4 How many Gods

The Lonely God

How many Gods?

I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself;

he can do only what he sees his Father doing,

because whatever the Father does the Son also does

(John 5:19 NIV).

No one in any mainstream faith is prepared to believe there are three Gods. That would make them polytheists like the Greeks and the Romans. But early Christian theologians had a problem to face that Jewish theologians never had to deal with. As I. A. Dorner put it, “It is a plain matter of fact that none who have depended on the revelation embodied in the Old Testament alone have ever attained to the doctrine of the Trinity.”

But in the New Testament, the earliest theologians of the church had to deal with a simple fact. Jesus is God and he acknowledges the Father as his God. By any normal reckoning, that leaves us with two Gods. Add the Holy Spirit, and you have three Gods or, a Trinity.

But then there arises another problem. The Bible does not present us with two religions, old and new. In reading the New Testament, we never encounter any sense that the writers saw any difference between their conception of God and that of the Old Testament writers. Nor is there any hint that they thought they were the pioneers of a new religion – that is, the preachers of a new God.

So how were the early theologians to maintain a strong, monotheistic faith in the face of more than one God? After no small debate, they concluded that God is a Trinity, one “Godhead” in which there are three “coequal” persons. But that didn’t solve all their problems. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) summarizes the dogma and the problem it poses.

The term "Trinity" is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture.

So the Trinity is a dogma that is not formulated from the words of scripture, and that is a highly problematic idea for most Christians. We like to think that the truth of Scripture is in the words. It follows that the doctrine of the Trinity is a post apostolic development because the apostles never spoke of it. How, then, did the post apostolic church fathers come to the doctrine? There was what the ISBE calls a “determining impulse,” and a “guiding principle.”

The determining impulse to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the church was the church's profound conviction of the absolute Deity of Christ, on which as on a pivot the whole Christian conception of God from the first origins of Christianity turned. The guiding principle in the formulation of the doctrine was supplied by the Baptismal Formula announced by Jesus.

It was by these two fundamental principia – the true Deity of Christ and the Baptismal Formula – that all attempts to formulate the Christian doctrine of God were tested, and by their molding power that the church at length found itself in possession of a form of statement which did full justice to the data of the redemptive revelation as reflected in the New Testament and the demands of the Christian heart under the experience of salvation.

This appears to be the entire underpinning of Trinitarian dogma as formalized in later years by the church fathers. First, the absolute deity of Christ, second, the “baptismal formula” given by Jesus. So, where is the proof of the Trinity?

The fundamental proof that God is a Trinity is supplied thus by the fundamental revelation of the Trinity in fact: that is to say, in the incarnation of God the Son and the outpouring of God the Holy Spirit. . .

What they are saying is that they came to the doctrine of the Trinity by what they see as fairly obvious facts. One, the coming of God in the flesh as Jesus, while still acknowledging the Father in heaven as God. That makes two who are called God. Finally, by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which by their reckoning made three.

But we still have not seen how they avoided the epithet “polytheism.” That was a very real problem in the early church where heresies were springing up like so many weeds. The oneness of God is asserted so firmly in Scripture that it led some to conclude that it was simply not possible for Jesus to be God, thus resolving the problem in the opposite direction. The assault on the deity of Jesus that followed may have forced the issue and led to a decision that would carry its own problems into the future.

The question on the table, then, is whether in describing God as a Trinity the early fathers arrived at the best solution to the problem they faced. Here, as is so often the case in theological studies, we are victimized by semantics, the meaning of words. Paul warned against being overly reliant on words, and most religious arguments are bedeviled by bickering about words. But if we take, not only the facts of the Bible, but the words as well, the Bible may solve the problem for us in words altogether familiar.

The words are “Father” and “Son.” These words are known in all generations, in all languages and in all cultures. Not only are the words familiar, but the relationship is understood. Notice above that the doctrine states that Father and Son are the same in substance. That is, they are both Spirit. Further, the doctrine states that they are “distinct in subsistence,” in other words, they are two distinct persons.

This is familiar to us in human terms. My dad and I were both flesh, but we existed as two distinct persons. So what about the “Three in One” idea? Once again, if we decide to use the words of the Bible to describe the facts we see there, we run squarely into the family again: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” So two can be one after all.

No one has a problem with the unity of the family, even though we have two persons composed of the same substance, flesh. In biblical terms, two can be one, so why create a new set of words to explain an old fact. Now I fully understand that there are long and complex arguments on all sides of this question. But most people realize intuitively that the simplest explanation is more likely to be right. Here, the simplest explanation is that God is a family composed, for now, of a Father, a Son, and a Family Spirit.

Thus we find our oneness, and we explain the relationships. In any family, the Father and Son are equal in many ways, but not all. The Father is always the Father and the Son is always the Son. These are not identical roles, and in an effort to explain this relationship, we turn to the words of scripture.

“The Father loves the Son,” said Jesus, “and has given all things into his hand” (John 3:35). The Father gives. The Son receives. The Father has turned everything over to the Son. The early Christian theologians had to fight off heresies on all sides, and here they encountered “subordinationism.” Technically, subordinationism is, “A doctrine that assigns an inferiority of being, status, or role to the Son or Holy Spirit within the Trinity.”

But it isn’t necessary to see inferiority in the relationship between Father and Son. In a family, the father is first among equals. The answer may be that simple. Jesus often described the relationship in terms of family. This is a long citation, but it deserves careful study.

I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man (John 5:19-27 NIV).

We have to decide how we are going to take this important passage. First, Father and Son do not operate independently, but together. Father and Son have no secrets from one another. They love one another. Both deserve the same honor from men. Both can raise the dead. There is one thing the Son does that the Father does not now do: judge men. There is a reason for this. It is because Jesus is the Son of Man. That idea does not see full development until later.

None of this is very difficult if we don’t have to fight off heresies. Passages like this invite the specter of subordinationism, but nothing here suggests that the Father is anything other than first among equals. In any family, someone has to lead. In the divine scheme of things, it is the Father. This does not make the Son an inferior being. Imagine a father with four sons, working together in the field. Father and sons are all equal in terms of their faculties and their ability to work. But the Father is first among them.

So, if we can forget about the various heresies, we can say that God is a family, composed of Father and Son, accompanied by the Family Spirit. This allows us to understand God on his terms instead of ours.

But that leaves us with the “Family Spirit” to think about, and here we step into an area not so familiar. The Holy Spirit does not appear in terms of family. The Spirit is not a son, daughter or consort. While the Father and Son are revealed in human terms, the Spirit is not. The only visual manifestations of the Spirit in the New Testament are “a bodily shape like a dove,” (Luke 3:22), and as “tongues of fire” (Acts 2:3).

The King James translators of the Bible took a singular step to call this to our attention – I suspect it was intentional. The idea of the Holy Spirit is not new in the Bible. The Old Testament speaks often of the movement and activity of the Spirit of God. But the scholars who opened up the Greek to make the text of the New Testament available to us seem to have realized they had something new on their hands. The actions and involvement of the Spirit reached an entirely new, and more personal level in the New Testament. For whatever reason, they overwhelmingly adopted the term “Holy Ghost” in preference to “Holy Spirit.”

Whatever a ghost is, at least in the English language, it is disembodied. In the case of the Father and Son, we have persons who are revealed in bodily terms. The Spirit of God is not. It is a divine wind, the breath of God. It may be useful to point out that in both Greek and Hebrew, the words for “spirit,” pneuma and ruach, may also be used for the wind that blows the leaves on a tree.

What shows up in the New Testament is something entirely new to man. Not that the Spirit of God was unknown, but it was never known this way nor, as far as we know, was it ever a Parakletos, a counselor, an advocate, an intercessor, an advisor.

So the scholars had to find a way to express this distinction, and they chose the old English “Ghost,” I suspect because they saw the Spirit as real, but disembodied. I should add one caveat for the reader. Don’t worry about the pronouns used for the Spirit (“it” instead of “he”). In the Greek, the pronouns must agree with the gender of the noun. Pneuma, the word for “Spirit” in the Greek, is a neuter noun.

Now let me proceed to define the problem. At one point in his ministry, Jesus made a cryptic statement about the Holy Spirit, calling it “living water.” We know he meant the Holy Spirit because John adds this note: “By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified” (John 7:39 NIV).

This statement is more important than it seems, because it is plain that the Holy Spirit had been active up to this point in the same way it was in the Old Testament. In old times, The Holy Spirit “came upon” people, or they were “filled with” the Spirit of God. And when Mary and Joseph brought the baby Jesus to the temple for the first time, an old man was there who had been brought there by the Spirit of God. His name was Simeon, “and the Holy Ghost was upon him.” He came to the Temple on this special occasion, “by the Spirit,” and prophesied concerning this child, “the Lord’s Christ” (Luke 2:25 ff.).

So what could John have been driving at when he said that the Holy Spirit had not been given? Plainly the Holy Spirit was present and working all through the Old Testament and into the new. Nothing had changed.

Anyone with a good concordance can make his way through a study of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, but don’t look for the expression, “Holy Ghost.” It isn’t there. Rather, the same Spirit is called “the Holy Spirit” (only three times), “the Spirit of God” (14 times), and “the Spirit of the Lord” (26 times). And there are other synonyms, and parallel expressions that refer to the Spirit in other ways.

It is interesting to compile a list of the characteristics, the properties, of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. A partial list includes:

• It could reside in a person, as an abiding presence, as specifically with Joseph (Genesis 41: 38).

• The abiding presence could be taken away, as David feared (Psalm 51:11).

• It “comes upon,” falls on, or fills a person, all in a transitory sense, i.e. it comes and goes in terms of its influence – as with Balaam (Numbers 24:1-2).

• It can overwhelm normal behavior, as with Saul, but only in a transitory way (1 Samuel 19:18-24).

• It could inspire craftsmen and artisans for the work of the Tabernacle (Exodus 31:1-5).

• It could speak with the tongue of a man, as with David (2 Samuel 23:1-2).

• It can tend to run in families, according to Isaiah, but obviously conditionally (Isaiah 63:7-11).

• It can be vexed ( Isaiah 63:7-11).

You can probably add to this list with a little study of your own, but this will serve for now. But we must ask the next question: What do we see in the New Testament that we did not see in the Old? What are the characteristics, the properties, of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament?

• It is an active agent for God (Luke 1:34-35).

• The Holy Spirit in particular can be blasphemed (Matthew 12:31-32).

• The Holy Spirit speaks (through men, but it speaks, (Mark 13:11).

• The Holy Spirit filled people on special occasion, this was transitory (Luke 1:41).

• The Holy Spirit was “upon” people. (Luke 2:25-26).

• It revealed things to them (Luke 2:25-26).

• It could actually appear in bodily form, though not human like form (Luke 3:22).

• You could be baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5).

• The Holy Ghost is exactly the same thing in the New Testament as it was in the Old. (Acts 1:16).

• The Holy Spirit is a source of power (Acts 1:8).

• The Holy Spirit is a gift of God (Acts 2:38).

• The Holy Spirit calls, commissions and sends people to a work (Acts 13:1-4).

• The Holy Spirit directs that work in some detail (Acts 16:6-7).

• The spirit hears from God and speaks what it hears to us (John 16:13).

There is much more, but this will serve to illustrate that the Holy Spirit is a constant in both Testaments. The early Christians seem much more aware of the Spirit, but after Pentecost, who can be surprised at that?

But why, then, would John say that the Holy Spirit was not yet given? And why would Jesus later speak of the coming of the Spirit as a future event, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come” (John 16:13 NIV).

An answer to this, along with some new questions, is suggested in that wonderful conversation Jesus had with his disciples after the Last Supper.

If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever – the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you” (John 14:15-17 NIV).

At first blush, this last seems like a distinction without a difference. But there is something entirely new here. The Holy Spirit has not heretofore been described as a Counselor. Perhaps what John is saying is that the Holy Spirit had not yet been given as Counselor.

As Jesus continues this conversation, it becomes apparent that the Counselor is not just another way of speaking of the Father or the Son. He makes it plain that the Counselor is the Holy Spirit, and that it is sent by the Father.

All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you (John 14:25-26 NIV).

Later, Jesus will say, “When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me” (John 15:26). The coming of the Holy Spirit as Counselor is a future event at this point, and the Counselor is sent from the Father and Son. It is something distinct from the two of them, but completely at their command.

In fulfilling the role of Counselor, the Holy Spirit is absolutely dependent upon Christ. Still later, Jesus will say: “Because I have said these things, you are filled with grief. But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you” (John 16:6-7 NIV).

The “Counselor” in the Greek is parakletos. No other New Testament writer uses this form of the word. And John only uses it in one other place, to refer to Jesus: “And if any man sin, we have a parakletos with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1).

So, are the Holy Spirit and Jesus the same thing? Hardly. The Holy Spirit is Jesus’ agent in the world. Whatever the Holy Spirit does, Jesus is considered to have done. It is much the same as the Holy Spirit being the agent of the Father in the begetting of Jesus. Mary was with child of the Holy Spirit, and yet the Holy Spirit was not deemed to be the Father.

So the Holy Spirit was present when Jesus spoke of its coming in the future. But the Spirit was to be sent by Jesus in a new role, that of counselor, advocate, guide. In a sense, he was to be the family attorney. What changed from the Old Testament was the relationship of the Spirit to the servants of God.

So the Spirit was with them and would be in them. What did that mean in practical fact? It meant that the Holy Spirit was their guide, the one who shed light on the choices they had to make. He stood with them and closed one door while opening another. The Spirit is still here, still in us, and still doing the same thing, unless dismissed or ignored.

Luke and Paul were so aware of the work of the Spirit in their life and work, that when the Spirit closed a door, they knew it was the Spirit that did it. They didn’t have to guess. How could they tell? Because they were looking for it. They were listening for it, trusting for it.

So what does all this tell us about the Trinity? Are there three Gods or one “Godhead” with three persons in it? The question is almost entirely lost in semantics, but we can draw some conclusions based on the words of the Bible. What men call “the Trinity,” is a family, composed for now of Father, Son and the Family Counsel. All may be called God. All are eternal. The Father is first among equals.

Surely, God is much more than this, but the rest is not revealed. And on the matter that is not revealed, your guess is as good as mine.