Recently, a friend sent me a lectureship book dealing with God. Various authors presented their material on differing aspects of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Much truth is given but glaring mistakes are made. I do not need to identify the book or the authors. My effort just here is not intended to be an embarrassment to anyone. I only seek to correct and, if possible, to clarify so that the correction is clear.
The Godhead as a topic of study is enormously difficult in specific detail (where we are most curious) while being somewhat simple in general. As the reader may know, the word “trinity” does not appear in Scripture, but the word “Godhead” does. And as the reader also knows, the finite mind cannot completely fathom the concept of Godhead. We can only approximate it with our pitiful struggling to comprehend it. I am not excusing us from study; I am only suggesting that our study be extremely serious and that with time, we make progress.
The word “Godhead” appears in the American Standard Version in Acts 17:29 and Colossians 2:9. In Luke’s passage the Greek word is theion. In Paul’s passage, the word is Theotatos. In Romans 1:20, Paul uses the word theiotas translated by our word “divinity.” We will not engage here in the definitions for we are in this article basically concerned with the relationship that obtains between the members of the divinity or Godhead. Our basic problem with the concept of the “Godhead” is trying to understand that while there is only one God, there are three manifestations that entail a divine relationship among the members of the Godhead, and which also entail a relationship of the “Godhead” to man.
I will begin by referring to some statements made in the lectureship book referred to above:
“When we speak of the Trinity, we name the eternal reality that God is one in essence and three in persons. Let’s be clear: God is not one person who plays three roles, and God is not three gods working in harmony. God is one Being—one divine nature, one glory, and one will that is shared eternally by three distinct persons.”
In the next paragraph the writer claims “This is not a contradiction nor nonsense.” Well, let us see.
Consider the following True-False questions that address what the writer is claiming and see whether or not there is contradiction and thus nonsense.
T/F 1. God is one being and that being is person (Deut. 6:4; Rom. 1:20-21; Acts 14:17).
T/F 2. God is three persons (This is what the writer claims).
T/F 3. A husband and wife are two human beings who are distinct persons (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7, 18-25).
T/F 4. A husband and his wife are one flesh (Gen. 2:23; Matt. 19:4-6).
T/F 5. Being one flesh does not make husband and wife one person.
T/F 6. If God is one Spirit (John 4:24; Deut. 6:4), then there are three manifestations or representations in the “Godhead” but which cannot make them three persons.
We have to be very careful here not to abuse language so as to use “person” one way when speaking of man and another way when speaking of God. The word “person” must retain its legitimate definition as both to human persons and to the one divine person. Of course divinity is not the same as humanity. So, a divine person must be different from a human person, but if there is one God, and if God is person, then we can speak of God as person and of a man as person. The man person is a combination of body, soul, and spirit (1 Thess. 5:23). God as person is composed of pure eternal spirit (John 4:24).
T/F 7. If God is three persons, then God is three Gods or gods. [Note: There are only four possible classifications of intelligent beings to which these three alleged persons can be assigned. Each is either: demon, angel, God, or man.]
T/F 8. In Rom. 1:20-21 Paul affirms that the everlasting divinity is a “him” rather than a “them.”
T/F 9. If someone sees a husband, necessarily he at the same time sees that husband’s wife. [Note: This is clearly “false.” If someone saw Adam, he did not necessarily see Eve.]
T/F 10. If a man saw Jesus when Jesus was on earth, he necessarily saw Jesus’ Father as well. [Note: This is “true” (John 14:8-9).]
T/F 11. If someone when seeing a husband does not at the same time necessarily see the husband’s wife, and if when someone saw Jesus, he at the same time necessarily saw the Father, then the distinction that characterizes the difference between the individuality of husband and wife as distinct persons cannot be the distinction that characterizes the difference between the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit, for that matter).
Now, let us go back to the citation of the quotation above from the lectureship book and consider the individual positions by the writer taken and see if they are True or False:
T/F 1. God is not one person.
T/F 2. God is not three gods.
T/F 3. God is three persons.
Remember, God has to fit into some category. If in three persons, he remains God (divine), he would have to be three gods since he cannot be three demons, three angels, or three men.
The writer claims that #1 (God is not one person) and #2 (God is not three gods) are both true, but they cannot be. They are contradictions! The writer cannot accurately claim that God is not one person and then claim that God is not more than one god. Deut. 6:4 says that God is “one Lord.” Rom. 1:20-21 says that there is one God whose singular existence can be identified by the correct consideration of the universe (cf. Psalm 19:1; Acts 14:17). So, somehow God has always been one person. Just here, let me inject Isa. 43:10. Read it carefully: “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”
The several theophanies(visible appearances of God) that we find in the Old Testament (e.g. Gen. 18:2, 13; Josh. 5:13-15) were appearances of the one true God. And according to Isa. 43:10 any appearance that would come before Isa. 43:10 was written or after it was written could not be the representation of more than one person in the Godhead. The word “Godhead” that we would later find in the New Testament could not represent more than one divine person any more than it did or could in the Old Testament. It would be a Godhead of plural function in plural manifestation just as it had been in the Old Testament beginning in Gen. 1:1.
In Isa. 45 and 46 God attempted to make it as clear as he could, knowing of Israel’s propensity for idolatry and polytheism. Eight times God declared that there is “none else” or “none like” or “no God else” other than himself! In Isa. 46:5 God raises the question, “To whom will ye liken me (not us, MD), and make me (not us, MD) equal, and compare me, (not us, MD) that we (God and idols/gods, MD) may be like?” This means that the coming incarnation of Christ would not and could not be another God so that the Father would be one person and Jesus another. God had already told us in Isa. 43:10 that we should not interpret the person of Christ to be a different person from the Father and from the Holy Spirit. Such an interpretation would be wrong!
Now, let us continue with the writer’s claims:
T/F 4. God is neither one person nor three gods, so God is either three persons or one God.
T/F 5. God can only be one God by not being three persons.
T/F 6. If three persons do not render God three Gods or gods, then three persons cannot be three distinct persons but can only be one person.
Argument #1 on Spirit and Person
1. If God can make man in his image without making man divine, i.e. God, then God can separate himself into three manifestations/functioning roles without making himself three divine persons (three gods). [Note: Actually, for God to make himself into three divine persons he would be terminating himself as the one eternal, infinite, God. It would be divine suicide! Of course, such a thing is impossible of accomplishment.]
2. God can make man in his image without making man divine, i.e. God (Gen. 1:26-27).
3. Then God can separate himself into three manifestations/functioning roles without making himself three persons (three gods). [Remember: There is only one God, not merely one essence but one God. Polytheists believe in one divine essence and yet many gods. The Bible claims that this one essence (divinity) is only characteristic of one person! Biblical theists are monotheists rather than polytheists. It is neither sufficient nor accurate (in describing God) to say he has one essence and then ascribe that one essence to three persons! There can be many humans by distribution of Spirit; there can be only one God regardless of various conditions and/or functions.]
So, what does all this mean? It means that the Godhead is not separated into distinct persons such as a husband and wife are. It means that the form that each manifestation has (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is a form that never can be separated in the sense of complete individualization from the other manifestations. Think about this truth carefully. It is a little complex.
When God compartmentalizes himself into three manifestations, conditions, or roles, he is distinguishing eternal and infinite Spirit as such for the sake of function. There can be only one infinite, eternal Spirit (John 4:24; Isa. 45:5, 18; Acts 14:17; Rom. 1:20-21). Therefore, the “distinguishing” for function cannot be a complete individualizing of himself into more than one god or less than one God.
When God connects himself (eternal, infinite Spirit) to the fertilized human egg so that human reproduction occurs, another number in the human species arises. The flesh part is possible through male and female combination (John 1:13), and the spirit part is possible only because of Holy Spirit (Heb. 12:9; Mal. 2:14-15). Because of the law of kinds, the combination of flesh and Spirit allows for many individuals (cf. Gen. 1:28).
It is not so when eternal Spirit separates for function. In Gen. 1:1, God (one in eternal Spirit and plural in function) creates. God is plural in function although one in form. He has separated himself into peculiar parts of function so that he will throughout the existence of the physical universe inaugurate a threefold relationship that he wants to obtain between himself (God, Word, and Holy Spirit). In the New Testament this will become (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). But at no time could an individualization of eternal Spirit take place. God is one Lord. Moses recorded this after the creation (Deut. 6:4).
When Jesus came to earth, he gave up the “form” of God (Phil. 2:5-8). He could not stop being God! At the same time, however, that he gave up the “form” of God, he maintained his connection to (or association with, or combination with, or identity with) the Father and Holy Spirit so that oneness of person remained. It is only by remaining one person that Jesus can remain God by being the eternal and infinite Spirit. But (like Nicodemus in John 3:9), we ask, “How can these things be?” Somehow, the separation of the divine Spirit (which had allowed for the very creation of man and the following reproduction of men) allowed for that eternal Spirit to enter the womb of Mary, thus producing the Son of God. Notice, please, that in Luke 1:35 we are told that the Holy Spirit would come upon Mary and that the power of the Most High would overshadow her. The result would be a begettal. It would be a begettal via Holy Spirit and flesh. The flesh would not be a fertilized human egg. The flesh would be that of a virgin. So, by imposing himself on Mary, God produced a Son who was a combination of Spirit and flesh. This new entity would be called the Son of God. How could it be so? It would be so because the new product would be a combination of eternal God and created man. The holy thing that would be begotten would be called “the Son of God.” The one infinite, eternal Spirit continued to exist and thrive in the Lord Jesus while he was on earth and, the one infinite, eternal Spirit (John 4:24) continued to exist as the identical Spirit in the Father and in Holy Spirit in heaven (Phil. 2:5-8). Jesus would not be the Son of God without God’s maintaining his Oneness of existence!
Notice please that Paul affirms that Jesus when he came to earth gave up the “form” (singular) of God. He did not give up “forms.” This would mean that even though the Father and Holy Spirit have distinguishable identity in function, they remain one in form. It is Jesus who took on another form, that being the form of man (Phil. 2:5-8). The Father and Holy Spirit retained the “form” of God.
Understanding this helps me to see the singularity of God even though there is a plurality of function or purposed divine effort entailed in a changed divine condition (two forms).
The Bible does not say that God eternally existed with identity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It doesn’t even say that God eternally existed in the identity of God the first part who became the Father and God the second part who became the Son or as God the third part who was the Holy Spirit. What the Bible claims is that at the moment of creation, God had already “compartmentalized” himself into three roles in order to establish the exact relationship between himself and the creation that he desired to exist or obtain during the time of man’s existence on earth. The word for God in Gen. 1:1 is plural and the pronouns in 1:26-27 are plural and clearly identify the plurality of role (or function, or effort) that God would make with regard to man. But what these words do not tell us in the light of Deut. 6:4 is that God had always existed in these distinctive roles. That is mere assumption.
A different error made in the lectureship book is that Jesus was always the son of God. One writer wrote, “Jesus has been identified, or known, as Son of God throughout all eternity. There are many passages that prove this.” Interestingly, the passages that he cites (John 3:16; 1 John 4:14) do not prove the claim at all! The Bible nowhere teaches this. If Jesus had always been the son of God, then Jesus would have always been inferior to the Father eternally. Paul said there was complete equality between God and the Word before the incarnation (Phil. 2:5-8). If Jesus were the eternal Son of the Father, Jesus as Word could not have been equal. To make him equal, we would have to redefine the definition of Father and Son. And we are not in the position to change definitions to support our faulty concepts.
Another writer says, “The phrase ‘eternally begotten’ is often used here by theologians in reference to the eternal nature of the Son (cf. John 1:1-3).” Again, the passage, while claiming the eternality of the Word (who became flesh—John 1:14), says nothing about the claimed eternality of the Word existing as the Son of God. The expression “eternally begotten” is about as accurate as the expression “eternally created.” A begettal would be an event; so would a creation. How could either event be eternal? The fact is, Luke tells us the point at which the Word became the Son. Read Luke 1:35 very carefully, and the “mystery” disappears. An angel said to Mary, “Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and power of Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called Son of God.”
When the Word became flesh (John 1:14), the Word became the Son (Luke 1:35). The eternal Word became the Son of God when he became the son of Mary. This isn’t hard to comprehend. Any passage referring to the Word (John 1:1-2) as the “Son” of God would have to be prophetic and proleptic. The references could not be historic! Recall that Cyrus was named in Isa. 44:28 (more than 100 years before his birth) to be God’s shepherd and builder of the temple. And the young prophet predicted at Bethel that Josiah would later burn priests’ bones on Jeroboam’s altar, and he made this prophecy 300 years prior to the birth of Josiah! Neither Cyrus nor Josiah existed when their names were called in these Old Testament settings. Any reference to the Word’s being the Son before the actual event of Luke 1:35 occurred would have to be prophetic and proleptic. Prolepsis is an ascription of a characteristic or trait, etc., to a subject but which trait is not yet historically realized. The trait is applied to the subject before it is actually eventuated. An example of prolepsis would be: President Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin in Kentucky.
Remember, too, that the prophesied Son would in the incarnation be the Father, also! There is no Bible affirmation that God (who became the Father to the Word who became the Son by means of the Holy Spirit) was Father to the Word prior to the actual historical event described in Luke 1:35. Recall Isaiah’s marvelous prophecy. Read it carefully: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6).
The Son would be the Father! The Father would be the Son! And the Father and Son would be the one mighty God, and the one mighty God would be and had to be the one Holy Spirit who only God can be (John 4:24; Rev. 4:8-11). There is only one Maker (Isa. 45:5, 9, 18). This means that the creation by means of the Word as described in John 1:1-2 was not a description of the creation by God through another person. God is and only can be one Lord (Deut. 6:4). That is what Jesus was trying to help Philip to comprehend in John 14:9 when he said, “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou, Show us the Father?”
Now consider: The “distribution” of Holy Spirit (which the one God is) at the moment when Adam became a living soul (Gen. 2:7) or at the point when human conception takes place in human reproduction (Heb. 12:9), allowed and allows for a distribution of Holy Spirit into various individuals so that each person is completely distinct and completely whole as an individualized autonomous center of personhood, completely separate from all others in the same class of humans.
The compartmentalization of the one Spirit into functioning roles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was a distinction in condition and function by means of the change in form which God underwent in the incarnation of Christ. But the change in form and in relationship (Father and Son by means of Holy Spirit) did not include a separation of eternal Holy Spirit among the three manifestations of the Godhead who remained one person (the eternal God). Remember, God remained whole and completely God (one Spirit) after the creation of Adam who was made in his image. So, God can only remain one God as this one Spirit is shared by the roles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This shared oneness of divine Spirit in a unique relational condition, yet retains for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit deity itself! The “members” of the Godhead are manifestations (relationships of function) of one person rather than three.
Now, let me briefly note an objection which will arise to the above thesis. The question will come: If God is one person rather than three, what happens to the claim of Jesus on earth that he had the witness of the Father in addition to his own testimony. Look at John 8:12-20 carefully. The Pharisees suggest that since Jesus bore witness of himself, his witness wasn’t true (v. 13). In v. 14 Jesus claims that even if he had no other witness, what he was saying would still be true. And the proof which he cites has to do with his being God. He says, “my witness is true; for I know whence I came, and whither I go”. He came from God and is going back to God because he is God! God’s testimony does not require added witness! But, then, having made the claim that his word requires no further proof, he then adapts himself to their expectations under the law of Moses which required of mere men “witnesses.” He claims (v. 16) that his judgment is true for he is not alone. The Father that sent him is with him, and then he refers to the law of Moses which gave the witness requirement (v. 17). He says that he and the Father both bear witness and if the Pharisees knew who Jesus really was, they would know the Father (v. 18-20). Later in John 10:38, he claims that his works witness to his truth. They are the works of the Father, and if they would believe the works, they would then know that the Father is in Jesus and Jesus is in the Father. So, when we consider the witness required under the law of Moses for humans (that of two persons was required and sometimes that of three [cf. Deut. 17:6]), we see that the Lord’s discussion of himself and the Father is an accommodation to the Jewish law. And since the Father’s works constitute a witness, this shows clearly that the witness provided by deity does not necessitate witness of an additional person, for works are not a person! Too, remember that since God to Abraham could swear by none greater, “he sware by himself” (Heb. 6:13). He did not swear by “themselves!” Indeed, God is one person and always has been and always must be.
Now, when someone argues that we do have one God in the sense that we have one divine essence, but that we have three persons as necessitated by the distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, his reasoning will not hold. Why not? Think of Rom. 9:5 with 1 Cor. 8:4-6. In Rom. 9, Paul claims that Jesus in the flesh was of Jewish ancestry. But he was much more than that. He was and “is Christ,” and Paul says that Christ is the one “who is over all,” and the Christ who is over all is “God blessed for ever. Amen.” Jesus Christ, a Jew “as concerning the flesh” is over all because he is God!
In 1 Cor. 8, Paul is discussing food sacrificed to idols. In that discussion, he says that Christians know that there is only one God (v. 4). Then he points out that in the world the view is different. There are many alleged beings that are “called gods whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many” (v. 5). Then in contrast to the false view in the world, he says “yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him” (v. 6). Now follow these arguments:
Argument #2 on 1 Cor. 8:4-6
1. If (1) Paul affirms that there is only one God, and if (2) Paul grants that there are many so-called gods and lords, and if (3) Paul says that Christians have only one God the Father and one Lord, Jesus Christ, then Paul is affirming that the Father and the Son constitute one person.
2. (1) Paul affirms that there is only one God (v. 4); and (2) Paul grants that there are many so-called gods and lords (v. 5); and (3) Paul says that Christians have only one God the Father and one Lord (v. 6).
3. Then, Paul is affirming that the Father and the Son constitute one person.
Paul is not saying that the world has many gods and lords but that the church has only one of each, and thus has more than one God! He has already said in v. 4 that the church has only one God! If the gods and lords of the world are viewed as distinctive singularities in person, then Paul cannot be saying that the church has two!
Argument #3 on Perpetual Oneness of Person
1. If (1) God is one God, and if (2) God was one God before the incarnation of Christ, and if (3) God remained one God after the incarnation of Christ, then the distinction drawn between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cannot be a distinction in plurality of persons.
2. (1) God is one God (Deut. 6:4), and (2) God was one God before the incarnation of Christ (1 Cor. 8:4; John 1:14), and (3) God remained one God after the incarnation of Christ (1 Cor. 8:4).
3. Then, the distinction drawn between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cannot be a distinction in plurality of persons.
Argument #4 On Essence and Number
1. If (1) there is only one divine essence (divinity; that which makes God to be God), and if (2) that divinity is characteristic of one God, then that one divine essence (divinity; that which makes God to be God) equals one person.
2. (1) There is only one divine essence (divinity; that which makes God to be God) (Rom. 1:20-21; Acts 17:29), and (2) that divinity is characteristic of only one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:4).
3. Then, that one divine essence (divinity; that which makes God to be God) equals one person.
Argument #5 On God and Number
1. If (1) one God equals three persons and if (2) three gods equal three persons, then one God equals three gods.
2. But it is false that (1) one God equals three gods (1 Cor. 8:4-6).
3. Then, it is false that one God equals three persons.
So, over the years, we in the churches of Christ have been wrongly describing God! He is not simply one divine essence in three persons. He is the one divine essence who is the one God!
Now, let me close with three final arguments. In our past interpretation of passages which referenced Jesus Christ or the Father or the Holy Spirit, we envisioned three divine persons. We were wrong in the plurality of persons and we miscounted the number of forms. There are only two forms that involve the Godhead: the form of God and the form of man (Phil. 2:6-7). There are not three. Regarding God and man, we are dealing with divinity and humanity (or, we can say that we are dealing with flesh and Spirit). Now, consider these two arguments:
Argument #6 On Two Forms
1. If (1) Jesus was the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form, and (2) if the Father and Holy Spirit retained the form (not forms) of God, then during the incarnation of Christ, the Godhead existed in two forms (the form of God and the form of man).
2. (1) Jesus was the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form (Col. 2:9), and (2) the Father and Holy Spirit retained the form (not forms) of God (Phil. 2:6-7).
3. Then, during the incarnation of Christ, the Godhead existed in two forms (the form of God and the form of man).
What we have historically interpreted from the New Testament as three persons in the Godhead [(1) the person of God the Father, (2) the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and (3) the person of the Holy Spirit] has always been one person in two forms. Now, consider the last argument:
Argument #7 On Shared Being and Shared Intelligence
1. If God can use Holy Spirit in the making of men in one form of humanity and who share being and intelligence in several persons, then God can use Holy Spirit in producing the incarnation of Christ in one form (the form of humanity) while the Father and Holy Spirit retain one form (form of divinity), both forms sharing in one person, being (eternal existence) and intelligence.
2. God can use Holy Spirit in the making of men in one form of humanity (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7; Mal. 2:14-15; Heb. 12:9), and who share being and intelligence in several persons (Gen. 2:18-25).
3. Then, God can use Holy Spirit in producing the incarnation of Christ in one form (the form of humanity) while the Father and Holy Spirit retain one form (the form of divinity), both forms sharing in one person, being (eternal existence) and intelligence (Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:6-7; Matt. 16:13; Mark 14:61-62).
I hope we have learned that while it is possible for the eternal and infinite one God to make man in his (singular) image, and while it is possible for God to produce the incarnation of himself in Christ, it is impossible for God to stop being one God. Some of you who read this will remember our being taught that God is the one necessary being. It is impossible for him not to exist. His essence is to exist. And I will say that his essence to exist necessarily entails all of his attributes. All of his attributes in combination make it possible and necessary or essential for him to be the eternal and infinite God.
So, we have one more argument to consider:
Argument #8 On God’s Necessity
1. If (1) God exists necessarily, and if (2) God cannot cease to exist since he necessarily exists, and if (3) God’s necessary existence entails all of his attributes including his singularity of person, then God cannot cease being one person.
2. (1) God exists necessary (definition), and (2) God cannot cease to exist since he necessarily exists (definition), and (3) God’s necessary existence entails all of his attributes including his singularity of person (Deut. 6:4; Isa. 43:11; 45:6, 9, 18; Rom. 1:20-21; 1 Cor. 8:4).
3. Then, God cannot cease being one person.
Now, have we unraveled the complexity of the Godhead? Of course not! Have we made a little conceptual and thus descriptional progress? We in our struggling way hope that we have made a little. As we eliminate false concepts of God, and thus wrong descriptions, we make progress in our thinking. And the more truth about God that we come to realize, the more profound he appears to us in our meditation.
Biblical Notes 