News and Comments

BRI's Website Has a New Look!

Editor's Pick

Sola Scriptura: Authority, Reliability, and Relevance of the Bible

Revisiting the Trinity and Exploring the Trinity

rxa1743603203125.svg

Sidebar

An official website of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

J1V1748441869297.jpg

Bible Studies

The Trinity in Scripture

Mobile Social Buttons

Theological Focus

“The Creator Loves This Place: God’s Care for His Creation and Our Responsibility”

A Biblical Perspective on the Philosophy of Science

A Reply to “What Do the Scriptures Say About the Sabbath?”

Book Notes

Bailey, Phylis C. Topical Concordance of the Bible

zwB1747896589220.jpg

Trinity in the Bible

S161747900167663.jpg

Biblical Environmentalism

FIRSTNAME

LASTNAME

Your e-mail address is only used to send you our newsletter and information about the activities of Biblical Research Institute. You can always use the unsubscribe link included in the newsletter.

Content

Container

Book Review

Adventist and Catholics: The History of a Turbulent Relationship

René Gehring, Die Dreieinigkeit in Bibel und Adventgeschichte (The Trinity in the Bible and in Adventist History) (Austria: Seminar Schloss Bogenhofen, 2021. 161 pp; US $ 19.00)

Reinhardt Stander, Preterism, Futurism or Historicism? Dissertation, Stellenbosch University, South Africa. March 2021. 298 pp.

Mobile Header

NDR1747803749049.jpg

Artificial Intelligence: is it a blessing or a curse?

Article

“tri-unity” or “three-in-oneness”) is one of the most important doctrines of the Christian faith. However, in recent times some Adventists have begun to question its validity.

At the 1995 General Conference in Utrecht, Fred Allaback distributed a paper entitled 

in which he claims that “the Seventh-day Adventist Church did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity until long after the death of Ellen G. White.”

 “The Adventist Pioneers,” he says, “believed that in the eons of eternity only one divine being existed. Then this one divine being had a Son.”

 Thus Christ had a beginning. In regard to the Holy Spirit, Allaback believes that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and Christ not another divine being.

Virtually the same view is held by Bill Stringfellow,

 All of whom claim that Jesus at one point in time did not exist and that the Holy Spirit is only a force. Stringfellow says, “Just think, there was a certain, specific day when God brought forth His Son ... way, way back one beautiful, historic day. There was a time (even though it is impossible to think back that far into the past) when Christ did not exist.”

Although the word Trinity is not found in the Bible (neither is the word incarnation), the teaching it describes is clearly found there. Briefly defined, the doctrine of the Trinity stands for the concept that “God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God.”

The word “Trinity” never appears in the writings of Ellen White, instead she uses the term “Godhead” which is found in Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9. Through the word “Godhead” she conveys the same idea as is expressed by the term “Trinity,” that there are three living person in the Godhead. For example,

 how much more the incarnation or the Trinity. However, that should not trouble us as long as the different aspects of these mysteries are clearly taught in Scripture. Even though we may not be able to comprehend logically the various aspects of the trinity, we need to try and understand as best as we can the scriptural teaching regarding it. All attempts to explain the Trinity will fall short, “especially when we reflect on the relation of the three persons to the divine essence ... all analogies fail us and we become deeply conscious of the fact that the Trinity is a mystery far beyond our comprehension. It is the incomprehensible glory of the Godhead.”

 Therefore, we do well to admit that “man cannot comprehend it and make it intelligible. It is intelligible in some of its relations and modes of manifestations, but unintelligible in its essential nature.”

In studying the Trinity in Scripture we need to be aware that we can only ever achieve a partial understanding of what the Trinity is. As we listen to God’s Word, certain elements of the Trinity will become clear, others will remain a mystery. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut 29:29). Where we do not have a clear word from Scripture, silence is golden.

Several passages in the Old Testament suggest or even imply that God exists in more than one person, not necessarily in a trinity, but at least in a binary.

Throughout the creation story in Genesis 1 the word for God is 

. Generally, this plural has been interpreted as a plural of majesty rather than of plurality. However, G. A. F. Knight has correctly argued that to make this a plural of majesty is to read into the ancient Hebrew text a modern concept, since the kings of Israel and Judah are all addressed in the singular in the biblical record.

 Furthermore, Knight points out that the Hebrew words for water and heaven are both plural. Grammarians have termed this phenomenon the quantitative plural. Water can appear in the form of small drops or large oceans. This quantitative diversity in unity, says Knight, is a fitting way of understanding the plural 

. This also explains why the singular noun 

In Genesis 1:26, we read “Then God said (singular), ‘Let Us make (plural) man in Our (plural) image, according to Our (plural) likeness.’” What is significant is the shift from singular to plural. Moses is not using a plural verb with 

, but God is using a plural verb and plural pronouns in reference to himself. Some interpreters believe that God is here speaking to the angels. But according to Scripture, angels did not participate in creation. The best explanation is that already in the first chapter of Genesis there is an indication of a plurality of persons in God himself.

According to Genesis 2:24, man and woman are to “become one (

) flesh,” a union of two separate persons. In Deuteronomy 6:4 the same word is used of God, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one (

).” Millard J. Erickson says, “ It seems that something is being affirmed here about the nature of God — he is an organism, that is, a unity of distinct parts.”

(only one, unique) in Deuteronomy 6:4, but the Holy Spirit chose not to do so.

3. Other Old Testament Texts Expressing a Plurality

After the fall of man God said, “Behold, man has become like one of Us” (Gen 3:22). And some time later, when men began to build the tower of Babel, the LORD said, “Come let Us go down and there confuse their language” (Gen 11:7). Each time the plurality of the Godhead is emphasized.

In his famous throne vision Isaiah hears the LORD asking, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” (Isa 6:8). Here we have God using the singular and plural in the same sentence. Many modern scholars take it as a reference to the heavenly council. But did God ever call on his creatures for advice? In Isaiah 40:13,14 he seems to refute this very notion. He has no need of counseling with his creatures, not even with heavenly beings. The plural, therefore, while not proving the Trinity, suggests that there is a plurality of beings in the speaker.

The phrase “angel of the LORD” appears fifty-eight times in the Old Testament, “the angel of God” eleven times. The Hebrew word 

“angel” means simply “messenger.” Therefore, if the “Angel of the LORD” is a messenger of the LORD, he must be distinct from the LORD himself. Yet, in a number of texts the “Angel of the LORD” is also called “God” or “LORD” (Gen 16:7-13; Num 22:31- 38; Judg 2:1-4; 6:22). The Church Fathers identified him with the pre-incarnate Logos. Modern scholars have seen him as a being who represents God, as God himself, or as some external power of God. Conservative scholars generally agree that “this ‘messenger’ must be seen as a special manifestation of the being of God himself.”

 If this is correct, we have here another indicator of the plurality of persons in the Godhead.

Truth in Scripture is progressive, therefore, when we come to the New Testament we find a more explicit picture of the Trinitarian nature of God. The very fact that God is said to be love (1 John 4:8) implies that there must be a plurality within the Godhead since love can only exist in a relationship between different beings.

(a) At the baptism of Jesus, we encounter the three members of the Godhead in action at the same time:

The account of Jesus baptism is a striking manifestation of the doctrine of the Trinity — there stood Christ in human form, visible to all; the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ in bodily form as a dove; and the voice of the Father spoke from heaven, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” In John 10:30 Christ claims equality with the Father, and in Acts 5:3, 4 the Holy Spirit is identified as God. It is impossible, therefore to explain the scene at Christ’s baptism in any other way than by assuming that there are three equal persons in the divine nature or essence.

At the baptism of Jesus the Father called him “my beloved Son.” The sonship of Jesus, however, is not ontological but functional. In the plan of salvation each member of the Trinity has accepted a particular role. It is a role for the purpose of accomplishing a particular goal, not a change in essence or status. Millard J. Erickson explains it this way:

The terms of “Father” and “Son” in Western thinking carry with them the ideas of origin, dependence, and subordination. In the Semitic or Oriental mind, however, they emphasize sameness of nature. Thus when the Scriptures speak of the “Son” of God they assert his divinity.

(b) At the end of his ministry, Jesus tells his disciples that they should go “and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19). In this, the initiatory rite of each believer into the Christian religion, the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly stated. First, we note that “in the name” (

) is singular, not plural “in the names.” To be baptized in the name of the three persons of the Trinity means to identify oneself with everything the Trinity stands for; to commit oneself to the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit.

 Second, the union of these three names indicates that the Son and the Holy Spirit are equal with the Father. It would be rather strange, not to say blasphemous, to unite the name of the eternal God with a created being (whether eternally created or at some point of time), and a force or power in this baptismal formula. “When the Holy Spirit is put in the same expression and on the same level as the two other persons, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is also viewed as a person and of equal standing with the Father and the Son.”

Paul and the New Testament writers generally use the word “God” to refer to the Father, “Lord” to refer to the Son, and “Spirit” to refer to the Holy Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 Paul refers to all three in the same text:

Similarly, in 2 Corinthians 13:14 he lists the three persons of the Trinity:

While we cannot say that these texts are a formal enunciation of the Trinity, these passages and others like it, e. g., Ephesians 4:4-6, are distinctly Trinitarian in character. It was the church in later times which hammered out the details of the Trinity, but they built on the foundations of the biblical writers.

A crucial element in the doctrine of the Trinity is the divinity of Christ. Since the Trinity doctrine teaches that there is one God in three persons, and that each person is fully God, it is important to ascertain what Scripture teaches about the divinity of Christ.

The Divinity of Christ in the New Testament

There are a number of passages in the New Testament which clearly affirm the full deity of Christ:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The introductory phrase “in [the] beginning” (without the article) refers us back to the beginning of time. If the Word was “in the beginning,” then he himself was without beginning, which is another way of saying he was eternal.

“The Word was with God” tells us that the Word is a separate person or personality. The Word was not in (

) God. Since the Father and the Holy Spirit are God, the word “God” most likely includes both of the other members of the Trinity.

“And the Word was God,” or, more literally “and God was the Word.” The Word was not an emanation of God but God himself. While verse 1 does not tell us who the Word is, verse 14 clearly identifies it as Christ. “A more emphatic and unequivocal affirmation of the absolute Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ it is impossible to conceive.”

“And Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God.’” This is the only time in the Gospels that anyone said to Christ “my God” (

). When Thomas saw the resurrected Christ, the doubter was transformed into a worshiper. It is significant that neither Christ at the time it happened nor John when he wrote the Gospel disapproved of what Thomas said. On the contrary, as far as John was concerned, this episode constituted a high point in his narration, for he immediately tells the reader,

This Gospel, says John, is written to persuade people to imitate Thomas who called Jesus “My Lord and my God.”

Although this passage was written to illustrate humility, it is one of the key NT texts to support Christ’s divinity. “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form (

) to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form (

) of a bond-servant, and coming in the likeness of men.”

“form,” or, “visible appearance” describes the genuine nature of a thing, its essence. It “refers not to any changeable form but to the specific form on which identity and status depend.”

(2:8) which also means “form” but in the sense of superficial appearance rather than essence. The noun 

appears only in this text in the NT; the corresponding verb means “steal, take away forcefully.” In secular Greek the noun means “robbery.” However, the context makes it clear that Jesus did not covet, or try to steal “equality with God,” on the contrary, he did not attempt to hold on to the equality with God which he possessed intrinsically. In other words, he did not attempt to retain his equality with God by force, but “treated it as an occasion for renouncing every advantage or privilege that might have accrued to him thereby, as an opportunity for self-impoverishment and unreserved self-sacrifice.”

 This is the meaning of “but made Himself of no reputation.” His equality with God was something he possessed intrinsically; and one who is equal with God must be God. Hence, Philippians 2:5-7 “is a passage which demands for its understanding that Jesus was divine in the fullest sense.”

has the basic meaning of “fullness, fulfillment.” In the Old Testament it refers repeatedly to the earth/sea and “all its fullness” (Ps 24:1; cf. 50:12; 89:11; 96:11; 98:7), which is quoted in 1 Corinthians 10:26, 28. In secular Greek pleroma referred to the full complement of a ship’s crew or to the amount necessary to complete a financial transaction. In Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 Paul uses the word to describe the sum total of every function of divinity.

 This fullness dwelt in Christ “bodily,” i.e., even during his incarnation Christ retained all the essential attributes of divinity, though he did not use them for his own advantage. The fullness of the Godhead “made its abode in his humanity without consuming it or deifying it, or changing any of its essential properties. It was easily seen that Godhead dwelt in that humanity, for glimpses of its glory flashed again and again through its earthly covering.”

Paul describes the saints as “looking for the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (NKJV). The KJV translates this passage as “the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,” which has the saints waiting for the Father and the Son. While this translation is possible, the NKJV rendering is to be preferred for the following reasons: (1) The two nouns “God” and “Savior” are connected by one article, indicating that, as a rule, the two nouns are two designations of one object. (2) The entire New Testament looks forward to the second coming of Christ. (3) The context in verse 14 speaks of Christ alone. (4) This interpretation is in harmony with other passages such as John 20:28; Rom 9:5; Heb 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1. This text, therefore, is an explicit assertion of the deity of Christ.

Not only is Jesus called God in the New Testament but he is also called Lord and God in quotations from the Old Testament where the Hebrew has Yahweh or Elohim.

“The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord.” According to verse 1, this text from Isaiah refers to John the Baptist who was the forerunner of Jesus. In Isaiah 40:3 the word for Lord is Yahweh. Thus “the Lord” whose way John was to prepare was none other than Yahweh himself.

“For whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.” The context (vss. 6-12) makes it clear that Paul is thinking of Christ when he refers to “the name of the LORD.” The text is a quote from Joel 2:32 where the word for LORD in the Hebrew is again Yahweh.

In this text Paul reminds his readers that “we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.” He then adds a quote from Isaiah 45:23 which says “As I live says the LORD, every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess to God.” In Isaiah the speaker is Yahweh; in the book of Romans the text is applied to Christ.

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever... God, your God has anointed you.” In this chapter, seven Old Testament texts are used to support the argument that Christ is superior to the angels. The fifth text, quoted in verses 8 and 9, comes from Psalm 45:6,7, where a king of the house of David is addressed as “God.” Is this a poetic hyperbole as is sometimes found in oriental courts, or is this text pointing to another person beyond the Old Testament prince from the house of David?

All these passages indicate that Christ and God and Yahweh are one.

Jesus never directly asserted his divinity, nevertheless his teaching was permeated with Trinitarian concepts. In accordance with the Hebrew idea of son-ship, i. e., whatever the father is, that is the son also, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God (Matt 9:27; 24:36; Luke 10:22; John 9:35-37; 11:4). The Jews understood that by claiming to be the Son of God he was claiming equality with God, “Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18, cf. 10:33).

Jesus repeatedly claimed to possess what properly only belongs to God. “He spoke of the angels of God (Luke 12:8-9; 15:10) as his angels (Matt 13:41). He regarded the kingdom of God (Matt 12:28; 19:14, 24; 21:31, 34) and the elect of God (Mark 13:20) as his own.”

 In Luke 5:20 Jesus forgave the sins of the paralytic, and the Jews on the basis of Isaiah 43:25 correctly argued “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Thus implicit in Jesus’ action of forgiveness was the claim to be God.

Christ’s divinity is also indicated by his use of the present tense in his reply to the Jews, “Before Abraham was [born] (

(I am) Jesus contrasts his eternal existence with the historical beginning of the existence of Abraham. It is eternity of being and not simply pre-existence before Abraham which is expressed here. The Jews at least understood it this way, they realized that Jesus claimed to be Yahweh, the I AM from the burning bush (Exod 3:14), therefore they took up stones to kill him (8:59).

Finally, the fact that Jesus accepted the worship of others is evidence that he himself recognized his divinity. After Jesus came to the disciples walking on water, “they worshiped him” (Matt 14:33). The blind man whose sight was restored, after he washed in the pool of Siloam, “worshiped Him” (John 9:38). After the resurrection the disciples went to Galilee where Jesus appeared to them, and “they worshiped Him” (Matt 28:17).

Time and again Jesus accepted worship as perfectly proper. He thereby laid direct claim to divinity.

Anti-Trinitarians use a number of Bible texts to support their contention that Jesus at some time in eternity was “begotten,” i.e., he had a beginning and that he is therefore not absolutely equal to God.

“Jesus, the beginning of God’s creation.” It is claimed that Jesus was created at some point in the past, that he was God’s first work.

“I was brought forth.”It is argued that this passage refers to Jesus and teaches that Jesus was either born or created.

“Jesus, the firstborn.” Since Jesus is called the “first-born” (

), it is argued that he must have had a beginning.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” It is claimed that there is a distinction in equality between God the Father, who is the God, and Jesus, who is only a god. The Greek term for God (

), “the God,” or without the article, “a god” or “God”. In John 1:1-3 the Father is named 

. Does this justify the claim that the Father is God Almighty whereas the Son is only a god?

Main menu

Footer menu

A leader in the exploration of biblical truth and the creation of cutting-edge biblical and theological resources to enhance the world church’s understanding and expression of its message, mission, and unity in a globally sensitive and relevant way.