possession of the entirety of the divine essence. There are not
three different essences, nor is the one essence divided equally into
thirds. Each divine person is in full possession of the entirety of the
divine nature. But the statement also goes beyond this to assert Foundation One again, for it reemphasizes the unity of the divine nature
with its insistence that it is "undivided."
Right here we stumble, for in our experience being can only be
shared fully by one person. Let's think about this. What is the difference between "being" and "person"? Everything that exists has being. A
rock has the being of a rock,'" a tree the being of a tree, a dog the being
of a dog, and man is a human being. That which exists has being, but
not everything that has being is personal. A rock is not personal. You
can insult a rock all day long, and it won't really mind, since it is not
personal. Same with a tree. My dog couldn't care less what I say to her,
too-she's only concerned about how I say it, the tone of my voice. I
might say, in a limited sense, that she has a "personality," but I don't
mean that in the technical or specific sense I am using when discussing
the Trinity. A dog is not a person in that sense, for my dog does not
view herself as one dog over against all other dogs, nor does she understand the idea of "dog kind," nor does she work for the betterment
of "dog kind."
Biblically speaking, there are three kinds of beings who are personal: God, men, and angels. I have being: I exist. Yet I am personal.
My being is limited and finite. It is limited to one place geographically
speaking, and one time temporally speaking. Despite all the Star Trek
scenarios to the contrary, I am limited to one place at one time. Such
is the essence of being a creature. My being is shared by only one person:
me. My being, since it is limited, cannot be distributed among two,
three, or any more persons. One being, one person: that's what it is to
be a human.
What we are saying about God is that His being is not limited and
finite like a creature's. His Being is infinite and unlimited, and hence
can, in a way completely beyond our comprehension, be shared fully
by three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The divine Being is
one; the divine persons are three. While the Father is not the Son, nor
is the Son the Spirit, each is fully and completely God by full and
complete participation in the divine Being. Unless we recognize the
difference between the terms being and person, we will never have an
accurate or workable understanding of the Trinity.''
It is the full and equal participation in the divine Being that is most
often denied by heretical and unorthodox religious groups. The truth
of this claim is found in the scriptural witness to the deity of Christ
and of the Holy Spirit.
4. The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine
Being is marked by a certain definite order. To get a firm grasp on this
concept, we need to define two terms that are often used in this discussion. The first is ontological. Ontology is the study of being. When
we speak of the "ontological Trinity," we speak of the Trinity as it exists
in and of itself In contrast with this is the term economical. In this case,
when we speak of the economical Trinity, we speak of the operations
and workings of the Trinity, what the three persons do in creation and
salvation. Obviously, the Father, Son, and Spirit have taken different
roles in creation and in redemption. Hence, we find different relationships between them in the economical Trinity as we see them working out redemption and bringing about salvation. We must be very
careful to distinguish between relationships as we observe them outwardly and the eternal relationship that exists between the persons inside the triune nature of God, that is, the ontological Trinity.
The "order" that is observed biblically is the Father first, the Son
second, and the Spirit third. But immediately our time-bound minds
hit a pothole and often jump the track. When we think of someone
being "first" and someone else being "second," especially in relationships, we immediately begin to import time elements. "If the Father
is first, then He must be before the Son." We need to dismiss this concept immediately. When we speak of the "order" of the Persons, we are
not talking about an order of being. It is not an order in time. It does
not refer to dignity or participation in the divine Being. The first is
not "bigger" than the second or the third. The order is one of relationship. Stick with me here, for we are discussing aspects of God's
nature that are very difficult and challenging. But the reward for the
labor invested is well worth it.
When we speak of the relationship shared by the Father, Son, and
Spirit, we use the terms begotten and procession. Again I sound the
warning, "Define these terms within the context in which they are
being used." That is, don't think of "begotten" in human terms, but
divine; don't think of "procession" in a finite, creaturely sense, but in
an eternal, unlimited, timeless sense. We must do so, for we are talking
about the infinite, timeless being of God.
We use the term begotten of the relationship of Father and Son. The
Son is eternally begotten by the Father. The Father is begotten by no
one. Automatically we place this relationship within time and think of
the Father originating the Son at a point in time. Most definitely not.
The term as we use it here speaks of an eternal, timeless'° relationship.
It had no beginning, it will have no ending. It has always been. C. S.
Lewis" likened it to a book that is lying on top of another. We say the
top book owes its position to the bottom one. It wouldn't be where it
is without the one on the bottom. Now, if you can, imagine this relationship as always having been. There never was a time when the top
book was not where it was, never a time when the bottom book was
alone. This is what we mean when we speak of the Father begetting the
Son. The relationship of the first person of the Trinity to the second
person is that of begetting.