Thoughts on the Trinity

N.E. Barry Hofstetter, Th.M.

©2004

 

 

In an online discussion group, the question below was presented.  This essay was my response.

 


> Is a confession of the Trinity necessary for salvation?<

 

First of all, see this essay:

 

"What is the Gospel?"

 

In a sense, the answer is both yes and no. To come to Christ, there are no doctrinal preconditions, other than those listed in the Scriptures quoted in the essay above.  One does not have to have a mature, full blown doctrine of the Trinity in order to confess Christ as Lord! However, the confession of Jesus as Lord is in principle a Trinitarian confession.  If one comes to an understanding which denies this essential truth about God, it is fair to say that one has never, in fact, confessed Jesus as Lord.

 

Consider the first 3 commandments:

 

Ex 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Ex 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: Ex 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; Ex 20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Ex 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

 

The first two commandments instruct us that false worship is essentially a capital offense, deserving of God's wrath.  We are not to worship any God except the true God, and we are not to make images of God.  If in fact God has revealed himself to be Trinity, then to deny that he is Three-in-One is to do exactly what the first two commandments forbid, and that is setting up a false god.  The third commandment is actually related to this.  Taking God's name in vain is not simply using God's name as a swear word, the way it is popularly understood, but invoking God's name for purposes inconsistent with who he has revealed himself to be.  What greater form of blasphemy is there than to apply the name of God to a false god, to pray in that false name, to put oneself under the authority of that false name? A serious offense indeed.

 

Have you ever wondered why it is that we don't receive the full blown revelation of God as Trinity until the NT?  One popular conception is essentially historical-cultural: the people of God in the OT were so surrounded by idolatry, that there had to be a major emphasis on the Oneness of God (Deut 6:4).  However, that explanation doesn't quite satisfy (though it certainly was a factor), since idolatry was every bit as rampant in the ancient Roman world of the NT as it was in the ancient Near Eastern context in which the OT documents were written. 

 

Rather, all that is revealed about God concerns the redemption of God's people, and all the tremendous revelation that we receive about God is in order that we love and worship him rightly.  The revelation of the Bible is tied to the history of redemption, and is therefore progressive, tied to the great deeds God does in history to redeem his people.  The people of God didn't get it all at once, but in each successive stage of redemptive history, God revealed more about himself, his eternal plan, and his purposes for his people.

 

And each stage of redemption is dependent on what has come before, and is consistent with it.  The oneness (uniqueness) of God in the OT was a tremendously important truth.  The Israelites' redemption did not depend on the various gods of the ancient world, but on the one true God, who is God alone.  But even in the OT, there are hints, such as at Isa 9:6ff, that God, with regard to his being, is not simply uni-essential, but that there is differentiation in his being.  In the NT, with the full revelation of God's plan of redemption, we receive the most complete revelation of God.  Jesus Christ is the absolute fulfillment of God's plan, the centerpiece and culmination of history, and through God's revelation in Christ (Heb 1:1) we learn far more about God than even the wisest OT saint.  God does not cease to be one, but we learn that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, yet each is treated as separate person with his own roles and responsibilities in the salvation of God's people.  Perhaps the high point of this revelation is Matt 28:18-20:

 

Matt 28:19

A Trinitarian Proof Text?

 

Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Mt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy  Ghost: Mt 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto  the end of the world. Amen.

 

First, a few comments to put the verse into context, and then to some specific considerations of the phrase in question.

 

This passage is generally known as “The Great Commission” and provides the church with the legal basis necessary to conquer all nations by the proclamation of the Gospel.  While certainly, as the second person of the Trinity, Jesus had all the authority and power of God, he is invested, in his office as the Messiah, now the resurrected and ruling Lord, with a special authority over the nations (cf. Psalm 2; Rom 16:25-27).  The word translated “authority” above (better than what the KJV has, “power,” cf. NIV, ESV, and other modern versions), is the Greek εξουσια (exousia), which means “legal” or “proper authority.”  On the basis of that authority, Jesus then gives his “marching orders” to the church.  The actual imperative (command form) is the word translated “make disciples” μαθητευσατε ( mathēteusete).  The words translated “go” and “baptizing” are in Greek participles of means: they unpack how the action of making disciples is to be accomplished.  Note the close connection here between baptism and making disciples, a connection that is sometimes overlooked in the modern church.

 

This brings us to our primary consideration.  The object or reference of the baptism is indicated by a prepositional phrase: “in” (εἰς, eis) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.? 

 

  1. Notice that “name” is singular grammatically.  It is one name essentially shared by the three following individuals referenced.
  2. Although the implication is one of “authority” or “relationship” the word “name” still means name.  In this context, the “final words” of Jesus before his ascension, in which Jesus is instituting a covenant sign for his people on the same level as circumcision for OT Israel, what name might one expect?  Matthew is the most Jewish of the gospels, and if he had wished to mention the divine name of Yahweh, this would have been about the best place to do so.  Instead, he says “of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
  3. The grammatical construction here underscores the point.  A bit of explanation: Where English nouns depend on word order and prepositions to obtain their usage in a sentence, Greek nouns often change the ending of the word.  These endings are called “cases.”  Let’s use “Christ” as an example:

 

Greek

Transliteration

Case

Translation/Use

Χριστος

Christos

Nominative

Subject

Χριστου

Christou

Genitive

of Christ

Χριστω

Christō

Dative

to or for Christ

Χριστον

Christon

Accusative

Direct object[*]

 

All three of the nouns above are in the genitive case, sometimes simply called the “of” case, because, 95 percent of the time, if you supply the English preposition “of” you translate the word correctly.  There are different usages of the genitive case: for example, it is used of the possessive, and we often use ‘s or s’ to translate it: In the phrase “God’s church” in Greek, God would be genitive του θεου εκκλησια (tou Theou ekklēsia).  It can be used to show quality or description: a man of good character ανθρωπος της αγαθης αρετης (anthropos tēs agathēs aretēs).  In Matt 28:19, the three nouns in the genitive explain or define the word “name” ονομα (onoma), and hence the usage is called the “epexegetical” genitive.  What does the name consist of?  How do we define it?  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

Now, one more bit of evidence to drive home the point.  Before each of these words in Greek is the word “and” και (kai) and the definite article “the” (here in the genitive case to agree with the nouns modified, του).  This underscores that the persons represented by each name are distinct, and yet the fact that all three are in the epexegetical genitive demonstrates that they share the same name.  If the special, covenant name of God in the OT was Yahweh (Jehovah), then the special, covenant name of God in the NT is “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

 

Now, this still falls short of a formal definition of the Trinity, but the grammatical evidence and the statement in context (Jesus is instituting a new covenant initiation ceremony to replace circumcision) provide rather strong support for the doctrine.

 

There are many, many more Scriptures which could be considered...

 

Q4:  What is God?
A4:  God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
 
Q5:  Are there more Gods than one?
A5:  There is but one only, the living and true God.
 
Q6:  How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A6:  There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and  glory.  
  --Westminster Shorter Catechism

 

 


[*] This is oversimplified for ease of explanation.  There are additional uses and translations for all these cases, and Greek has a number of prepositions (such as εις) the objects of which may go into any of the oblique cases; the genitive, the dative, or the accusative depending on the meaning of the preposition.