WHY DO CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT GOD IS TRIUNE?

A Research Paper Presented to Dr. Jeffrey W. Barbeau, Theology Department Oral Roberts University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Class THE 313—Systematic Theology I, MWF 8:50

by Timothy O Margheim April 2007

Christian tradition shows that from very early in the development and systemization of the beliefs that would define and distinguish Christianity the notion of the Trinity emerged as the orthodox statement of God. Though a few Trinitarian formulas appear in the biblical text, Scripture is far from overt in regards the Triune nature of God. Still, it is Scripture that forces Christians into this position of sorting out how this seeming of multiplicity of divine characters works out. Jesus' claims regarding his divine nature, particularly those most provocative found in the Gospel of John, forced early Christians to examine their conception of God. Christians then and now have believed that God is Triune because it is only by doing so that the mystery which the Scripture presents can even be slightly understood. Equally so, it is only in a Trinitarian conception of God that the divine mystery can be preserved. The Bible presents what can certainly seem like blatantly contradictory statements regarding God, and in this fact is the single most salient cause for the Christian Trinitarian view. On the one hand, portions of Scripture like Deuteronomy 6:41 seem to clearly speak of a singular nature to God, stating that the God of Israel is the one true God.2 On the other hand, Jesus is clearly indicated to be God within the Gospel of John, being equated with God in John 1:1, a claim for which evidence is then presented to persuade the reader that Jesus was indeed God made flesh throughout the remainder of the text. Early Christians, like today’s readers, were most certainly aware of these difficulties, and turned to various methods of understanding God in light of the revelation brought by Jesus Christ. 1

All Scripture references will be drawn from the NRSV. In this example, the translation provided by the NRSV ends, “the LORD alone,” which blends the text more easily for a Trinitarian reading. However, numerous other possibilities exist for translating the verse, including ending “the LORD is one.” (ESV) This latter translation is more literal though less instructive to the reader, which is much as the MT (‫ד‬F‫אח‬H ‫ה‬F‫הו‬M‫ )י‬and the LXX (κύριος εἷς ἐστιν) read. Thus, it is to the latter translation option that this point is referring. 2

Earl S. Kalland, “Deuteronomy,” n.p., EBC on CD-ROM. Version 4.0.2, 1992. 2

One prominent solution, Gnosticism, was combated fiercely by the early church Fathers, causing them to write many of the still extant works from that period. Irenaeus takes up the antiGnostic cause in his Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, fiercely contesting the viewpoint that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are not indeed the same God, striving to show that “He—the creator—is Lord of all men, Jews and Gentiles alike, both just judge and loving Father.”3 Instead of a ruthless, judgmental God of the Jews and a compassionate, gracious God of Christ, there is but one God, fully united throughout and beyond history. In order to do this, Irenaeus systematically illuminates the narratives found within the Old Testament in light of the revelation brought forth by the Incarnation.4 This pursuit has been undertaken by many generations of Christians with varying levels of success. Often, particularly in the early stages of the development of Christian doctrine, those arguing for the consistency of the monotheistic assertions of the Old Testament with the divine claims of Jesus in the New Testament would point to Genesis 1:26 (“Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness…’”) and claim that this showed a plurality of persons within God, a claim which Kasper points out is considered dubious by contemporary biblical scholars.5 Irenaeus opens his line of argumentation with an even more peculiar example, in which he presents a transliteration of an apparently mangled or—at the very least—synthesized Hebrew text: while the first three words he gives, “BARESITh BARA ELOVIM,” roughly correspond to the text of Gen 1:1 preserved in the MT, Irenaeus provides a translation for the verse, “A Son in 3

Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching (vol. 16 of Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation; eds. Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe; trans. Joseph P. Smith; New York: Newman, 1952), 25. This quote is taken from the editor’s introduction to the text. 4

5

Irenaeus, Proof, 75-90.

Walter Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ (trans. Matthew J. O’Connell; New York: Crossroad, 1986), 242. 3

the beginning God established then heaven and earth,”6 completely unique to this work.7 Despite the unusual interpretation given here, Irenaeus’ work shows that the notion of a Triune God is a notion that is not at any great conflict with the whole of the Bible. Others, much more recent than Irenaeus, have pointed to the importance of the “angel of Yahweh” found within the Old Testament to the establishment of Trinitarian ideas. Kasper points out that the notion of a personal God, which is presented in the Old Testament primarily through this “angel of Yahweh” who sometimes seems to be interchangeable with Yahweh, requires a peer8 for God to relate to. Humankind could be presented as fulfilling this role, but If man were God’s sole vis-à-vis, then man would be a necessary partner of God. Man would then no longer be the one who is loved with an abyssal free and gracious love, and God’s love for man would no longer be God’s gracious act but rather a need of God and a completion of God. But such a conclusion would be utterly contradictory to the Old Testament. The Old Testament therefore raises a question to which it gives no answer.9 The Old Testament, then, requires God to have within himself some sort of peer to relate to, due to his personal nature. The New Testament provides these persons. The claims which Jesus makes regarding his nature were difficult for many of his hearers to receive and understand in light of monotheistic Israelite religion, a fact which is evidenced throughout the Gospels.10 These divine claims are among the first causes of Irenaeus against the heresies of the Gnostics: “Therefore the Father is Lord, and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God; for He who is born of God is God.”11 Irenaeus posits first that there is 6

Irenaeus, Proof, 75.

7

Irenaeus, Proof, 41. This is drawn from the editor’s introduction to the text.

8

Kasper uses the term vis-à-vis.

9

Kasper, God, 242-243.

10

See, for example, John 6:22-71, particularly verses 60-66.

11

Irenaeus, Proof, 78. 4

no conflict with monotheism for Jesus to be God, as the Son and the Father would both still be one God. With this as a base, it becomes extremely important to examine the statement which Jesus himself makes regarding the nature of God. As Hilary of Poitiers notes, “We should learn from God what we are to think about God, because He is the He is the only source of information about Himself.”12 Since the precise nature of God is, by definition, beyond the scope of human reason and cognition, our understanding of God is based primarily upon his self-revelation. It seems appropriate, then, that Jesus provides perhaps the most important Scriptural support for the notion of a Triune God in Matthew 28:19, when he commissions his disciples to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Kasper points to this as a pivotal text in Christian understanding, in that even if the text seems to lack an opaque exposition of the unity of the three persons of God, it still presents the three persons as equals.13 Jesus’ words force Christians to place the Trinitarian understanding of God at the forefront of the faith, the very moment in which one symbolically enters into it through baptism. The baptismal formula instructs Christians that “the baptism of our rebirth comes through these three articles, granting us rebirth unto God the Father, through His Son, by the Holy Spirit.”14 Placed in full focus is the emphasis upon the Triune nature of God at the moment of conversion. As Kasper writes, “Becoming a Christian, like being a Christian, is unconditionally linked to the Trinitarian confession.”15 This declaration, made by Jesus himself, places the concept of the Trinity at the foundation of the 12

Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity (vol. 25 of The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation; eds. Joseph Deferrari et al.; trans. Stephen McKenna; Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1954), 151. 13

Kasper, God, 245.

14

Irenaeus, Proof, 51.

15

Kasper, God, 233. 5

Christian faith. Outside of the words of Christ, other New Testament writers provide a strong witness for the Trinity. Foremost among these is the doxology found in 2 Cor 13:13, which reads, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.” Paul fills his letters with references to different members of the Trinity in relation to different aspects of the salvific work, and his view of salvation, then, is ultimately wrapped up in the Trinitarian conception of God, without which the event of salvation is incomplete.16 The notion of Trinity, then, while not explicitly stated in Scripture, is present in the Biblical text, and Christians are justified in joining with Irenaeus’ instruction regarding those holding non-Trinitarian views: “We must beware of all such men, and flee their ways, if we really desire to be well-pleasing to God and receive from Him salvation.”17 Though it certainly is well-established within the Christian tradition that God is Triune, the precise mechanics of how this Trinity works and exists remains a mystery. As Hilary of Poitiers writes, “He fixed the names of the nature—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Whatever is sought over and above this transcends the meaning of words, the limits of perception, and the concepts of the understanding.”18 The precise nature of God is something which can never be fully comprehended by human minds. While this may seem to be a stumbling block, or a hindrance to the faith of those who profess a Christian belief, the mysterious nature of God is both necessary and good; essentially, why would a person choose to serve a God who was completely understandable within the framework of the human mind? The revelations which Christians have today concerning their Triune God are communicated “only in

16

Kasper, God, 246

17

Irenaeus, Proof, 109.

18

Hilary, Trinity, 39. 6

the medium of history and in the medium of human words and deeds.”19 Thus, any revelation which humans possess is limited in scope, and incapable of truly representing God as God is. Hilary uses this line of reasoning to expose as heresy non-Trinitarian views: “It denies, this raging heresy denies, the mystery of the true faith.”20 Hilary interestingly enough sees the logical simplicity of non-Trinitarian theology as evidence against its validity, and seems to indicate that the primary violation of such heretical discourse is that it denies the mysterious nature of the Christian God. Such commentary would be interesting to see in play today, with much of popular theology becoming a pursuit for formulae and rules by which the actions of God can be explained. The Christian faith has always embraced Trinitarian formulae; similarly, Christians have never fully understood the Trinity. This Triune God which Christians profess to serve is a true mystery, not a puzzle to be solved, or a land to be charted, but a possibility that must be embraced. The mysterious salvation which belongs to the Christian echoes of the mysterious God from whom it comes; as Kasper writes, “The entire Christian economy of salvation is thus a single mystery that can be summed up in one sentence: through Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit God is the salvation of man.”21

19

Kasper, God, 269.

20

Hilary, Trinity, 170.

21

Kasper, God, 270. 7

BIBLIOGRAPHY Hilary of Poitiers. The Trinity. Volume 25 of The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Edited by Joseph Deferrari, Bernard M. Peebles, Paul J. Morin, Robert P. Russell, Thomas P. Halton, Martin R. P. McGuire, William R. Tongue, Hermigild Dressler, Josephine Brennan, James A. Magner, and Redmond A. Burke. Translated by Stephen McKenna. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1954 Irenaeus. Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. Vol. 16 of Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation. Edited by Johannes Quasten and Joseph C. Plumpe. Translated by Joseph P. Smith. New York: Newman, 1952. Kalland, Earl S. “Deuteronomy.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary on CD-ROM. Pradis Version 5.17.0014. 1992. Print ed.: Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976-1992. Kasper, Walter. The God of Jesus Christ. Translated by Matthew J. O’Connell. New York: Crossroad, 1986.

8