Trinity Study Outline

Website: Studying the Word of God

Authors: Brian K. McPherson and Scott McPherson

Web Address (URL): biblestudying.net

Trinity Study Outline

Introduction to the Issues
Orthodox Definition of the Trinity (which we hold to)
The Father, the Word (Son), and the Holy Spirit are three eternally distinct and co-equal persons, yet one God – Jehovah (or YHWH).
The concept of the Trinity is monotheistic, not polytheistic.
Trinitarian monotheism is articulated by the Old Testament (and then continued in the New Testament).
Heretical Views of the Trinity
The evidence in the Old Testament (as well as the New Testament) rules out any form of Modalism or Arianism.
Modalism
Modalism teaches that there is only one person within the Godhead although he interacts with men in different modes, forms, or roles.

“Trinity – An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself…came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica

Arianism
Arianism teaches that the Word and the Spirit were created, sub-deities who worked in concert with the Supreme Being.

“Semi-Arianism – Arius held that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three separate essences (ousiai) or substances (hypostaseis) and that the Son and Spirit derived their divinity from the Father, were created in time, and were inferior to the Godhead.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica

Important questions regarding views of the Trinity
Are the different persons really one person acting in different roles or forms?
Or, are some of the different persons actually created sub-deities?
What evidence is it that raises such questions in the first place?

Introduction to the Terms
The name of God
Throughout this study we will be using the four-letter designation “YHWH” for “Yahweh” or “Jehovah.”
(Yahweh and Jehovah are simply two alternate pronunciations of the same name.)
This is the proper name of God, revealed and used throughout the Old Testament.

“YHWH – yahweh — compare tetragrammaton.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

“Tetragrammaton – the four Hebrew letters usually transliterated YHWH or JHVH that form a biblical proper name of God — compare yahweh.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

Typically, English translations of the Bible use the all capitalized word “LORD” in place of YHWH or JHVH.
This is completely acceptable for normal usage, but the use of a common term such as “Lord” in place of “YHWH” tends to down play that this Hebrew word is the proper name for God.
By contrast, the four letter designation YHWH has identity value.
For example, in English, there are many individuals that might be deemed lords.
So, if a text were to refer to the angel of God simply as “the LORD,” it would not carry the same connotation as reading the same sentence referring to the angel of God by the actual proper name Yahweh or Jehovah.
The use of the proper name conveys a specific identity where as the English term “lord,” even if capitalized, loses the attachment to a specific identity, namely in this case the identity of God.

The Term “Trinity”
The term “Trinity” does not appear anywhere in either the Old or the New Testament.
But this is not the issue as Trinitarians have never claimed that this term is found in scripture.
Instead, the term “Trinity” is simply a term that has been coined to collectively refer to facts that are presented in the Old and New Testament scripture about God.
Christian authors have always asserted the same group of Old Testament (and New Testament) facts, which by modern times are collectively summed up in the term “Trinity.”
A critical analysis of the Trinitarian model will necessarily require investigating those facts, which come together to comprise the model known summarily as “the Trinity.”

“Trinity – Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica

The followers of Jesus have always considered themselves monotheists, adhering to the Old Testament teaching that there is only one God, not many Gods, and not even just three Gods.
Nevertheless, Trinitarian Christians simultaneously assert that while there is only one God, within that single Being there are three eternally distinct persons.
Clarifying One Being and Three Persons
“Person” and “being” are most commonly considered to be synonyms for one another.
Yet, the Trinitarian seems to use “being” and “person” as though we all automatically distinguish clearly between those two terms.
To the average ear, the phrase “three persons in one being” makes about as much sense as saying, “three beings in one being” or “three persons in one person.”
Perhaps the most comprehendible definition of a “person” is a “consciousness,” a “center of consciousness,” or a “self-consciousness.”

“Self-conscious – 1a: conscious of one's own acts or states as belonging to or originating in oneself: aware of oneself as an individual. – self-consciousness, noun.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

(Therefore, it might be more helpful to think of the Trinitarian concept as three separate consciousnesses in one, single being.)

The Trinitarian model
The Trinitarian model is a recognition of the following facts about God presented in both the Old Testament and New Testament.
First, throughout the Old Testament God identifies himself by different terms or identities, such as YHWH/the LORD, the Word of YHWH, the Spirit of YHWH, or even the angel of YHWH.
In the New Testament, these identities and terms are respectively identified with additional terms such as the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The actions of God under these respective titles fall into definable categories or trends, indicating that these titles signify roles or identities of God, not merely different, superficial names or nicknames.
If this first fact was all that there was, then some form of Modalism might suffice as the conclusion.
Second, there are instances that are both prominent and very early in the Old Testament where there is communication between two of those identities of God.
We find this trend continued in the New Testament as well.
The trend itself demonstrates two key facts.
First, the two identities exist simultaneously rather than transitioning from one another at different times.
Second, it demonstrates that each identity is aware of himself and the other identities as distinct from one another.
For example, YHWH may talk to the angel of YHWH, or the Father may speak to the Word, or the Word may talk about asking the Father to send the Holy Spirit after the Word himself returns to the Father.
It is the intercommunicating nature of these multiple identities for God and the distinction from one another inherent in their communication that defines the concept of multiple consciousnesses within the Godhead (three to be exact, when all the analysis is complete.)

Proving and Disproving Models of the Godhead
To Disprove the Trinitarian Model
In order to disprove the Trinitarian model, at least one of two main components has to be disproved.
Either it would have to be disproved that there are multiple identities for God in the Old and New Testaments.
If there aren’t multiple figures identified as God, but the suggested additional figures are shown to be created beings, then the additional consciousnesses (beyond one) are shown to be outside the Godhead.
(In this case, at least a basic Arian view would be correct.)
Or it would have to be disproved that those multiple identities intercommunicate with one another.
If there is no actual intercommunication between the various identities of God, then there is no basis for suggesting anything more than one consciousness for the Godhead that interacts with man in different forms, different identities, different roles at different times.
(In this case, at least a basic Modalist view would be correct).
The concept that multiple figures are identified as God is generally critiqued on two grounds.
First, it is argued that particular figures are not really the Supreme God, but instead are created beings.
(Albeit possibly the first-created, highest-ranking, or closest-replica of God among all creation.)
In other words, the eternality or uncreated status of a particular identity is questioned.
Second, it is argued that particular figures are not really the Supreme God because they lack the defining attributes of God, most often omniscience or omnipotence for example.
If the facts of scripture indeed present some of the identities as lacking in one trait or another, the Trinitarian model will have to be able to point to some scriptural facts explaining how or why this can be the case if those identities are truly God.
Otherwise, the Trinitarian model will be shown to incomplete at best or incomprehensible and in error at worst.
Briefly describing the Trinitarian answer to this second criticism.
In short, certain passages in the Old and New Testaments (such as Philippians 2:5-11 and Exodus 33-34, which will be discussed in detail later on) explicitly describe a voluntary diminishing of access or utilization of divine attributes on the part of some of the Persons of the Godhead.
This voluntary diminishing is described in such passages as a necessary facilitator for certain kinds of interaction, mediation, and even redemption.
Consequently, in light of such explicit explanations within the text of scripture itself, particular instances in which a particular figure of YHWH exhibits less than total omnipotence or omniscience, for example, do not constitute evidence that the figure is not God since the lacking attribute is not the result of any inherent natural deficiency but of voluntary restraint.
In this way, Trinitarianism survives this second criticism.
Disproving Modalist or Arian Views
Disproving Arianism
Arianism in generic form simply denies that there are “multiple” figures within the Godhead, and instead relegates these additional figures to status of created beings.
Consequently, Arianism requires the denial of any instances in which the additional figures are identified directly as YHWH God.
But, as we will see, the statements themselves are so explicit that Arianism’s only resort is to categorize them as “figures of speech.”
This is a purely convenient claim.
Its departure from the normal, plain meaning cannot be substantiated.
It cannot explain why otherwise seemingly normal, plain statements should be converted to loose, inaccurate statements.
The hope is that by mere suggestion we will simply discard the plain and undeniable implications of God’s own words about himself as strange, nonsensical artifacts of an ancient language.
Disproving Modalism
When the concept of multiple identities of God is accepted but the idea of multiple consciousness is denied, the result is Modalism.
Modalism teaches that there is one consciousness to God although he interacts with man in different modes or roles.
Because intercommunication involves the simultaneous existence of the identities and their self-awareness of distinction from one another as indicated by their statements, Modalism requires the denial of any actual intercommunication between the identities of God.
And again, as we will see, the statements themselves are so explicit that Modalism’s only resort is to categorize them as illusionary in the hopes that we will simply discard the plain and undeniable implications of God’s own words about himself.
A Third Criticism – The Trinity is an Absurd Concept
The Trinitarian concept is also criticized on the grounds that it is logically absurd or impossible.
Specifically, how can there be three distinct consciousnesses in a single being?
Or, in other words, if there were in fact three distinct consciousnesses, what basis would we have for regarding them as one being rather than three beings?
This criticism takes focus on what possible unity or oneness there might be between multiple consciousnesses.
And, on this point as well, Trinitarians must point to scriptural facts, not abstract or vague appeals, in order to satisfactorily describe how these three consciousnesses are united as one being.
The Central Issue – How the Supreme Being and distinguishes himself from all other beings.
Those defining traits for the Godhead are as follows.
First, having never been created but always having existed from eternity past.
Second, the possession of such traits as omniscience and omnipotence.
Summarily, the Trinitarian concept requires that scripture presents the eternal (uncreated) existence of multiple, intercommunicating identities of God and an explanation for any potential differentiation in abilities, such as omniscience or omnipotence, among those identities.
(And we have already indicated above the explanation Trinitarianism provides for any lacking abilities among divine Persons in particular passages.)
A peripheral critique regarding the Trinitarian assertion of multiple consciousnesses within the Godhead.
In order to divide one consciousness from the next, would such consciousnesses have to be limited in their knowledge of one another?
In other words, if one consciousness is completely aware of another, shouldn’t they really be considered the same consciousness?
The answer is no.
Awareness of another consciousness does not have to be limited or incomplete in order to be a separate consciousness.
This is most plainly seen in God’s knowledge of us as human beings.
God has complete, intimate knowledge of all our thoughts, feelings, memories, etc. – of everything about us – and yet despite the total awareness that God’s consciousness has of our consciousnesses, his consciousness is not one with our own.
Pantheistic or other mystical worldviews may hold to such a doctrine of a universal consciousness which we are all a part of.
But neither ancient Judaism, nor rabbinical Judaism, nor Trinitarian Christianity or non-Trinitarian Christianity holds to such an idea.
Regardless of whether or not they accept or reject the concept of the Trinity, Jews and professed-Christians of all sects reject the idea that our consciousnesses are one with God’s consciousness.
And consequently, the fact that God’s complete conscious awareness of everything about us does not mean we are one consciousness with God.
Similarly, if God has multiple consciousnesses, their total awareness of one another would not necessitate that they are ultimately one consciousness.
Introduction to the Approach
Over the course of this study, we will be emphasizing the presence of Trinitarian facts in the Old Testament, often adding the New Testament afterward in parenthesis.
The reason for this practice stems from the fact that the Trinitarian concept is often perceived as being a unique and new doctrine initiated by the New Testament when, in reality, the facts of the Old Testament very clearly present the opposite conclusion.
Our intention is to emphasize the facts of the Trinity as an Old Testament phenomenon that the New Testament merely continues with a natural increase in detail but not with a jolting and drastic new direction.
A Lead-In to Our Examination – A Thought Provoking Question
If the Trinitarian concept is unique and novel to the New Testament and is not presented or raised at all in the Old Testament, then why are the “members” of the Trinity identified with terms used frequently throughout the Old Testament?
The terms Father, Word of God, or Spirit of God serve as the more prominent examples.
Corollary questions
Why are such terms are even present in the Old Testament in the first place and available for the New Testament to make use of if the New Testament view is so unique and new?
What are such terms doing in the Old Testament?
Does the Old Testament provide a clear explanation for these terms that is entirely different from the New Testament’s explanation of them?
Does the Old Testament give some explicit facts but without fully defining or explaining them, perhaps leaving open the need for further explanation?
Or, are the Old Testament facts about God themselves rather clear, even though an outright, explicit dissertation explaining the meaning of those facts might be missing?
In other words, is the Old Testament simply less explicit (providing no outright explanations) while the shear facts it presents about these titles for God are themselves identical to the Trinitarian model?
(Is this true at least concerning the Father and the Word of YHWH, even if perhaps less complete concerning the third identity, the Spirit of YHWH?)
Important things to keep in mind as we begin our review of the Old Testament statement about God.
Some of these passages are very early and very prominent in the Old Testament revelation of God to man.
The most controversial and critical statements come at very early, defining points in the history of God’s revelation of himself to the Jewish people, including in the life of the patriarchs, such as Abraham, Jacob, and Moses.
This is extremely significant for three related reasons.
First, the concepts found in these passages cannot be regarded as divergent concepts of later developments within Judaism but must be regarded as foundational and original Judaism.
Second, the concepts found in these passages cannot be regarded as resulting from pagan influence, since these patriarchs and the events involved are regarded by the Jewish people as the very foundations that define Judaism in distinction from other religions and philosophies.
Third, the concepts found in these earlier and prominent passages must be regarded as providing defining precedent that informs all later passages, which describe similar or related events.
In other words, it should be assumed that the authors of later Jewish scriptures were familiar with and faithful followers of earlier Jewish instruction and history.
Consequently, they not only understood their own experiences in relation to that earlier history but when they wrote their accounts, they intended their words to be understood in terms of continuity with those earlier Jewish records.
As a result, later passages of Jewish scripture will build on previous scripture and will assume their audiences will let the details of earlier and prominent passages inform their interpretation of later records.
In light of this, we too will build our understanding of the Godhead assuming that similar or related events, which occur later, should be interpreted in terms of events recorded earlier, rather than in a vacuum from them.
Introduction to Primary Objections
Deuteronomy 6:4, a very prominent Old Testament passage that is commonly known to the Jews as the Shema.

“Trinity – Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica