UP

The Trinity:
Understanding the Structure

July 16, 2015
Copyright © 1989, 1992, 1996 Ronald W. Leigh

Bible quotations are from the NIV and NASB

—————————————— Contents —————————————— A. Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity B. Differing Views on God's Unity or Plurality C. Purpose of this Paper D. What Is a Person? E. Can We Understand the Structure of the Trinity? F. Four Levels of Ignorance G. The Historical Source Problem in Claiming We Cannot Understand H. Sound Statements of the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Past I. Biblical Evidence that God Is One J. Biblical Evidence that God Is Three K. Singular and Plural in Hebrew L. The Distinction between Class and Individuals M. The Mental Process N. "One" in the Old Testament O. "Another" Counselor; Jesus and the Father as "one" P. Misleading Illustrations of the Trinity Q. The Error of Modalism R. The Error of Arianism S. The Error of Tritheism T. Implications and Applications U. Conclusion V. For Further Reading ————————————————————————————————

A.  Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity

We commonly recognize a number of doctrines to be at the heart of Christianity.  These include the inspiration of the Bible, the personal existence of God, man as a creation of God, the fall of man and his present sinful condition, the deity and humanity of Christ, the substitutionary death and resurrection of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith.  But there is another doctrine that is not always, but should be, recognized as being an essential doctrine at the core of Christianity.  This is the doctrine of the trinity.  This doctrine is so much at the heart of Christianity that all around the globe new disciples of Jesus Christ are baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19).

Referring to this doctrine, Arnold T. Olson, former president of the Evangelical Free Church of America, states that

No doctrine of the Church is more far-reaching than this one.  (Olson, This We Believe, p. 200).

In addition, the doctrine of the trinity directly affects, and is directly affected by, the doctrine of the person of Christ.  Historically, the doctrine of the trinity was hammered out in response to the need to clarify and defend the deity of Christ.

Not only is the doctrine of the trinity central, it is also unique among world religions.  When you compare the Judeo-Christian tradition with other world religions you find several distinctive doctrines.  These include divine omnipotence, creation out of nothing, the substitutionary death and resurrection of the founder, assurance of salvation, as well as the trinity.  Indeed, belief in the trinity sets biblical Christianity at odds with both Judaism and Islam, as well as many other religions and cults.

The doctrine of the trinity is both central to Christianity and unique among religions, so it is truly an exceptional doctrine.   Christians are well advised to contemplate carefully this doctrine and its implications.

Regarding its etymology, our English word "trinity" has been around since the 1200s and can be traced back through several stages to the Late Latin trinitas (the state of being threefold) and the Latin trinus (threefold, triple).  Thus, while the etymology of "trinity" corresponds with the notion of God's threeness, it does not correspond with the notion of God's unity.  Although some might think of "trinity" as a combination of "tri" and "unity" in the English, that is not how the word came to us.  For this reason some would prefer to use the hyphenated word "tri-unity," and that would be perfectly legitimate.  In this paper, however, we will use the word "trinity," but will emphasize both the threeness and the oneness of God.

B.  Differing Views on God's Unity or Plurality

Different religions and cults hold widely differing views on the nature of God, particularly on the unity or plurality of God.

On one extreme are the polytheists.  Many primitive and Eastern groups are polytheistic – believing in many gods.  Even among civilized Westerners who claim to use the Bible as at least a partial basis for their beliefs, there are the Mormons who are polytheists.  They claim that all present gods were once humans who were "sealed" in marriage and have grown divine.  According to the Mormons, the highest "God" was once the earthly Adam.  They also claim that these gods retain their bodies of flesh and are polygamous.

On the other extreme are the strict monotheists.  For example, Unitarianism (a movement which began in the 1500's in Europe) holds that there is only one person in the Godhead, and that Jesus is a mere human being.  Jews, Muslims, and Jehovah's Witnesses are also strictly monotheistic.

In contrast with the above extremes, Christianity emphasizes both the unity and the plurality of God.

C.  Purpose of this Paper

The study of the trinity involves many aspects, such as God's eternality, attributes, plan, works, etc.  However, this paper focuses on just one aspect – the structure of the trinity.  When we use the word "structure" we are referring to the parallel facts that God is one and God is three.

Many doctrinal statements, in describing the structure of the trinity, include wording similar to this:  "We believe in one God eternally existing in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."  And many Christian creeds and conservative theologians emphasize that

• God is one in essence (or nature, or substance)
• God is three in person (or number)

It is the supposed tension between God's oneness and God's threeness that has caused much debate throughout the history of the Christian church.

Over the centuries theologians have generated clouds of confusion around this subject.  They have mystified the doctrine and then claimed that the structure of the trinity is beyond our understanding, which in some way is supposed to bring additional glory to God.  But God's glory is not dependent on a mystical view of the structure of the trinity.  This notion, that the structure of the trinity is beyond human comprehension, is both unnecessary and harmful.  In this paper we will note the problems with this view and suggest a simple means of understanding the structure of the trinity based on a mental process used by everyone.

But first, since God is said to be "three in person", we should explain exactly what we mean when we use the word "person."

D.  What Is a Person?

A person is an individual spirit being.  Personhood does not require being created, nor does it require having a body, but it does require self-awareness, higher intellect, emotions, and reflective decision making.  Consider the four "candidates" for personhood, God, angels, man, and animals, listed in the chart below.

	Spirit Being	Created	Needs Body
1.  God	Yes	No	No
2.  Angels	Yes	Yes	No
3.  Man	Yes	Yes	Yes
4.  Animals	No	Yes	Yes

God as Spirit Being

The Bible says that "God is spirit" (John 4:24).  God is also said to be "invisible" (Colossians 1:15,   1 Timothy 1:17).  Although there are many Bible passages which speak of God as having bodily parts (such as "hands" in Isaiah 65:2) these are figurative expressions known as anthropomorphisms which are based on an analogy between human actions and God's actions and do not imply that God actually has a body.

Man as Spirit Being, Similar to God

Man was created in God's image, and it is the personhood of man (the fact that man is a spirit being) wherein he is similar to God.

The Bible speaks of both the nonmaterial and the material parts of a human being.  It says that humans were created in God's image (Genesis 1:26), which is a reference to man's person or soul.  It also says that during a human's earthly life, the body and spirit are united to form a complete human being.  Indeed, human beings are often referred to as "flesh" in the Bible.  At death a human being's spirit temporarily leaves the body while retaining its personal identity  (James 2:26; Philippians 1:22-23; 2 Corinthians 5:1-10).

Notice how man's creation differs from that of other creatures.  For the plants and animals, God says he is going to create them all "according to their kinds" (Genesis 1:11-12, 21, 24-25).  But for man he says

Let us make man in our image, in our likeness  (Genesis 1:26-27)

Notice, in Genesis 1, the repetition of the phrases "according to their kinds" and "according to its kind" through verse 25.  After verse 25 those phrases are never used to describe man.  Instead, the repeated phrases "in our image" and "in our likeness" are applied to man.  Since God is spirit, the above observation must mean not only that mankind has a nonmaterial part, but also that the nonmaterial part is similar to God. (See also Genesis 5:1, 9:6, and James 3:9)

Consider the terms soul and spirit as applied to man.  Both refer to the person (the nonmaterial spirit).  They are usually used of human beings to distinguish the nonmaterial part from the material.  These terms are not customarily used of the first person of the trinity, nor of the second person of the trinity before the incarnation, since the Father and the pre-incarnate Son are both spirit and no such distinction between material and nonmaterial parts is required.  Of course, the third person of the trinity, the Holy Spirit, is obviously called spirit, and, like the Father, is only spirit.  However, regarding the terms soul and spirit, both can be used as synonyms for person.  Thus it would be legitimate to refer to any member of the trinity as a soul or spirit.  See the paper "The Imago Dei."

By the way, in the above view man is seen as a dichotomy, that is, made up of two principal parts.  This has been the prevailing view of man throughout church history.  However, a few have seen man as a trichotomy (three principal parts) claiming that there is a significant distinction between man's soul and spirit based on 1 Thessalonians 5:23.  It may be true that the biblical writers tend to use the word soul when describing man's interaction with the world around him and tend to use the word spirit when describing man's interaction with God.  Nevertheless, such a distinction is far less significant than the basic distinction between man's material and nonmaterial parts, and the word person is legitimately used as a synonym for both soul and spirit.  Regarding 1 Thessalonians 5:23, if we took the mere mention of soul and spirit in the same verse to prove they were distinct, then, in order to be consistent, we would have to say that Mark 12:30 supports a four part distinction between heart, soul, mind, and strength.

Angels as Spirit Beings

Although the Bible does not explicitly tell us that angels were created in God's image, it does indicate that they are spirits (Hebrews 1:14) which are ranked between God and man (Hebrews 2:6-7), and are thus also considered to be persons.

Animals

Animals, who were not created in God's image and were to be ruled over by man (Genesis 1:26), are not spirit beings and thus are not persons.

E.  Can We Understand the Structure of the Trinity?

There are, of course, many things about God which are puzzling.  For example, how can God be without origin?  How did God create matter out of nothing?  How could he love sinners so much?  We will probably only scratch the surface in our attempts to answer such questions.  But many theologians also claim that, as human beings (during this life, at least), we will not be able to understand the structure of the trinity.  They claim that these two ideas, God's oneness and God's threeness, must be accepted even though they are mutually exclusive ideas.

We hope to demonstrate that the structure of the trinity is a simple, straightforward concept.  The two ideas of God's oneness and threeness are not mutually exclusive.  Put simply, God is one in a different sense than God is three.

Sense is an important part of the law of non-contradiction, which is often defined as follows:  "A and not-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense" (see the paper entitled "Mystery – A Caution," especially the section on the term "contradiction").  As everyone knows, man cannot fly.  But we readily accept the vacationer's comment that he plans to fly to Colorado.  Obviously, "fly" is being used in two different senses.

Understanding the structure of the trinity requires us to make a distinction between (1) class, and (2) individuals within a class.  This is not a difficult distinction.  In fact, adults typically make this distinction every day, and children learn to make this distinction early in life.

But before we look at the distinction between class and individuals, consider some of the claims:

There are things true of God which surpass every faculty of human reason – that he is triune, for example.  (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Italian theologian during 1200's, Summa contra Gentiles, 1.3)

The Trinity ….  We must conclude that one plus one plus one equals one.  No human illustration can adequately explain this theological mystery.  It is utterly beyond our comprehension.  (Walter Henrichsen, A Layman's Guide to Interpreting the Bible, Zondervan, p. 8)

The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man.  … man cannot comprehend it and make it intelligible.  (L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Eerdmans, 1941, p. 89)

… the Trinity is … largely incomprehensible to the mind of man. Perhaps the chief reason for this is that the Trinity is a-logical or beyond logic. (Walter R. Martin, Essential Christianity, Zondervan, 1962, p. 13)

Culver also emphasizes the notion that the structure of the trinity is an inescapable, inscrutable mystery.  After discussing certain common illustrations of the trinity, Culver states that

The inadequacies and dangers in them all underscore the essential, necessary, ineluctable mystery of the Trinity. It is a revelation. Like all revelations of God … we know they are true, because God has told us about them. We carry rational understanding as far as our powers of thought and limitations of information take us, but ultimately we must stop in the presence of inscrutable mystery.  (Robert Duncan Culver, Systematic Theology: Biblical and Historical, Mentor, 2005, page 117)

At the end of a mostly excellent chapter entitled "God's Three-in-Oneness: The Trinity," Erickson suggests that the trinity is

so absurd from a human standpoint that no one would have invented it. We do not hold the doctrine of the Trinity because it is self-evident or logically cogent. We hold it because God has revealed that this is what he is like. As someone has said of this doctrine: Try to explain it, and you'll lose your mind; But try to deny it, and you'll lose your soul.  (Millard J. Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine, 2nd ed., Baker, 2001, p. 115)

Grudem casts a shadow on all discussion of the trinity by stating that

Because the existence of three persons in one God is something beyond our understanding, Christian theology has come to use the word person to speak of these differences in relationship, not because we fully understand what is meant by the word person when referring to the Trinity, but rather so that we might say something instead of saying nothing at all.  (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan, 1994, p. 255)

Olson concludes:

To seek to explain the Trinity would be folly.  (Arnold T. Olson, This We Believe, p. 196)

And George contends:

At the end of the day, we have to admit that the Trinity remains, ultimately, a mystery. Even in eternity we will never comprehend it.  (Timothy George, Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad? Zondervan, 2002, p. 66)

And, no doubt, you have heard some of your fellow Christians claim that the trinity is beyond comprehension.

The scholars cited above are making a far-reaching statement, more drastic than it may appear at first glance.  To appreciate how serious a claim they are making, consider the four levels of ignorance described below.

F. Levels of Ignorance

In the paper Mystery – A Caution we discuss various levels of ignorance (see the section entitled "Four Levels of Ignorance").  We show that when a theologian says you cannot understand a particular doctrine, he is making a profound philosophic statement.  He is not just saying that he doesn't understand it, nor that you don't understand it, nor even that no one understands it – all of which are statements about people.  Rather, he is making a statement about the doctrine itself, that it is beyond human understanding – nobody can understand it.  Unlike the lower three levels of ignorance, where the doctrine is an intelligible matter, at this highest level of ignorance it is claimed that there are some ideas in this matter which logically oppose or cancel some other ideas, automatically making the matter incomprehensible.  If their claim is true, simultaneous oneness and threeness is a contradiction.  And for the sake of honesty they should label it as such rather than resort to such lesser words as the oft used "logical paradox" or "antinomy."  When believers are asked to accept the doctrine of the trinity, they should not be asked to accept a contradiction just because it is soft-pedaled as an antinomy or logical paradox!

We hope to show in this paper that there is no logical inconsistency between God's oneness and God's threeness.  Both adults and children can understand the structure of the trinity when they understand the sense in which God is one and the different sense in which God is three.

The drastic claim that the structure of the trinity is beyond human understanding runs into two serious problems.  The first problem is that there is a blatant inconsistency between the way Christian theologians accept contradictions, while Christian apologists reject contradictions. This problem is discussed in the paper Mystery – A Caution in the section entitled "The Logical Problem in Claiming We Cannot Understand."  The second problem is discussed in the next section.

G.  The Historical Source Problem in Claiming We Cannot Understand

The second problem with the claim that we cannot understand the structure of the trinity has to do with the source of the description of the structure of the trinity.

Christians maintain that, if the Bible explicitly and clearly states something, no matter how strange it sounds to the human ear, it is still to be believed.  The problem is that many Christians think that the structure of the trinity is one of those things that the Bible explicitly states.

Remember that the words "trinity," "triune," and "tri-unity" are not found in the Bible.  And, while the Bible does clearly and repeatedly state that God is one, nowhere does it explicitly state that God is three (1 John 5:7, which includes "there are three … these three are one" is not in the early manuscripts.)  Nor does the Bible use the phrases "one in essence" or "three in person" to describe the structure of the trinity.  Simply put, the Bible does not describe the structure of the trinity.  Rather, it assumes that we will grasp the structure of the trinity based on what it says about each individual member of the trinity.

Theologians, very early in the history of the Christian church, developed a formal statement of the structure of the trinity.  Tertullian, in his Adversus Praxean, which was written about A.D. 215., was probably the first to use the word "trinity" (Latin trinitas) and to state the doctrine of the trinity in a precise theological manner.  Perhaps the best early statement of the structure of the trinity is found in the Athanasian Creed.  This creed, as far as it pertains to the trinity, is an excellent statement and is in keeping with the Bible.  However, the point here is that the ideas about the structure of the trinity, which some later theologians say are beyond human reason, are the very ideas that earlier theologians (humans) came up with as they studied the biblical teachings about God.  Since the description of the structure of the trinity has a human source, it seems ridiculous for anyone to state that it is beyond human understanding.

Before leaving this "source problem," there are two other thoughts that need to be mentioned.  First, even if the structure of the trinity were explicitly taught in the Bible, we would still have no reason to think that one fact about the trinity might contradict another fact about the trinity.  Even though there are some difficult ideas in the Bible (2 Peter 3:16), there are no ideas taught in the Bible that contradict each other.  And this is to be expected, because the very purpose of written revelation is to explain, not to puzzle.  Even the difficult passage containing Gabriel's message to Daniel about the seventy "weeks" had this preamble:

I have now come to give you insight and understanding … consider the message and understand the vision.  (Dan 9:22-23)

This is in keeping with God's pattern – things that truly are beyond our understanding are not revealed to us, but the things that are revealed are intended for our understanding and action.

The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.  (Deuteronomy 29:29)

By the way, those secret things could easily be beyond our understanding without being self contradictory.  They may be too complex for us, or perhaps as humans we simply do not have the background to make sense of them.  Remember that Jesus avoided revealing things to his disciples until they were ready for them (John 16:12-13) and Paul claimed that everything he wrote to the Corinthians could be understood (2 Corinthians 1:13).

Of course, such passages should not be taken as a guarantee that we as individuals, each with our own limitations, will understand everything taught in the Bible.  But they do lead us to the conclusion that there are no Biblical teachings found at the fourth level of ignorance (explained in the previous section).

In addition, the fact that such words and phrases as "trinity," "one in essence," "three in person," etc. are not found in the Bible lends no support to the claim by some unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses that the doctrine of the trinity is an invention of the early church councils during the A.D. 300's and 400's.  Clearly, as we will show in later sections, the concepts are there in scripture, even though the formal terminology used by later theologians is not.  There are other theological terms which are not found in the Bible, such as "attributes," "omnipotence," "omniscience," "immutability," and "hypostatic union."  But no one would suggest that this lack of terminology means that we cannot use such terms to describe God and Jesus so long as the truths behind those terms are found in the Bible.

H.  Sound Statements of the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Past

The Athanasian Creed

The Athanasian Creed was written in the late 300's A.D.  It was a response to the Arian teaching that the Father created the Son and the Son created the Holy Spirit.  Selected portions are given below:

We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.  For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.  But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one ….  Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. …  The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God ….  We are compelled … to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord; So we are forbidden …. to say: There are three Gods or three Lords.

Notice the very important distinction in the first sentence between substance (essence) and persons.  This is the heart of the Athanasian description of the structure of the trinity, and is the same distinction mentioned earlier in this paper between class and individuals.

Calvin

John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559) describes the trinity as follows.

The Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God, and yet … the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but … each has his peculiar subsistence.
…
When one is spoken of, a unity of substance must be understood, and when three in one essence, the persons of this Trinity are denoted.  (Book I, Chapter XIII, Section 5)

The Westminster Catechism

The Westminster Larger Catechism, produced by a joint effort of the Churches of Scotland, England, and Ireland in 1648, includes the following:

Q.8.  Are there more Gods than one?
A.  There is but One only, the living and true God.

Q.9.  How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A.  There are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.

Q.11.  How doth it appear that the Son and the Holy Ghost are equal with the Father?
A.  The scriptures manifest that the Son and the Holy Ghost are God equal with the Father, ascribing unto them such names, attributes, works, and worship as are proper to God only.

Notice the clear implication in the answer to question 11 that each of the three members of the trinity is fully God in his own right.  This has been a point of contention for centuries.  Some have taught that each member of the trinity is God only when joined with the other two members.  In particular, they would say that Jesus is not God apart from the Father.  But as we will see in the following two sections, the Bible teaches both that the three make up one God and that each of the three apart from the others is God.

I.  Biblical Evidence that God is One

… know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other. … the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other.  (Deuteronomy 4:35 ,39)

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. … Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you … (Deuteronomy 6:4, 14)

See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me.  (Deuteronomy 32:39)

There is no one like you, O LORD, and there is no God but you …  (1 Chronicles 17:20)

I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. … so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other. … For this is what the LORD says … "I am the LORD, and there is no other."  (Isaiah 45:5-6, 18)

One of the teachers of the law came and … asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"  "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'"  (Mark 12:28-30)

Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.  (John 17:3)

… there is only one God …  (Romans 3:30)

A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.  (Galatians 3:20)

There is one body and one Spirit – just as you were called to one hope when you were called – one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.  (Ephesians 4:4-6)

We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.  (1 Corinthians 8:4-6)

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus …  (1 Timothy 2:5)

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder.  (James 2:19)

When the Bible speaks of God being one, it is emphasizing the unity and uniqueness of God.  It is not stating that there is only one person who is God.  Notice, in the above passages, how Paul stresses the unity and uniqueness of God, but at the same time mentions three members of the trinity (Spirit, Lord, Father) in Ephesians 4:4-6, and mentions two members of the trinity (Father, Lord Jesus Christ) in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6.

The passages listed above do not teach something about the internal make-up of God.  That is, they do not teach that God is one in number (one person).  Rather, they teach something about the external relationship between the true God and the so-called gods of the heathen.  Because the nations surrounding Israel believed in so many different gods, Israel is being reminded that the true God is alone in his class.  In other words, there are no other gods that actually exist.  They are only in people's minds.  And the same is true in New Testament times.

Very early Tertullian recognized that the Old Testament emphasis on God's oneness was a response to the many "gods" of the surrounding nations.

He says, then, that there is no God besides Himself in respect of the idolatry both of the Gentiles as well as of Israel; nay, even on account of our heretics also, who fabricate idols with their words, just as the heathen do with their hands … . When, therefore, He attested His own unity, the Father took care of the Son's interests, that Christ should not be supposed to have come from another God, but from Him who had already said, "I am God and there is none other beside me," who shows us that He is the only God, but in company with His Son, with whom "He stretcheth out the heavens alone."  (Tertullian, Against Praxeas (Adversus Praxean), translated by Holmes, section 18)

It was not uncommon for ancient nations to create many gods in their own minds, each with distinct abilities and often with different domains.  Consider, for example, the many gods of the nations surrounding Israel.

The biblical world had a multitude of gods, as many as men could invent.  (E. L. Carlson, "Gods," Baker's Dictionary of Theology, Baker, 1960, p 248-252)

Here is a summary of Carlson's article:

• Gods mentioned in the Pyramid Texts (Egypt, before Abraham) — over two hundred
• Gods mentioned in the Book of the Dead and other writings (Egypt, after Abraham) — about twelve hundred
• Gods in Mesopotamia (current Iraq) — a host of gods, over 700 in Babylonia alone
• In Palestine and Syria:
  • El (an early supreme god)
  • Mat (lord of the sea)
  • Baal (superseded El, worshiped by many in Israel, see 1 Kings 18:16-40)
  • Baalzebub (god of the flies)
  • Baal of Lightning
  • Aleyan Baal (the storm god)
  • Asherah (Baal's sister, goddess of Tyre, worshipped by Israelites, see 1 Kings 15:13)
  • Anot (Asherah's sister)
  • Qadesh (called "lady of the skies" and mistress of all the gods in Syria)
  • Min, Hepa, Ashtereth (Ishtar), and Astarte (four goddesses)
  • Venus ("queen of heaven" and goddess of fertility)
  • Dagon (half fish half man, held by the Philistines to be the father of Baal)
  • Ashima
  • Chuim (a planetary god)
  • Gad (translated Fortune or Destiny, worshipped by Israel, see Isaiah 65:11)
  • Men (Menu, the god of destiny and good luck)
  • Mekal
  • Milcom (translated Molech, the "detestable," "abomination," 1 Kings 11:5,33)
  • Melek (whose worship required human sacrifice, see Leviticus 18:21)
  • Rimmon (the thunderer)
  • Resheph (a war god)
  • Besides these and many more like them, there were sun images, snake worship (Nehushtan, worshipped by Israel, see 2 Kings 18:4), sacred trees or groves, stars, and many household gods.
  • Also the mistaken "god of the hills" and the "god of the valleys" of the Arameans (I Kings 20:22-28)

Both Israel and Judah went into exile … because they went after other gods (2 Kings 22:17).  It took this terrible judgment to wean them from idolatry …  When they returned from captivity … they never again as a nation returned to the worship of other gods.  (ibid)

In such a context it is easy to see the importance of emphasizing that God is one.  The message to Israel was this:  You do not need to be afraid that your God is just one of many, (one who might be stronger in some ways than other gods but weaker in other ways).  Rather, He alone is God.

God's unity is both a unity of nature and a unity of purpose.  When we speak of God's unity of nature we refer to the fact that all three persons of the trinity possess the same essential characteristics of deity.  When we speak of God's unity of purpose we refer to the fact that the three persons have the same intent and plan.  There are many New Testament indications of this aspect of God's unity.  For example, Jesus said that it was important to him to do his Father's will (John 4:34; 8:29).  He also stated that he kept his Father's word (John 8:54-55) and did his miracles in his Father's name (John 10:25).  And as the time of his substitutionary death approached, he indicated again in Gethsemane that he would carry out the Father's will (Matthew 26:39).  The Father said he was pleased with his Son (Matthew 3:17), told the disciples to listen to him (Matthew 17:5), and God exalted Jesus at his own right hand for his own glory (Philippians 2:8-11, Ephesians 1:20-23).  And the Holy Spirit speaks only what he hears from the Father (John 16:13).  Another interesting indication of the unity of purpose within the trinity is the fact that all three members of the trinity work on the heart of the unbeliever to bring him to Christ – the Father draws (John 6:44), the Son enlightens and draws (John 1:9;  12:32), and the Holy Spirit convicts (John 16:8-11).

J.  Biblical Evidence that God is Three

Each person, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is explicitly identified as God.

• Father:
  • John 6:27
  • Romans 15:6
  • 1 Corinthians 8:6
  • 2 Corinthians 1:3;  11:31
  • Galatians 1:4
  • Ephesians 1:3;  4:6
  • Philippians 4:20
  • 1 Thessalonians 1:3;  3:11,13
  • 1 Peter 1:3
  • Revelation 1:6
• Son:
  • Isaiah 9:6
  • Hebrews 1:8
  • John 1:1 (compare v. 14, 18)
  • Romans 9:5
  • Titus 2:13
  • Philippians 2:6
  • Colossians 1:19;  2:9
  • John 10:31-39
  • Note: It is likely that several other passages should be added to this list based on the Granville Sharp rule of Greek grammar. See the paper Jesus' Claim of Deity as well as the note about the Sharp rule at the end of the section on "The Deity of Jesus according to his followers" in that paper.
• Holy Spirit:
  • Acts 5:3-4 — the one that Ananias lied to is described as both the Holy Spirit and God
  • Hebrews 9:14 — "the eternal Spirit"
  • Matthew 3:16 — the Holy Spirit is called the "Spirit of God"
  • 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 with 6:19 — the believer's body is described both as the temple of God and the temple of the Holy Spirit
  • 1 John 4:4, the Holy Spirit — "the one who is in you," (see 1 Corinthians 3:16) is greater than "the one who is in the world" (Satan, see Ephesians 2:2; Revelation 12:9)
  • John 14:16 — Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as "another Counselor" who will come when he leaves.  The word "another" is allos in the Greek, which means "another of the same kind," that is, the same kind as Jesus, therefore deity.  (The meaning of allos is explained more fully below in the section entitled "Another Counselor …".)

Repeatedly in the New Testament all three members of the trinity are named in a short passage.

Matthew 3:16-17;  28:19
Luke 1:35
John 14:16-17, 26;  15:26;  16:5-16
Acts 2:32-33;  10:38
Romans 5:1-6;  8:3-4, 9-11, 16-17;  14:17-18;  15:16-19, 30
2 Corinthians 13:14
Ephesians 2:11-22 (esp. 18);  3:14-17;  4:3-7;  4:30-32;  5:18-20
1 Thessalonians 1:3-5;  5:18-19
2 Thessalonians 2:13-14
1 Timothy 3:15-16
Titus 3:4-6
Hebrews 2:3-4
1 Peter 1:2;  4:14
1 John 4:13-14

There are many Old Testament passages which may indicate the plurality of God.  (The significance of the following plural forms is discussed in the next section.)

The same thing that occurs in Exodus 20 occurs repeatedly in the Old Testament.  When the surrounding grammar and context indicates that the God of Israel is being discussed, translators consistently use the singular "God" for the Hebrew plural word elohim.  But when the surrounding grammar and context indicates that the heathen gods are being discussed, they consistently use the plural "gods" for the same word.  (This may be an unfortunate practice.  Even though the resulting English would sound incorrect, perhaps translators should use plural English nouns when the Hebrew nouns are plural.  This might be more instructive and help us avoid some misconceptions.)

Jesus' thought-provoking question about divine plurality in the Old Testament.

There is a strong implication of divine plurality found in Psalm 110, as interpreted by Jesus.  In this psalm David writes:

The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."  (Psalm 110:1)

David refers here to two different persons, "the LORD" (the speaker) and "my Lord" (the one being spoken to).  Thus, the messiah ("Christ," "anointed one") is not merely David's son, as the Pharisees thought, but is also David's "Lord," who is told by the Father to sit at the Father's right hand.

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" "The son of David," they replied. He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." ' If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.  (Matthew 22:41-46)

The Pharisees could not answer Jesus' question.  For them the messiah was going to be a mere human descended from the line of David.  And although he would be "anointed" like many other priests and kings, if he was merely David's descendant, he would not be worthy to be called David's "Lord."

However, when the messiah is understood to be the divine second person of the trinity, it is easy to understand why both of the following are true:

• He is descended from the line of David, as far as his incarnation is concerned.  (That Jesus was physically descended thru Mary from the line of David, see the lineages in Matthew 1:1, 6-16 and Luke 3:23-31.)
• He is eternal God the Son who is worthy to be called "Lord" and worthy to sit at the right hand of God the Father.

This passage has strong implications both for the deity of Christ and for plurality within the Godhead.  (Jesus' divinity was also predicted by Isaiah in the wording "Mighty God, Everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9:6).

Indeed, the full trinity is in view in Psalm 110:1 for, in naming the Father ("the LORD") and the Son ("my Lord"), David is "speaking by the Spirit" (a reference to the Holy Spirit according to Mark 12:36).

K.  Singular and Plural in Hebrew

Biblical Hebrew differs from modern English.  Whenever you compare two languages you expect to find many differences – obvious differences in syntax (grammatical structure) and vocabulary as well as more subtle differences in idiomatic usage (everyday speech patterns which carry their own meaning in spite of syntax and vocabulary).  We are interested particularly in the matter of agreement of number, that is, a singular noun subject usually taking a singular verb and a plural noun subject usually taking a plural verb.

	SUBJECT	VERB
(English) The usual, number agreement	singular noun or pronoun	singular
	plural noun or pronoun	plural
(English) Collective	singular noun	singular or plural
(Hebrew) Certain passages such as Genesis 1:1	plural noun or pronoun	singular

When we compare Hebrew with English in this matter of number agreement, we find some similarities and some differences.

One similarity:  Number agreement is the "norm" in both English and Hebrew.

Another similarity:  Just as singular nouns can be collective (and thus take a plural verb) in English, a singular noun will often be collective in biblical Hebrew (W. J. Martin, "Language of the Old Testament," The New Bible Dictionary, Eerdmans, 1962, p. 711).  Thus, it is appropriate in either language to use a singular noun or pronoun for God even though God is a trinity consisting of three persons.  We will give examples of collective nouns in both Hebrew and English in a later section.

But what about a plural noun used as the subject of a singular verb?  While this practice is rare in English, it is fairly common in biblical Hebrew.  For example, in the very first verse of the Bible we find the subject and verb "God created."  In the Hebrew this is the plural noun elohim with the singular form of the verb bara.  In fact, elohim, even though it is plural, is used to refer to the one God in thousands of other places throughout the Old Testament.  In addition, there are several examples of God using plural pronouns to refer to himself, as cited in the previous section.  How are these plural nouns and pronouns best explained?  Are they editorial plurals, plurals that include God and the angels, plurals of majesty, or something else?

First, consider editorial plurals.  In English you will occasionally observe a single speaker or writer referring to himself in the plural.  This is called an "editorial we."  (We are using this idiom at the beginning of this sentence and at various other places in this paper.)  Since this occurs in English, some might be tempted to think that this is a simple explanation of plural nouns and pronouns in Hebrew.  However, the editorial we in English is not parallel to the phenomenon we are examining in Hebrew.  In English the editorial plural subject uses a plural verb (as illustrated above), but in Hebrew the plural subjects we are concerned with use a singular verb.  In reality, biblical Hebrew simply does not possess an editorial plural.

Second, some commentators suggest that these plurals can be explained as including the angels.  In other words, some claim that the plural nouns or pronouns in the passages include both God (singular) and his heavenly host or his heavenly council.  But such interpretations appear to raise more questions than they answer.  For example, if this is the explanation of the phrase "let us make man in our image" in Genesis 1:26, we wonder (1) if the angels helped in the creation of man and (2) in what sense man was created in the image of the angels.  Also, if this is the explanation of the phrase "who will go for us?" in Isaiah 6:8, we wonder (1) if God ever counsels with anyone outside himself (see Isaiah 40:13) and (2) if man is ever considered a messenger for God and the angels when the angels are usually God's messenger to man.

Third, consider the plural of majesty (sometimes referred to by its Latin name: pluralis majestatis), which is the practice of using the plural to increase the sense of majesty of the subject.  This is a rather old notion and has been adopted by many commentators as their explanation for the occurrence of plural nouns and pronouns in reference to God.  However, this is probably a weak explanation for the following two reasons.  (1) The biblical occurrences of this phenomenon (at least those in the writings of Moses) are too early.  The plural of majesty was not in use during the time of Moses, and is not even found later in the writings and inscriptions of the great kings of Assyria, Babylon, and Persia (kings whom we might expect to have a rather majestic self-image).  Rather, the plural of majesty is first introduced in Byzantium over 700 years later.  (2) Plural nouns are used with singular verbs throughout the Old Testament, but they do not always refer to something majestic, like God. They also refer to such things as children, cities, and goldsmiths (e.g.: Genesis 46:7, Judges 12:7, and Nehemiah 3:8).  Obviously, there must be some better explanation for these latter examples than the use of the plural of majesty.  Perhaps what we are observing is simply a much greater flexibility of number agreement in Hebrew than in English.  See, for example, 1 Kings 9:6 where Solomon is addressed with a plural pronoun (see note in NIV).  And this notion of flexibility may also be the best explanation of the passages we are concerned with (plural subjects with singular verbs referring to God), especially since the earliest documented uses of the plural of majesty comes centuries after most of the biblical occurrences.

By the way, the above is not the only area of flexibility in biblical Hebrew.  Personal pronouns often shift back and forth between first, second, and third person even though the antecedent remains the same.  Also, there is another area of flexibility documented by Jesus himself.  In John 10:33-35 (compare Psalm 82:6-7) Jesus points out to the Jews that the word gods (elohim) is flexible in its application.  Sometimes it refers to the one God as in Genesis 1:1, sometimes it refers to the heathen gods as in Exodus 20:3, and, as Jesus reminded the Jews, sometimes it refers to human beings.

So what is the significance of these plurals in Hebrew?  If, as suggested above, it is simply an evidence of the flexibility of Hebrew, then these plurals carry little significance in themselves.  Such flexibility in the matter of number agreement does not in itself explicitly teach divine plurality or the trinity.

Some might object:  If these examples of plural subjects with singular verbs do not have any significance, what would?  The answer is that it would take a much stronger pattern to give the exceptions to the pattern any significance.  As an extreme example, it would take something like this:  complete consistency of number agreement when the subject is ordinary (subject and verb always agree in number), and complete consistency of number disagreement when the subject is God (such as all references to God using plural subjects with singular verbs).  Then we would feel that we had good reason to infer divine plurality in unity from the number disagreement.  But in reality there is inconsistency on both counts.  Many passages contain number disagreement when the subject is ordinary.  And many passages contain number agreement when the subject is God (God is often represented by singular nouns and pronouns which use singular verbs).  Lacking a consistently strong pattern and consistency among the exceptions to the pattern, the variability seems to point more to simple flexibility of usage rather than to any intended significance.

While number disagreement in the Old Testament may not, by itself, prove divine plurality, we must remember that number disagreement does not stand alone.  There is also the strong implication of plurality in Psalm 110:1 pointed out by Jesus himself.  There is also the usage of the compound "one" as explained later under the heading "'One' in the Old Testament."  It would certainly be incorrect to claim that there is a contradiction between the Old and New Testaments with the Old Testament teaching divine singularity and the New Testament teaching divine plurality.  At the very least we must say that the Old Testament leaves the door wide open on the question of God's plurality.  When all the evidence is considered, it is best to say that the Old Testament suggests (by implication, if not by direct statement) the possibility of God's plurality, opening the door wide for the New Testament to explicitly teach that there are three individual divine persons who are one God, a perfect illustration of progressive revelation. 

L.  The Distinction between Class and Individuals

As you can see from the two earlier sections on "Biblical Evidence …," scripture clearly teaches that there is a sense in which God is one, and there is a sense in which God is three.  This is no contradiction.  The distinction between class and individual helps us understand how both of these teachings are true.

CLASS	INDIVIDUALS
dog	Lassie, Brutus, Fluffy, Fido, etc.
human	Jim, Phil, Mary, Sue, etc.
holiday	Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year, etc.

In each case above, the name of the class in the left column identifies things which are of the same kind, essence, make-up, nature, or have the same characteristics, while the names in the right column are individuals within the class which are distinct and separate from each other.  They are placed in a certain class based on their characteristics or make-up.  This notion of "kind" is found repeatedly in Scripture (Genesis 1:21, 24-25;  6:20-21;  7:3,14;  Mark 9:29;  1 Corinthians 15:38-39;  etc.).

The English language is quite accustomed to this distinction – nouns in the left column are known as common nouns, while nouns in the right column are known as proper nouns.  This is a distinction which everyone can make.  This distinction is also illustrated by our widespread use of model numbers (class) and serial numbers (individuals) for various products.  Model numbers identify a group of products which all have the same features.  Serial numbers identify individual products within that group.

Now, how does this distinction between class and individuals apply to the trinity?  God is a class name – the name of a group.  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are individual names.  Each of these three individuals is God, yet there is only one God (there is only one kind of deity).  See the diagrams below.  These diagrams are not organizational charts.  (The fact that John is at the top in the first diagram does not mean that he is above Pete and Bill in any sense.)

The above diagram is simply a graphic way of making the following nine statements:

The relationship between three human beings is the best way to illustrate the trinity and the relationships between the three members of the trinity.  Remember, humans were created in the image of God, so it is much more appropriate to think about God using an analogy with three humans than using an analogy with inanimate objects.

Yet, there are at least two drawbacks to the above "three-human" illustration.  First, of course, there are more than three humans.  To make the illustration work, we have to imagine that there are only three humans in the entire universe.  Second, although three humans would be identical in their essential human nature, we will never find three humans who are identical in their purposes, desires, and plans.  Here again, to make the illustration work, we have to imagine three such human beings.

Since the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, it is accurate to say that there are three Gods – but only because we understand that we are referring to the number of individuals, not to three classes of deity.  At the same time, we can say that there is only one God because now we are referring to the class.  Christians tend to use the singular when referring to God.  We might hear a believer say, "Rely on the Lord, He (singular) will lead you," or "I talked to Him (singular) this morning."  However, it would be just as legitimate to say "They (plural) will lead you," or "I talked to Them (plural)."  Note the use of "them" in the third stanza of Now Thank We All Our God.

All praise and thanks to God The Father now be given,
The Son, and Him who reigns With them in highest heaven,
The one eternal God Whom earth and heav'n adore;
For thus it was, is now, and shall be evermore.  (Martin Rinkart, 1636)

There are many Christians who would be uncomfortable speaking of God in the plural, or saying that there are three divine individuals.  However, keep in mind that they spoke of themselves in the plural in Genesis 1:26, Isaiah 6:8, and other passages cited earlier.  And Jesus spoke of himself and the Father in the plural:

Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.  (John 14:23)

Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name – the name you gave me – so that they may be one as we are one.  (John 17:11, see also "us" in verse 21)

Also, God's plurality is inherent even in the Hebrew word used for his oneness, as explained later under the heading "'One' in the Old Testament."  Interacting with these three God-persons is no more complex than interacting with one God-person.  After all, when we honor one we are honoring all three, when we obey one we are obeying all three, when we disappoint one we are disappointing all three.  Pity those in unenlightened lands whose gods are in various classes.  They believe that they must sacrifice to one god for appeasement, pray to a different god for health, and hope that another god does not overhear them and become jealous.  This is in sharp contrast to the notion of worshiping and obeying the one triune God.

The mistake we must not make is to speak of more than one class of Gods.  This is the mistake the ancient nations surrounding Israel made.  (It is also the same mistake some make today when they pit God against Satan as though Satan were on equal ground with God.)

M.  The Mental Process

Making the distinction between classes and individuals is as easy as sorting and counting pennies.  If you know the characteristics of a penny, you can determine what belongs in that class and what does not.  And after you have placed all the pennies together in one pile you can count them.  This type of simple task, sorting and counting, is repeated endlessly by both children and adults, whether it be counting telephone poles on a trip, counting members present at a business meeting, or counting "steelies" in your bag of marbles.  The distinction between kind and individual, which is needed in order to do this sorting and counting, is so obvious, even to a child, that he does the task without even consciously thinking of such concepts as kind and individual.  Is this sort of mental activity beyond human reason?

Suppose you were having a conversation with a young boy who has just dumped out his bag of marbles onto the ground.

You:  "I see that you have quite a few different kinds of marbles.  How many do you have?"
Boy:  "I have 4 – steelies, aggies, cat's eyes, and shooters."
You:  "Those steelies sure are shiny.  How many do you have?"
Boy:  "I have 12."

Notice that the same question ("How many do you have?") is answered by using different numbers, but each answer is correct.  This is because the first question is obviously about kinds of marbles, while the second is about individual marbles of one kind.  If the boy had said "I have 12 steelies" and in the same breath "I have 13 steelies," we would consider that a contradiction.  We would be certain that at least one of those numbers is incorrect.  But there is no contradiction in what he actually said because in one sense (class) he has 4, and in another sense (individuals) he has 12 in that one class.

Now consider the job of the theologian.  He must look in the Bible, sort out the real divine beings from the false gods and everything else, and count the number of divine beings.  In doing this, he too will use the distinction between kind and individual. And then you ask him, "How many Gods are there?"  It would be legitimate for him to give you two different numbers.  If he thinks you are asking how many different kinds of Gods he found in the Bible, he will say, "There is one God."  But if he thinks you are asking about divine individuals, he will say "There are three Gods."

Of course, both answers are correct because there is a sense in which God is one and another sense in which God is three.  God is one in essence, but three in person or number.  This is not self contradictory, but is merely ordinary language taking advantage of the distinction between class and individuals.

It is not uncommon for our language to switch number depending on the underlying meaning.  Consider collective nouns such as audience, faculty, committee, congregation, team, family, jury, flock, group, etc.  These nouns take a singular verb and singular pronouns when the subject is thought of as a unit.  But they take a plural verb and plural pronouns when the subject is thought of as individuals.  For example, we could say "the choir sings (singular verb) its (singular pronoun) song, then they (plural pronoun) take (plural verb) their (plural pronoun) seats."  We find the same sort of switching between singular and plural in scripture.  For example:

In Genesis 1:27 man is referred to in both singular and plural, "him" (one human-kind) and "them" (two sexes)
In Mark 5:9 demons refer to themselves in both singular and plural, "my" and "we"
In Isaiah 6:8 God refers to himself in both singular and plural, "I" and "us"

If you need further illustration of how widespread and basic this distinction between kind and individual is, walk into a computer showroom and ask the salesperson "How many computers do you have?"

The heart of the issue

At this point we can highlight the heart of the issue.  The distinction between class and individuals allows us to simultaneously accept both of the following biblical facts:

• Fact:  God is three in number; there are three distinct divine persons (three individual God-persons).
• Fact:  God is one in essence, purpose, etc. (one class).

God's oneness and God's threeness are both taught in the Bible and therefore both must be maintained in perfect balance.  To err on either side misrepresents the Bible and leads to other doctrinal errors – tritheism, modalism, Arianism, etc. as shown below.

But before examining the above errors, we will look at two additional scriptural indications of God's plurality within unity.

N.  "One" in the Old Testament

There are two different words used to refer to unity in Hebrew, echad and yachid.

echad

While it has a range of meanings, can refer to a compound unity made up of several parts, that is, a united unity

yachid

Means an absolute, indivisible unity

For example, echad (compound unity) is used in such phrases as

there was evening and there was morning, one day  (Genesis 1:5)
a man will … be united to his wife and they will become one flesh  (Genesis 2:24, two persons described as "one")
one cluster of grapes  (Numbers 13:23)
all the Israelites … came out as one man  (Judges 20:1, see also vv. 8, 11, many persons described as "one")

On the other hand, yachid (indivisible unity) is typically used to refer to an only child (Genesis 22:2, 12, 16;  Judges 11:34;  Proverbs 4:3;  Amos 8:10;  Zechariah 12:10).

If God were an absolute, indivisible unity (rather than a God made up of three God-persons) we could expect that the word yachid would be applied to God somewhere in the Old Testament.  However, yachid is never used to refer to God, not even when God sought to bring Israel back from idolatry.  Instead, echad (compound unity) is the term that is used to refer to God's oneness.

For example, Deuteronomy 6:4 (which is the opening verse of the Jewish "Shema", a declaration of the Old Testament Jews' central doctrine) uses the word echad to state that God is one.

(Hebrew)	Shema,	Israel,	Yahweh,	Elohenu,	Yahweh,	echad
(English)	Hear,	O Israel:	The Lord	our God,	the Lord	is one

(See Norman Manzon's discussion of echad and yachid and the above passage at biblestudyproject.org/God-the-Trinity-messianic.htm.)

In A.D. 1168 the famous Rabbi, physician, and philosopher, Moses Maimonides, completed his commentary on the Mishnah which included a condensation of all the commands of the Torah into Thirteen Articles of Faith.  These articles have been widely adopted among Jews as a sort of creed and are recited daily after morning prayers in many Jewish synagogues.  In contrast to the use of echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 cited above, the second article states, "I believe with a perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is an absolute one" (Hebrew, yachid).  It is regrettable that Jews have been blinded to the idea of God's plurality by their own scholars.  The Talmud and Hebrew prayer books have also substituted yachid for echad in describing God's oneness.

O.  "Another" Counselor; Jesus and the Father as "one"

When Jesus promised the coming of the Holy Spirit, he referred to him as "another" Counselor (John 14:16).  The Greek word used for "another" is allos, which means another of the same kind.  It is significant that this word is used rather than heteros, which means another of a different kind.

According to Vine,

Allos expresses a numerical difference and denotes another of the same sort; heteros expresses a qualitative difference and denotes another of a different sort.  (W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p 52)

Also Thayer, a unitarian, recognizes the difference between these two words.

Allos generally denotes simple distinction of individuals, heteros involves the secondary idea of difference of kind.  (Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Zondervan, 1962, p 29)

Although Jesus probably gave this teaching in Aramaic, it is still significant that when John recorded these words in Greek (under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit) he used allos rather than heteros.  The distinction between these two words is exactly the same distinction we have been suggesting throughout this paper between class (sort, kind) and individual (person, number).  By using the word allos John indicates that the members of the trinity are of the save kind, but are different individuals.  So we have Jesus' own teaching that he and the Holy Spirit are two distinct persons having one divine nature.

And this fits perfectly with Jesus' earlier claims that he and the Father are two distinct persons having one divine nature.  For example, Jesus said "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).  Here the word "one" is in the neuter form in the Greek (εν, hen) rather than the expected masculine form (εις, heis).  Thus, the thought is not that the Son and the Father are one in number (the same person), but that they are one in essence.  Morey explains:

… the Greek word εν "one" is not the word we would expect to find. Since two masculine persons are in view, we would expect to find the masculine εις. This would mean that Jesus and the Father are one person. But the word εν is neuter and in this passage means that Jesus was saying, "I and the Father are one and the same thing, i.e., nature.  (Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, World Bible Publishers, 1996, page 445, italics in original.  Also see the note on John 10:30 in the NIV Study Bible.)

And Jesus' claim of unity with the Father in John 10:30 cannot mean merely that the Son and the Father are one in purpose, which could be said about any mere human who was a true worshiper of God.  If that were all that Jesus were claiming, the Jews would not have reacted as they did.  But they understood exactly what he meant, for they picked up stones to stone him and explained their actions by saying "you, a mere man, claim to be God" (verse 33).

Also consider John 17:11 where Jesus draws a parallel between the oneness that believers can have and the oneness he and the Father have.  It would be nonsense to suggest that believers are numerically one.  But there is a sense in which they are to be one – one in nature and purpose.

P.  Misleading Illustrations of the Trinity

Some people suggest that an egg makes a good illustration of the trinity.  They say that there are three parts (shell, white, and yoke) that make up one egg.  However, an egg is not a good illustration for two reasons.  First, the three parts of the egg have different essential characteristics, which is not true of the three members of the trinity.  Second, it would be incorrect to say of any one part that it is an egg; instead, we would have to say that it is part of an egg.  But regarding the trinity, we say that each member of the trinity is God because we are speaking of the divine nature that is fully possessed by each member.

C. S. Lewis has given us a slightly better illustration of the trinity.  He said that God is

a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube is six squares while remaining one cube.  (C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, first published 1945, Touchstone edition 1996, p. 143, compare p. 150)

Since each side has the same essential characteristics as each other side, just as each member of the trinity has the same essential characteristics as the other members of the trinity, this cube illustration avoids the first problem noted above regarding the egg illustration.  However, the cube illustration still has the second problem.  It would be incorrect to say of any one side that it is a cube; instead, we would have to say that it is part of a cube.  Each side needs all the other sides to make a cube.

This is the false sort of trinity envisioned by Joseph Cook who says

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God … neither is God without the others … each with the others is God.  (Quoted in A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 304)

But each of the members of the trinity is not just part of God.  Rather, each is fully God.  This is most clearly stated in scripture regarding the second person of the trinity, the Son.  John states, not that the word was part of God, but that "the word was God" (John 1:1).  And Paul refers to Christ, not as being part of God, but as "being in very nature God" and speaks of his "equality with God" (Philippians 2:6).  He also states that "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives" (Colossians 2:9).

Water is also used as an illustration of the trinity since it can exist in three forms:  ice, liquid, or vapor.  However, here again these three forms do not have the same characteristics.  Both the egg illustration and the water illustration make the same mistake.  In the words of the Athanasian creed, they divide the substance.

A similar set of four illustrations is used by Matt Slick, president and founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (carm.org).  He describes the universe as made up of three elements, time, space, and matter.  In turn, he says, time is made up of three aspects, past, present, future; space has the three dimensions of height, width, depth; and matter exists in the three states of solid, liquid, and gas.  We need to eliminate the universe as a valid illustration since most scientists would add energy as a fourth element.  We should also eliminate matter since, again, scientists would typically add plasma as a fourth state, and Bose condensation as a fifth state.

Now consider Slick's use of space as an illustration.  Its three classic, measurable, dimensions are length, width, and height.  (We will ignore the fact that mathematicians and cosmologists talk about additional dimensions since these "extra" dimensions are usually of an entirely different order of magnitude compared to the classic dimensions.)  Slick makes a valid comparison with the trinity by saying that length is different than width and height, just as the Father is a different person than the Son and the Holy Spirit.  But he also says that when you have all three, you have space.  The obvious problem is that you do not have any space unless you have all three dimensions. That is, length is not space by itself.  Neither is width, nor height.  Unfortunately, this is Slick's view of the trinity, for he says that

Each person is not a god which would make three gods. Instead, the totality of all three persons comprises the one God.  (from an article defending the trinity, dealing with the criticism: "The Trinity makes no sense. It isn't logical" on the CARM website mentioned above, italics added)

But Jesus is fully God by himself, just as both of the other members of the trinity are fully God by themselves.  (Slick has made the same mistake as Joseph Cook, mentioned above.)  And there is another problem with this space analogy.  While God (deity) is the nature of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, space is not the nature of length, nor of width, nor of height.  So the analogy breaks down quickly.

Slick's illustration of time also breaks down quickly.  After all, the future becomes the past, but we find no parallel with the trinity (as though the Holy Spirit becomes the Father).

Some have also confused roles with the trinity, claiming that a person's roles in life illustrate the members of the trinity.  For example, they might claim that a man can be, at the same time, a son, a father, and a husband.  But in this illustration we have only one person.  In the words of the Athanasian creed, this is the error of confounding the persons.  Actually, roles serve as a good illustration of one of the heretical views of the trinity, modalism, explained below.

Q.  The Error of Modalism

Modalism began as a reaction to the trinitarian teaching of the apostles and early church fathers and is still around today.  The New Testament makes it clear that there are three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are God.  But modalism claims that, while these three are indeed God, they are not three distinct persons.  Rather, they are one and the same person appearing in three different modes (forms, offices, roles, disguises, manifestations) throughout history.  They claim that in the Old Testament God made himself known as Jehovah, in the gospels as Jesus Christ, and in the epistles as the Holy Spirit.  This is an example of "confounding the persons."

In the early 200's Sabellius taught that the Son and Holy Spirit were both the same person as the Father, who acted in three consecutive manifestations.  According to Sabellius, the Father appeared first as the Father and Creator; the Father appeared next as the Son and Redeemer; and the Father appeared last as the Holy Spirit and Life-giver.

Around the same time Praxeas was also teaching modalism.  We do not know a lot about Praxeas, but we can imply his basic teachings from Tertullian's treatise Against Praxeas (Adversus Praxean).  Tertullian emphasized the notion that Father and Son are indeed one, but are at the same time two persons.

… it [scripture] is correct both when it states that God is one only and when it reveals Father and Son as two …  (Tertullian, Adversus Praxean, translated by Evans, section 18)

In the same treatise, Tertullian comments on 1 Corinthians 15:27-28:

By this one passage of the apostolic epistle we have already been able to show that Father and Son are two, besides <by deduction> from the names Father and Son, also from the fact that he who has delivered the kingdom and he to whom he has delivered it, as also he who has subjected it and he to whom he has subjected it, must of necessity be two.  (op. cit., section 4)

After Emanuel Swedenborg had his dreams in the mid 1700's, he emphasized that the single God-person was the Son, the Lord Jesus, who appeared at times as the Father and at times as the Holy Spirit.  This form of modalism appeared again during the early 1900's when a Pentecostal preacher claimed he had received a revelation that he should baptize, not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Jesus taught in Matthew 28:19, but in the name of Jesus only.  The Jesus-only movement then spread to many other groups.  A modern example is the United Pentecostal Church, whose beliefs are explained at upci.org.  The UPC's "Doctrinal Foundation" states, "the Bible does not teach that there are three distinct centers of consciousness in the Godhead or that Jesus is one of three divine persons."

By the way, there is an obvious two-part warning in the above events.  First, be sure to maintain the scriptural balance of oneness and threeness in God.  Second, be sure to rely on scripture rather than on dreams and so-called revelations.

Many theologians have fallen into the error of modalism.  For example, consider the following statement from A. H. Strong (considered in many circles to be a relatively conservative theologian):

With us personality implies entire separation from all others – distinct individuality.  But in the one God, there can be no such separation. … the personality of the Godhead as a whole is separate and distinct from all others, and in this respect is more fully analogous to man's personality than is the personality of the Father or the Son. … The personality of the Godhead is distinct and separate from all others, and is, in this respect, like that of man. … The Holy Spirit is Christ's alter ego, or other self.  When Jesus went away, it was an exchange of his presence for his omnipresence; an exchange of limited for unlimited power. [Strong then quotes Gore with approval: "The persons of the Holy Trinity are not separable individuals."] … The Father is not God as such; for God is not only Father, but also Son and Holy Spirit. … The Son is not God as such … The Holy Spirit is not God as such … Neither of these names designates the Monad [God] as such.  Each designates rather that personal distinction which forms the eternal basis and ground for a particular self-revelation. … In man many faculties are united in one intelligent being … intellect and affection, conscience and will assume a relative independence, and there arises even the possibility of conflict between them. … in God the leading functions are yet more markedly differentiated, so that they become personal. … (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, pp. 330-334)

When Strong refers to God as "The Monad," he makes the same mistake in English that Maimonides made in Hebrew when he substituted yachid for echad (and perhaps the same mistake translators make when they change a plural noun in Hebrew into a singular noun in English).

Various passages indicate that the three members of the trinity are each independent, identifiable persons.  For example, in John 14 and 16 Jesus tells his disciples that he is going to return to heaven, the Father is going to stay in heaven, the Holy Spirit is going to come from heaven.  This would be a meaningless passage if God were only one person.

Also, in John 17 Jesus (one person) prays to the Father (a different person).  In the first three verses Jesus addresses God the Father directly ("Father") and speaks to the Father in second person ("you," "your"), but speaks about himself in the third person ("him," "Jesus Christ"), thus distinguishing between the persons.  In the remainder of the chapter Jesus continues to speak to the Father in second person, but switches to first person when referring to himself ("I," "me," "my," "mine"), continuing the clear distinction between two different persons.  And in the middle of the chapter (verse 11) Jesus uses the plural pronoun "we," again indicating a plurality of persons in the trinity.

And in John 8:13-18 the Pharisees challenged the validity of Jesus' claims because he was his own witness (compare Deuteronomy 17:6;  19:15;  John 5:31).  But Jesus pointed out that there were actually two witnesses, he and the Father.

In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.  (John 8:17-18)

The Father had already "testified" both at Jesus' baptism (Matthew 3:16-17, compare John 1:32-34) and at Jesus' transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8).  So, besides his own witness, Jesus had the witness of the Father along with the witness of those who heard the Father's statements, as well as the witness of all whom he had healed and for whom he had performed other miracles.  However, for our present purposes in dealing with modalism, we note that Jesus' claim that he and the Father were two witnesses makes sense only when we realize that he and the Father are separate persons.

The error of modalism may also be detected when theologians speak, not of distinct persons, but of "personal self-distinctions," "aspects," "modes," and "foci."  For example, Berkhof states that

Experience teaches that where you have a person, you also have a distinct individual essence.  Every person is a distinct and separate individual, in whom human nature is individualized.  But in God there are no three individuals alongside of, and separate from, one another, but only personal self-distinctions within the Divine essence, which is … numerically one.  (L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 87)

Similarly, Moule, when discussing plurality and unity in God, avoids the word "persons" and instead speaks of "aspects" and "modes" and of dialogue between these modes.

… always he remained identifiable as Jesus of Nazareth, so that the transcendent Lord assumed a distinct aspect within the Deity. … a unity that is in dialogue within itself …. Thus … Christian experience led to the recognition of at least two distinguishable 'modes' of God's presence with men: the 'mode', namely, in which Christ was experienced as Mediator … and the 'mode' in which the Holy Spirit was found in and among Christians ….  (C. F. D. Moule, The Holy Spirit, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1978, p. 50-51)

Slick echoes this same unfortunate line of thinking when he says that

Many theologians admit that the term "person" is not a perfect word to describe the three individual aspects/foci found in God. When we normally use the word person, we understand it to mean physical individuals who exist as separate beings from other individuals. But in God there are not three entities, nor three beings. God is a trinity of persons consisting of one substance and one essence. God is numerically one.  (Matt Slick, article "What is the Trinity?" on the website carm.org)

Note Slick's unwillingness to speak of God in terms of three divine individuals, saying instead "three individual aspects/foci."  But is it really an "aspect" or a "focus" of God that became incarnate and died for our sins?  This error comes from an over-emphasis on God's oneness and a neglect of God's threeness.

As another example, Culver states that

There are not three gods, each of whom shares in a generic something called divinity, 'Godness' or Godhead. Where the Father is, there also are the Son and the Spirit. (Robert Duncan Culver, Systematic Theology: Biblical and Historical, Mentor, 2005, page 68)

God is one, not in the sense of a generic name, as equus for all horses or homo for all members of the human race. … There is numerically one indivisible, undistributed, living God.  (op. cit., page 81)

In the above quotations Culver adopts the standard language of modalism when he says that there are not three Gods who share in divinity, that where the Father is, there also are the Son and the Spirit, and that God is numerically one.  In fact, Culver repeatedly emphasizes the idea that

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not mere sharers of a category of being, as when we say each of three brothers is a man  (op. cit., page 111; nearly identical statements appear on pages 81, 86, and 106).

This emphasis on unity, which obviously goes beyond a unity of essence and appears to include a mutual identification of the three divine persons, is the heart of modalism.  The notion that "where the Father is, there also are the Son and the Spirit" is especially troublesome, for it makes us wonder how Jesus could say, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46).  Thus modalism discredits the substitutionary suffering of the Son for our salvation.

To be fair to Culver it should be noted that elsewhere he refers to the "distinctness of the three Persons" (page 111).  He also points out that the Spirit is "another (allos) of the same kind, not a different (heteros) kind" (page 106-107).  But if there is another, then the count must exceed "numerically one."  In other words, Culver contradicts himself and his only escape is to view the structure of the trinity as an inescapable mystery, as quoted earlier.

Millard Erickson, although he provides many helpful thoughts about the trinity, at one point echoes a sentiment similar to what we have just seen (in Strong, Berkhof, Moule, Slick, and Culver) in his discussion of the question, "Does the doctrine of the trinity make sense?".  He recommends the concept of "perichoresis," which indicates an

"interpenetration of life and personality within the Godhead … the life of each flows through each of the others" (Millard Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity, Baker, 2000, p. 57)

And although Erickson goes on to say that what he is suggesting is "more the idea of union than of simplicity or singularity" (op. cit. p. 62), he also says that

each is dependent on the others for his own life and for his being deity … each of the persons proceeds from or is generated by each of the others. There is a mutual production of each of the persons by each of the others … the three are so linked together and so interdependent that they cannot exist separately.  (op. cit. p. 62)

But surely this idea goes too far, for it makes impossible the separation of the Son from the Father when the Son took our sins upon himself and bore our penalty.

Some theologians who claim this numerical unity appeal to Jesus' statements "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) and "the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (John 10:38).  But these statements of Jesus must be interpreted in their immediate context as well as in relation to Jesus' statement "so that they [believers] may be one as we [Jesus and the Father] are one" (John 17:11,21).  Certainly Jesus was speaking of a unity of purpose and harmony between believers.  This oneness among believers does not require that all believers be one person.  Similarly, the oneness between the Father and the Son does not require that they be one person (as explained in the discussion of John 10:30 earlier in section "O").

R.  The Error of Arianism

Arianism can be seen as a reaction to the trinitarian teaching of the apostles and early church fathers as well as a reaction to modalism.  Arius, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt during the early 300's, objected to the trinitarian teaching he heard from the church leaders.  In particular, he objected to the notion that Jesus was fully divine and co-eternal with the Father.

Similar to modalism, Arianism avoids having three divine persons.  But whereas modalism accepts the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit by making them the same person as the Father, Arianism rejects the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

In Arianism, God is seen as the first cause and monas (monad), that is, an absolute unity that is indivisible, while the Son is seen as a separate person.  Thus, the Son cannot be God.  Rather, the Son is seen as a creation of the Father or an emanation from the Father, that is, a demigod.  According to Arius, the Son was created by the Father and in turn created all other beings and things.  Thus, the Son is lower than the Father, but higher than the Holy Spirit, angels, man, and everything else.  (These ideas certainly have marked similarities to Platonic and Neo-Platonic philosophy, although the degree to which the ideas actually stem from these philosophies is much debated).

Arianism, with its denial of the deity of Christ, has been attractive to many and has thus appeared repeatedly throughout the history of Christianity.  For example, Arianism appeared again during the time of the Protestant reformation in the teachings of Michael Servetus and the Socinians.  It also formed the basis for early unitarianism in England.  And today liberals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christadelphians, along with other cults, continue to follow the same thinking.

S.  The Error of Tritheism

In this paper we have been willing to speak of God in the plural and willing to say that there are three Gods (in the sense of three individual God-persons).  Thus, some might claim that we are guilty of tritheism.  However, the error of tritheism is that it denies the oneness of God.

Modalism and tritheism err on different sides of the Biblical doctrine of the trinity.  True trinitarianism holds to both God's threeness (in number) and God's oneness (in essence).  On the one side, modalism errs by denying God's threeness; it holds to one essence and one person (it confounds the persons).  On the other side, tritheism errs by denying God's essential oneness; it holds to three persons and three essences (it divides the substance).

The view presented here is not guilty of tritheism, but it does hold to three persons, indeed, three distinct and separable persons.  These three persons, however, are of one essence.  Thus, the view presented here stands in contrast to tritheism in the same way it stands in contrast to polytheism with its many different gods, each with unique natures, characteristics, and abilities.  In fact, tritheism might be considered a form of polytheism, since it has more in common with polytheism than with balanced biblical trinitarianism.

Scripture balances God's oneness and God's threeness.

• If you place too much emphasis on God's oneness, you end up making either modalistic errors (such as those exhibited by Sabellius, Strong, Berkhof, Slick, and Culver cited above) or the errors of Judaism, Islam, and Jehovah's Witnesses.
• If you place too much emphasis on God's threeness, you make the error of tritheism.

T.  Implications and Applications

Salvation

Both aspects of the doctrine of the trinity (plurality and unity) play an important part in the plan of salvation.

First, the doctrine of the substitutionary suffering of Christ requires plurality within the Godhead.  When Jesus took our punishment, he suffered both physical death and spiritual death.  His physical death was real, was part of his complete identification with mankind, and made possible his resurrection which established his deity as the Son of God (Romans 1:4), his sinlessness, and thus his qualification to be our substitute.  But, whereas his physical death was for our benefit, his spiritual death was in our place.  (See the papers The Substitutionary Death of Christ and The Two Deaths of Christ.)  Spiritual death is personal separation from the Father, which requires that Jesus and the Father be separate individuals.  If God were only one person, as modalism maintains, separation would be impossible, and thus substitution would be impossible.  In other words, if we want to hold to the substitutionary death of Christ, we must first hold that there are separate individuals within the trinity.

Second, the doctrine of the substitutionary suffering of Christ requires unity within the Godhead.  By understanding that the members of the trinity are united in nature and purpose, we recognize both the willingness of Jesus to bear our sins, and the Father's approval of the Son's saving work on the cross.  We also realize that there must have been suffering on both sides of the gulf when the trinity was ripped apart for our salvation.  See Matthew 27:46.

The doctrine of salvation alone helps us understand the importance of balance in the doctrine of the trinity.  We must maintain both the plurality of God and the unity of God.  Or, in the words of the Athanasian Creed, we must not confound the persons nor divide the substance.

The Myth of the Father Only

Unitarians, Jews, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups claim that they have a "God," but they do not have a trinity.  It might be easy to conclude that, even though they reject the deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, they still have the Father.  However, the Bible does not allow that conclusion, for to reject the Son is to reject the Father also.

He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.  (John 5:23;  Compare John 15:23)

No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.  (1 John 2:23)

Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.  (2 John 9)

It might be tempting to say, "Well, at least they believe in God," but their "God" should not be equated with the first person of the trinity, the Father.  According to the teaching of Jesus and of John cited above, it is not possible to believe in the Father and at the same time reject the Son.  This means, for instance, that Islam's Allah is not the same as the Father, for they deny the deity of the Son and therefore do not have the Father.  Scripture makes it clear you cannot accept one person of the trinity and reject the others.  Since their God is not the true, triune God of the Bible, their "God" is, in reality, a false god and their religion is a false religion.  The same applies to Judaism, which rejects the deity of Jesus Christ.  In doing so, Judaism also rejects the Father and thus, like Islam, is another false religion.

Assurance of Things to Come

It is impossible for those who worship many different gods to have any assurance of things to come.  After all, with different gods having different plans and capabilities, whose plan will prevail?  But we who hold to the unity of God (particularly unity of purpose) can rest assured that there is only one plan for the universe which will prevail in the end.

Prayer

Some teach that there is an exact formula which must be followed in prayer.  They claim that we should pray "to" the Father, "through" the Son, and "by the power of" the Holy Spirit, and certainly such prayer is appropriate.  But given the complete unity of nature and purpose within the trinity, certainly to pray to any one member of the trinity is functionally the same as praying to any other member.

Church Unity

We in the church should observe the harmony and the unity of purpose among the divine three, and strive for such harmony and unity among ourselves.  John 17:20-21;  Ephesians 4:3;  Philippians 2:2-4.

U.  Conclusion

We might spend our entire lives attempting to fathom the depth of God's power, wisdom, and love, and never comprehend it all.  And we may spend eternity attempting to understand all the things about God which he has chosen not to reveal to us in this life.  However, the structure of the trinity is something which we can and should understand today.

We need to remember that, while the Bible is inspired and completely trustworthy, theologians (even conservative, evangelical theologians) are not inspired.  They need to be evaluated at every point against the teachings of the Bible.  After all, having someone tell you what you can and cannot understand is not too far from having someone tell you what you can and cannot believe.  The Bible is our final authority, and we must turn to it to settle all doctrinal issues.

We should never shrink back from difficult doctrines on the basis that we cannot understand them.  Of course, there are certain areas of doctrine which have caused controversy throughout the centuries, including predestination vs. free will, and the combined deity and humanity of Christ.  But these areas are not meant to be puzzles any more than the trinity.

And let us never think that we have to create mysteries in order to add to the majesty and glory of God.  In the clear and simple biblical statements about God we find more than enough profound meaning to exhaust our feeble praise.

God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. … God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.  (Romans 5:5,8)

Praise the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

---

There is a follow-up to this paper, entitled "'Father' and 'Son' in the Trinity: Answering Jehovah's Witnesses."

V.  For Further Reading

Below are suggested three very helpful and thought provoking sources.