One of the seemingly most difficult doctrines of Christianity appears to be the Trinity. Quite often, within discussions, confusion seems to follow.
As I was finishing up my coursework for my bachelor’s, I enrolled in a class that centered around the Trinity. It wasn’t a topic I was all that interested in at that time, as I felt that I had a pretty good understanding of what the Trinity was. Simply, I was wrong.
The course itself was set up more like a master’s level seminar, where we were expected to produce original research on the subject. Having had a focus on history, my primary focus was tracing the origin of the Trinity as far back as possible, in order to see not only the various influences that impacted Trinitarian belief, but also to see how it was formulated. I believe that by knowing where the Trinity idea originated, it becomes easier to understand where it went, and what it really means.
First, I think some basic definitions are needed. When talking about the Trinity, a variety of terms have been used. I generally use either Trinity, or Tripersonal God. The two are interchangeable, but I personally like the title the Tripersonal God as I think it better relates to what the Trinity is.
The Trinity is comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is some debate regarding this terminology, as some feel that it is sexist, or limiting. Within some feminist theology, one could see reference to the Mother, the Daughter, and the Holy Spirit. There is also reference to the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Comforter, as well as other similar ideas.
However, historically speaking (as well as traditionally speaking), the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit set up is most accurate, and really, it does not have to be sexist or limiting, as the Holy Spirit has been seen as female, and even God (the Father, which in this context refers to being the father of Jesus) often is portrayed in feminine ways.
Working with the set-up, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we do see three distinct personas (or persons, or beings, or entities. I feel that persona is historically the most accurate, and best portrays what is being spoken of). It would be worth speaking about each separately just for a moment. When speaking about the Father, we are not speaking about Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. The Father refers to God; Yahweh. When speaking about the Father, we are speaking about the God that we see in the Old Testament. It is the character we usually refer to as God.
Jesus really doesn’t need any explanation, as Jesus is someone I think most are quite familiar with. He was (in the Trinitarian view), both fully divine, as well as fully human. Jesus is not the God of the Old Testament though. John does make the argument that he was the Logos, the word, but this is distinct from God.
Probably the most complicated figure here is the Holy Spirit. We here are speaking about the Spirit of Holiness. One thing that has to be remembered is that Spirit and Breath are very connected. In Greek, the two words are the same (as is in Hebrew). In a sense, we are talking about the breath, or Spirit of God. Really, it takes the place of Jesus as Jesus is said to leave (only to come back at the end of time). This is not a spirit in the modern sense of ghost. It is actually quite distinctly different. The Holy Spirit is basically a comforter, the presence of God.
The difficult part then, is to make these three distinct personas into one entity. How do you make 3 into 1? And why? The why is easier. We are after all talking about a monotheistic tradition. There was no want to create another god, nor would it have made sense to the earliest followers. So it was necessary to take the current view of God (which could be argued was a bipersonal model, at least in some regards. Judaism did have a history of having multiple roles of God, such as Wisdom, or the Spirit) and be able to change it a bit in order to incorporate a new figure. This way they could continue to be true to their origins, as a monotheistic religion.
The how is a little more difficult. From early on (and I will go into this more in a later post which I will link back to this post as well), Jesus was associated with God. Paul calls Jesus Lord, which is a clear indication that Jesus was being associated with God (whom Lord generally referred to in this context). So Jesus was seen either as the incarnation of God, or God in some form. It was him being of the same substance, or matter of God, that caused him to be divine. But still he remained distinct. The Holy Spirit is easier to put into the mix as it is the Spirit of God. If we accept that there is a soul, or spirit, it would be just like how our soul is us, but it is not the only thing that distinguishes us. It goes on after our body dies.
That is a bit of a crude explanation of the Trinity. But I think jumping into the history can help round it out a bit. While the idea of God being multi-faceted, or having different personas, stretches back to the Old Testament and Jewish teachings, working within Christianity may be the better initial route to take.
Starting with Tertullian
I think the best place to start is with Tertullian. The reason for this is quite simple. Tertullian is the first to mention the term Trinity. This is somewhat significant as he is also our first Church Father to write in Latin. Before that, we are dealing with Greek. Tertullian really gave us the formula: one substance in three persons. So we are moving back to around the beginning of the third century with this idea.
However, Tertullian wasn’t operating in a vacuum. In fact, Tertullian reaffirms two basic doctrines from the Apologists. First, the divinity is from the Father, but it is not identical with the Father. Second, the Father’s Word has a real and distinct existence.
Moving back in time from Tertullian, we find Irenaeus, who is firmly in the second century. Irenaeus is particularly important not just for his advances in thought, but Origen was one of his later intellectual disciples. Side tracking for just a moment, Origen is important as really, for the next two centuries, theologians were basically just developing the schema he had created. But with Irenaeus, we see him being clear on a point, and I will quote from John Anthony McGuckin here; “it is the same God existing in different modalities of relation. These three relations of Fatherhood (the one divine Being), sonship (the living Reason of the Father), and Spirit (the hypostatic Wisdom of the Father) exist from all eternity….” Basically, Irenaeus tells us that the Son and Spirit are other than the Father, but essentially one with the Father.
Moving back even further, we find Clement of Rome (around 96 A.D.) who wrote to the Corinthian Christians. He writes: “It is to the humble that Christ belongs, not to those who exalt themselves above his flock. The Lord Jesus, who is the scepter of God’s own majesty, did not come in a show of arrogance and pride, but in humility, as the Holy Spirit spoke of him saying: ‘Lord, who has believed what we said….?” (Is 53:1-4) As well as: “For this is how Christ addresses us through his Holy Spirit: ‘Come Children and hear me that I may teach you the fear of the Lord…” (Ps 34:11-14)
What is important is to realize that it is Christ (according to Clement here) who is speaking in Isaiah and Psalms. It is Jesus, who is Lord, that brings peace from the Father. And it is the Spirit that reveals what is Christ’s pre-existent revelation. The three are quite intertwined here.
It is interesting that the earliest reference to the Trinity is completely made up of New Testament cloth. And if one looks closely, they can clearly see the influence Paul had here.
So we are seeing the formation of a Trinitarian idea beginning quite early. And seeing that Clement of Rome uses Paul quite a bit here, we can now move there.
When Paul calls Jesus Lord, Paul is equating Jesus, to some extent, with God. We can see this by the way in which Paul associates Jesus with God. The best example here is Philippians 2:5-11. Specifically, what stands out is the statement “that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow…and every tongue confess..” This is a direct allusion to Isaiah 45:23, which uses the same statements for God.
Basically, what Paul is doing here is using what was said about God, and applying it to Jesus. The reason is clear why, if we only look at what precedes this. Paul states specifically that “he [Jesus] was in the form of God, did not regard his equality with God as something to be taken advantage of.” Paul here clearly states that Jesus is equal (in some sense) to God, that he was in the form of God. The fact that he then uses statements regarding God and applies them to Jesus shows that Paul equates Jesus with God in some manner.
What is important here is that from Paul’s first letter, he is referring to Jesus as Lord. Really then, we are seeing the beginnings of the formation of the Trinity from the same generation in which Jesus died. It is, in other words, a very early development. But Paul also brings the Spirit into the mix. According to James Dunn, there is no distinction (that can be detected at least) in the believer’s experience of Christ and the Spirit of God. And he is basing this statement on reading Paul.
And it is with Paul that we see a Triadic Formula, such as in 2 Corinthians 13:13, where it states: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you.” Now, Paul isn’t equating the three here, but he is showing that they were associated with each other, and worked together.
Now, Paul is basically somewhat of a starting point. He doesn’t relate the full-blown Trinity doctrine, but we can see a starting point here with his Triadic formula, his equation (to some extent) of Jesus and God, as well as his use of Christ and Spirit of God to the point in which how a believer experiences them is nearly indistinguishable.
Now, of course, this isn’t a full-blown historical survey, as I’m leaving out important figures such as Justin Martyr, as well as the Gospels and Hebrews, which help form this doctrine. But it does show that the formation of the doctrine begins extremely early.
Looking at how it developed also gives us a good place to start when trying to understand the doctrine. In future posts, I will be diving into both the history of the doctrine, within Judaism, as well as how the idea of the Tripersonal God has expanded since the first few centuries after the death of Jesus.