The holy Trinity

The Holy Trinity is one God in three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These Persons are distinct,
but not separate, and are not three gods. They are One God because They are one in essence or
nature. The Father is the unbegotten Fountainhead of Deity. The Son is eternally begotten of the
Father (Jn 1:18; 3:16; 16:28). The Holy Spirit is the Helper (Jn 14:16) and Spirit of Truth (Jn 14:17;
16:13), Who proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26

Contents

1 THE HOLY TRINITY CREATED THE WORLD

2 THE HOLY TRINITY SAVES THE WORLD

3 THE NEW TESTAMENT AFFIRMS THE HOLY TRINITY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

4 THE INCARNATE SON FULLY REVEALS THE HOLY TRINITY

1 the holy Trinity created the world

Genesis 1:1 – God the Father created the heavens and the earth. The Creed says: “I believe in one
God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.”

Genesis 1:2 – The Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit. He hovered over creation in creative power and
equality with the Father. He co-created with the Father.

Genesis 1:3 – As the Word of God, the Son made the light (Jn 1:1-3). With creative power and equality
with the Father, He also co-created with the Father and the Spirit.

Genesis 1:26 – The pronouns “Us” and “Our” reveal a plurality of divine Persons. These Persons are
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit operating in complete unity out of the one divine Nature

2 the holy Trinity saves the world

Isaiah 63:16 – The Father is our Redeemer. He not only created the world but redeems it as well.

Psalm 2:7, 8 – The Father’s decree reveals the Son as inheriting the world. This inheritance is the
people saved by the Son.

Isaiah 6:1-3 – The words “Holy, Holy, Holy” declare the three Persons who save us. The name “Lord”
declares the one essence of the Three.

Isaiah 44:3 – The Father pours out His Spirit on people like water on dry ground. The Holy Spirit
quenches the thirst of the person who thirsts for salvation.

Isaiah 48:16, 17 – The Son declares that the Father and the Spirit sent Him to redeem the world.
Although the Son alone became a Man, all three Persons save mankind.

3 the new testament affrims the holy Spirit in the old Testament

John 1:1-3 – The Word is the Son of God, who was present with the Father at the beginning of
creation. He was Co-worker with the Father in creating the world.
John 8:58 – Jesus identifies Himself as having existed before Abraham. Before His coming in the flesh
as Man, Jesus existed as the eternal Son of the Father, for He is begotten from the Father before all
time and ages. He appeared to Moses in the burning bush and proclaimed Himself as “I Am” (Ex 3).

Acts 2:17 – The Holy Spirit’s descent at Pentecost affirms His presence in the Old Testament (Joel
2:28-32).

Hebrews 1:8-10 – This Scripture affirms the Father is speaking to the Son in Psalms 44:7 and
101:2628, in which the Father acknowledges the Son as God and Creator of the world. For the Son
was the Father’s Co-worker in creation.

4 the incarnate son fully reveals the holy Trinity

Luke 1:35 – At the Annunciation, the Holy Spirit, the “power” of God the Father (“the Highest”),
overshadowed the Virgin Mary; and she gave birth to the Son of God in His flesh.

Matthew 3:16-17 – When the Son of God was baptized in the Jordan by John, the Father’s voice was
heard from heaven, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him like a dove. As the main hymn for the Feast
of Theophany says, “When You, O Lord, were baptized in the Jordan, the worship of the Trinity was
made manifest.”

What is the holy Trinity

Trinity, in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one
Godhead. The doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be one of the central Christian affirmations
about God. It is rooted in the fact that God came to meet Christians in a threefold figure: (1) as
Creator, Lord of the history of salvation, Father, and Judge, as revealed in the Old Testament; (2) as
the Lord who, in the incarnated figure of Jesus Christ, lived among human beings and was present in
their midst as the “Resurrected One”; and (3) as the Holy Spirit, whom they experienced as the helper
or intercessor in the power of the new life.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
Hebrew Scriptures: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest
Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the
presumed presence and power of God among them—i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was
connected with the celebration of Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such
New Testament passages as the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19); and
in the apostolic benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion
of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:13). Thus, the New Testament established the
basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and
through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the
Hebrew Scriptures and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman
religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as
subordinate to the Supreme Being. 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. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality
and hence of their unity (subordinationism). The second came to terms with their unity, but at the
cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism). The high point of these conflicts was the so-called
Arian controversy in the early 4th century. In his interpretation of the idea of God, Arius sought to
maintain a formal understanding of the oneness of God. In defense of that oneness, he was obliged
to dispute the sameness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father. It was not
until later in the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together
in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons.

The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son
is “of the same substance [homoousios] as the Father,” even though it said very little about the Holy
Spirit. Over the next half century, St. Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by
the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of St. Basil of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St.
Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the
form it has maintained ever since. It is accepted in all of the historic confessions of Christianity, even
though the impact of the Enlightenment decreased its importance in some traditions.

Definition of the holy Trinity

A Trinity doctrine is commonly expressed as the statement that the one God exists as or in three
equally divine “Persons”, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Every term in this statement (God,
exists, as or in, equally divine, Person) has been variously understood.

The Trinity defined in the Bible

Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, 1 Corinthians 12:4–5, Ephesians 4:4–6, 1 Peter 1:2, and
Revelation 1:4–6.

The meaning of the father in the Bible

<**11**> May the Lord, the God of your fathers, make you a thousand times as many as you are, and
bless you, as he has promised you!

<**11**> And Asa did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, as David his father had done.

<**9**> and do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you,
God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.

<**10**> And Micah said to him, “Stay with me, and be to me a father and a priest, and I will give
you ten pieces of silver a year, and a suit of apparel, and your living.”

<**12**> And a man of the place answered, “And who is their father?” Therefore it became a
proverb, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”

<**12**> And Eli’sha saw it and he cried, “My father, my father! The chariots of Israel and its
horsemen!” And he saw him no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and rent them in two
pieces.

<**9**> And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
In general, the title Father (capitalized) signifies God’s role as the life-giver, the authority, and
powerful protector, often viewed as immense, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent with infinite
power and charity that goes beyond human understanding As our Father, he disciplines us (Heb.
12:3–11). As our Father, he receives us and forgives us and rejoices over us when in repentance we
come home to him (Luke 15:11–32). That God the Father has made himself God our Father means that
he is personally, emotionally, and even sacrificially involved with us. Christians refer to God as the
Father. God the Father is the creator of all things. This means that he was the creator of the world and
everything in it. He is the father of the universe. God is also viewed as a loving father.God the Father:
Our Protector and Guide Before the dawn of time, He was, and forevermore He shall be; nothing is
beyond His ability and nothing is beyond His knowledge

How does the Bible describe God the Father?

God the Father: Our Protector and Guide

Before the dawn of time, He was, and forevermore He shall be; nothing is beyond His
Verses about the father in the bible
“Sing to God, praise his name; exalt the rider of the clouds. Rejoice before him whose name is the
Lord. Father of the fatherless, defender of widows – God in his holy abode.”

– “Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers: all good giving and every perfect gift is from
above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused
by change. He willed to give us birth by the word of truth that we may be a kind of firstfruits of his
creatures.” “Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the
kingdom.”

– “I will live in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my
people… and I will be your father, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord
Almighty.”

<**16**> For thou art our Father, though Abraham does not know us and Israel does not
acknowledge us; thou, O Lord, art our Father, our Redeemer from of old is thy name.

<**35**> But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward
will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish.
<**36**> Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

<**4**> There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your
call, <**5**> one Lord, one faith, one baptism, <**6**> one God and Father of us all, who is above all
and through all and in all.

<**7**> There is no one that calls upon thy name, that bestirs himself to take hold of thee; for thou
hast hid thy face from us, and hast delivered us into the hand of our iniquities.
<**7**> There is no one that calls upon thy name, that bestirs himself to take hold of thee; for thou
hast hid thy face from us, and hast delivered us into the hand of our iniquities

<**1**> See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we
are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him.

The meaning of the son in the Bible

Jesus is called the “son of God,” and followers of Jesus are called, “Christians.” As applied to
Jesus, the term is a reference to his role as the Messiah, or Christ, the King chosen by God.

The term "son" is used in Scripture language to imply almost any kind of descent or
succession, as ben Shanah, "son of a year," i.e., a year old; ben Keshet, "son of a bow," i.e., an
arrow. The word bar is often found in the New Testament in composition, as Bar-Timaeus.
The plural, "sons of God," is used (Genesis 6:2, 4) to denote the pious descendants of Seth. In
Job 1:6; 38:7 this name is applied to the angels. Hosea uses the phrase (1:10) to designate the
gracious relation in which men stand to God.
In the New Testament this phrase frequently denotes the relation into which we are brought to
God by adoption (Romans 8:14, 19; 2 Corinthians 6:18; Galatians 4:5, 6; Philippians 2:15; 1
John 3:1, 2). It occurs thirty-seven times in the New Testament as the distinctive title of our
Saviour. He does not bear this title in consequence of his miraculous birth, nor of his
incarnation, his resurrection, and exaltation to the Father's right hand. This is a title of nature
and not of office. The sonship of Christ denotes his equality with the Father. To call Christ the
Son of God is to assert his true and proper divinity. The second Person of the Trinity, because
of his eternal relation to the first Person, is the Son of God. He is the Son of God as to his
divine nature, while as to his human nature he is the Son of David (Romans 1:3, 4. Comp.
Galatians 4:4; John 1:114; 5:18-25; 10:30-38, which prove that Christ was the Son of God
before his incarnation, and that his claim to this title is a claim of equality with God).
When used with reference to creatures, whether men or angels, this word is always in the
plural. In the singular it is always used of the second Person of the Trinity, with the single
exception of Luke 3:38, where it is used of Adam.
Son of man
(1.) Denotes mankind generally, with special reference to their weakness and frailty (Job
25:6; Psalm 8:4; 144:3; 146:3; Isaiah 51:12, etc.).
(2.) It is a title frequently given to the prophet Ezekiel, probably to remind him of his
human weakness.
(3.) In the New Testament it is used forty-three times as a distinctive title of the Saviour. In
the Old Testament it is used only in Psalm 80:17 and Dan. 7:13 with this application. It
denotes the true humanity of our Lord. He had a true body (Hebrews 2:14; Luke 24:39) and a
rational soul. He was perfect man.
The King James Version translates rightly

(1) ben-'achotho (Genesis 29:13); and

(2) huios tes adelphes (Acts 23:16), and wrongly,

(3) anepsios (Colossians 4:10), where, without doubt, the real meaning is "cousin," as in the
Revised Version (British and American).
(ho huios theou):

1. Use of Title in the Synoptists

2. Meanings in the Old Testament

3. Sense as Applied to Jesus

4. Physical Reason

5. Alleged Equivalence to "Messiah"-Personal

Sense Implied

6. Higher Use by Jesus Himself

7. The "Son" in Matthew 11:27

8. The "Son" in Mark 13:32

9. The "Son" in Matthew 28:18-20

10. Apostolic Doctrine: Deity Affirmed

11. The Fourth Gospel: Deity, Preexistence, etc. 1. Use of

Title in the Synoptists:

While the title "the Son of man" is always, except once, applied by Jesus to Himself, "the Son
of God" is never applied by Jesus to Himself in the Synoptists. When, however, it is applied to
Him by others, He accepts it in such a way as to assert His claim to it. Now and then He
Himself employs the abbreviated form, "the Son," with the same intention; and He often
speaks of God as "the Father" or "my Father" or "my Father who is in heaven" in such a
manner as to betray the consciousness that He is the Son of God.

2. Meanings in the Old Testament:

While to the common mind "the Son of man" is a title designating the human side of our
Lord's person, "the Son of God" seems as obviously to indicate the divine side. But
scholarship cannot take this for granted; and, indeed, it requires only a hasty glance at the
facts to bring this home even to the general reader, because in Scripture the title is bestowed
on a variety of persons for a variety of reasons. First, it is applied to angels, as when in Job 2:1
it is said that "the sons of God came to present themselves before Yahweh"; they may be so
called because they are the creatures of God's hands or because, as spiritual beings, they
resemble God, who is a spirit. Secondly, in Luke 3:38 it is applied to the first man; and from
the parable of the Prodigal Son it may be argued that it is applicable to all men. Thirdly, it is
applied to the Hebrew nation, as when, in Exodus 4:22, Yahweh says to Pharaoh, "Israel is my
son, my first-born," the reason being that Israel was the object of Yahweh's special love and
gracious choice. Fourthly, it is applied to the kings of Israel, as representatives of the chosen
nation. Thus, in 2 Samuel 7:14, Yahweh says of Solomon, "I will be his father, and he shall be
my son"; and, in Psalm 2:7, the coronation of a king is announced in an oracle from heaven,
which says, "Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee." Finally, in the New Testament,
the title is applied to all saints, as in John 1:12, "But as many as received him, to them gave he
the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name." When the title
has such a range of application, it is obvious that the Divinity of Christ cannot be inferred
from the mere fact that it is applied to Him.

3. Sense as Applied to Jesus:

It is natural to assume that its use in application to Jesus is derived from one or other of its Old
Testament uses; and the one almost universally fixed upon by modern scholarship as that from
which it was derived is the fourth mentioned above-that to the Jewish kings. Indeed, it is
frequently asserted that in the Jewish literature between the Old Testament and the New
Testament, it is found already coined as a title for the Messianic king; but the instances quoted
by Dalman and others in proof of this are far from satisfactory.

4. Physical Reason:

When we come to examine its use in the New Testament as applied by others to Jesus, the
facts are far from simple, and it is not applied in a uniform sense. In Luke 1:35, the following
reason for its use is given, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most
High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall be called
the Son of God." This is a physical reason, akin to that on account of which the angels or the
first man received the title; but it is rather curious that this point of view does not seem to be
adopted elsewhere, unless it be in the exclamation of the centurion at the foot of the cross,
"Truly this was the Son of God" (Matthew 27:54). As a pagan this soldier might be thinking of
Jesus as one of those heroes, born of human mothers but divine fathers, of whom the
mythology of his country had so much to tell (compare the
margin).

5. Alleged Equivalence to Messiah-Personal

Sense Implied:
(1) Baptism, Temptation.

It has been contended, not without plausibility, that for Jesus Himself the source of the title
may have been the employment of it in the voice from heaven at His Baptism, "This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17). By these words, it is usually
assumed, He was designated as the Messiah; but in the adjective "beloved," and the words "in
whom I am well pleased," there is something personal, beyond the merely official recognition.
The same may be said of the voice from heaven in the scene of the Transfiguration. Milton, in
Paradise Regained, makes Satan become aware of the voice from heaven at the Baptism; but
this is also implied in the terms with which he approached Him in the Temptation in the
wilderness, "If thou art the Son of God" (Matthew 4:3, etc.); and, if this was the sense in
which the prince of devils made use of the phrase, we may conclude that in the mouths of the
demoniacs who hailed Jesus by the same title it must have had the same meaning.

(2) At Caesarea Philippi.

When, at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus evoked from the Twelve their great confession, this is given
by two of the synoptists in the simple form, "Thou art the Christ" (Mark 8:29 Luke 9:20); but
Matthew adds, "the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). It is frequently said that Hebrew
parallelism compels us to regard these words as a mere equivalent for "Messiah." But this is
not the nature of parallelism, which generally includes in the second of the parallel terms
something in excess of what is expressed in the first; it would be quite in accordance with the
nature of parallelism if the second
term supplied the reason for the first. That is to say, Jesus was the Messiah because He was the
Son of God.

(3) Trial before Sanhedrin.

There is another passage where it is frequently contended that "the Christ" and "the Son of
God" must be exactly parallel, but a close examination suggests the reverse. In the account of
the ecclesiastical trial in the Gospel of Luke, He is charged, "If thou art the Christ, tell us";
and, when He replies, "If I tell you, ye will not believe: and if I ask you, ye will not answer.
But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God,"
they all say, "Art thou then the Son of God?" and, when He replies in the affirmative, they
require no further witness (Luke 22:67-71), Matthew informing us that the high priest
hereupon rent his garments, and they all agreed that He had spoken blasphemy and was
worthy of death (Matthew 26:65 f). The usual assumption is that the second question, "Art
thou.... the Son of God?" implies no more than the first, `Art thou the Christ?'; but is not the
scene much more intelligible if the boldness of His answer to the first question suggested that
He was making a still higher claim than to be the Christ, and that their second question
applied to this? It was when Jesus affirmed this also that their angry astonishment knew no
bounds, and their sentence was immediate and capital. It may be questioned whether it was
blasphemy merely to claim to be the Messiah; but it was rank and undeniable blasphemy to
claim to be the Son of God. This recalls the statement in John 5:18, "The Jews sought the
more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own Father,
making himself equal with God"; to which may be added (John 10:33), "The Jews answered
him, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a
man, makest thyself God."

6. Higher Use by Jesus Himself:

Naturally it is with the words of Jesus Himself on this subject that we are most concerned. He
speaks of God as His Father, and to the disciples He speaks of God as their Father; but He
never speaks to them of God as their common Father: what He says is, "My Father and your
Father" (John 20:17). H. J. Holtzmann and others have attempted to make light of this, and
even to speak of the opening words of the Lord's Prayer, "Our Father who art in heaven," as if
Jesus might have uttered them in company with the disciples; but the distinction is a vital one,
and we do not agree with those who can believe that Jesus could have uttered, for Himself
along with others, the whole of the Lord's Prayer, including the petition, "Forgive us our
debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors."

7. The "Son" in Matthew 11:27:

Of the passages in the Synoptists where Jesus speaks about God as "the Father" and
Himself as "the Son," a peculiar solemnity attaches to Matthew 11:27 parallel Luke 10:22,
"All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth the Son, save the
Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth
to reveal him." There is a Johannine flavor in these words, and they reveal an intimacy of the
Son with the Father, as well as a power over all things, which could not have been conferred
by mere official appointment, unless there had been in the background a natural position
warranting the official standing. Not infrequently has the word "Messianic" been allowed by
scholars to blind them to the most obvious facts. The conferring of an office on a mere man
could not enable him to do things beyond the reach of human powers; yet it is frequently
assumed that, if
only Jesus was Messiah, He was able for anything, even when the thing in question is
something for which a mere man is wholly incompetent.

8. The "Son" in Mark 13:32:

There is a saying of Jesus (Mark 13:32) about His own Sonship which may seem to refute the
church doctrine on the subject, as in it He confesses ignorance of the date of His Second
Coming: "Of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the
Son, but the Father." Yet, while there is much in this passage fitted to produce sane and sober
views as to the real manhood of Jesus, there are few sayings of His that betray a stronger
consciousness of His being more than man. Four planes of being and of knowledge are
specified-that of men, that of angels, that of Himself, and that of God. Evidently the Son is
above not only men but angels, and, if it is confessed that He is ignorant of anything, this is
mentioned as a matter of surprise.
9. The "Son" in Matthew 28:18-20:

The conclusion would seem to be that He is a being intermediate between the angels and God;
but this impression is corrected by the greatest of all the sayings in which He calls Himself the
Son (Matthew 28:18-20), "All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go
ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I
commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Here the Son
is named along with the Father and the Holy Spirit in a way suggesting the equality of all
three, an act of worship being directed to them jointly. By those who disbelieve in the Deity of
Christ, the most strenuous attempts have been made to get rid of this passage, and in certain
quarters it is taken for granted that it must have been an addition to the text of this Gospel. But
for this there is no ground whatever; the passage is the climax of the Gospel in which it
occurs, in the same way as the confession of Thomas is the climax of the Gospel of Jn; and to
remove it would be an intolerable mutilation. Of course to those who disbelieve in the bodily
resurrection of our Lord, this has no more substance than the other details of the Forty Days;
but to those who believe in His risen glory the words appear to suit the circumstances, their
greatness being congruous with the entire representation of the
New Testament.

10. Apostolic Doctrine: Deity Affirmed:

Indeed, it is the Son of God, as He appears in this final scene in the First Gospel, who
dominates the rest of the New Testament. Thus, in Acts 9:20, the beginning of Paul's
testimony as a Christian is given in these words, "And straightway in the synagogues he
proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God"; and what this meant to Paul may be gathered
from his own statement in the opening of Romans, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to
be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which he promised afore through his prophets
in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the
flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness
by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 1:1-4). In He the
equality of the Son with the Father is theme throughout the entire book; and in Revelation
2:18, "the Son of God, who hath his eyes like a flame of fire," speaks from the right hand of
power to the church.

On this subject there was no division of opinion in the apostolic church. On many other
questions the followers of Jesus were divided; but on this one they were unanimous. For this
the authority of Paul is often assumed to be responsible; but there was a prior and higher
authority. This was the self-testimony of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Though this may not
have been put in literary form till all the other books of the New Testament had been
completed, it was active and influential in the church all the time, affecting Paul and the other
New Testament writers.

11. The Fourth Gospel: Deity, Preexistence, etc.:

There is no real disharmony between the expression of our Lord's self-consciousness in the
Synoptists and that in John; only in the latter it is far ampler and more distinct. Here Jesus is
not only called "the Son of God" by others, but applies the title to Himself in its full shape, as
well as in the abbreviated form of "the Son." He further calls Himself the "only begotten Son
of God" (3:16, 18), that is to say, He is Son in a sense in which no others can claim the title.
This seems expressly to contradict the statement, so often made, that He makes others sons of
God in the same sense as Himself, or that His Sonship is ethical, not metaphysical. No doubt
it is ethical-that is to say, He is like the Father in feeling, mind and will-but it does not follow
that it is not at the same time metaphysical. In fact, the perfection of ethical unity depends
upon that which is metaphysical. Between a dog and a man there may be deep sympathy, yet it
is limited by the difference of their natures; whereas between a woman and a man there is
perfect sympathy, because they are identical in nature.

Another feature of Sonship in the Fourth Gospel is preexistence, though, strange to say, this is
more than once connected with the title "Son of man." But the strongest and most frequent
suggestions as to what is implied in Sonship are to be found in the deeds attributed to the Son;
for these are far beyond the competence of any mere man. Thus, He executes judgment (John
5:22); He has life in Himself and quickeneth whom He will (John 5:26, 21); He gives eternal
life (John 10:10), and it is the will of the Father that all men should honor the Son, even as
they do the Father (John 5:23). Nevertheless, the Son does nothing of Himself, but only what
He hath seen the Father do (John 5:19); and only that which He hath heard of the Father does
He speak (John 14:10). In short, God is not only His Father, but His God (John 20:17). To
statements such as these a merely official Sonship is not adequate; the relation must be ethical
and metaphysical as well; and to a perfect Sonship all three elements are essential.
(ho huios tou anthropou):

1. Use in the New Testament: Self-Designation of

Jesus

2. Questions as to Meaning

I. SOURCE OF THE TITLE

1. The Phrase in the Old Testament-Psalms, Ezekiel,

Daniel

2. "Son of Man" in Daniel 7-New Testament

Allusions

3. Expressive of Messianic Idea

4. Post-canonical Literature: Book of Enoch

II. WHY JESUS MADE USE OF THE TITLE

1. Consciousness of Being the Messiah

2. Half Concealed, Yet Half Revealed His Secret

3. Expressive of Identification with Men in Sympathy, Fortunes and Destiny

4. Speculations (Lietzmann, Wellhausen, etc.) on Aramaic Meaning: These Rejected

(Dalman, etc.)
1. Use in New Testament: Self-Designation of Jesus:

This is the favorite self-designation of Jesus in the Gospels. In Matthew it occurs over 30
times, in Mark 15 times, in Luke 25 times, and in John a dozen times. It is always in the
mouth of Jesus Himself that it occurs, except once, when the bystanders ask what He means
by the title (John 12:34). Outside the Gospels, it occurs only once in Acts, in
Stephen's speech (Acts 7:56), and twice in the Book of Revelation (1:13; 14:14).

2. Questions as to Meaning:

At first sight it appears so apt a term for the human element in our Lord's person, the divine
element being similarly denoted by "the Son of God," that this was supposed to be its
meaning, as it still is by the common man at the present day. As long as it was assumed that
the meaning could be elicited by merely looking at the words as they stand and guessing what
they must signify, this was substantially the view of all, although this common conception
went in two directions-some noting especially the loftier and more ideal elements in the
conception, while others emphasized what was lowly and painful in the human lot; and both
could appeal to texts in support of their view. Thus, the view "that Christ by this phrase
represented Himself as the head, the type, the ideal of the race" (Stanton, The Jewish and the
Christian Messiah), could appeal to such a saying as, "The Son of man is Lord even of the
sabbath" (Mark 2:28); while the humbler view could quote such a saying as, "The foxes have
holes, and the birds of the heaven have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his
head" (Matthew 8:20).

The more scientific investigation of the phrase began, however, when it was inquired, first,
what the source was from which Jesus derived this title, and, secondly, why He
made use of it.

I. Source of the Title.

1. The Phrase in the Old Testament-Psalms, Ezekiel, Daniel:

That the phrase was not one of Jesus' own invention is manifest, because it occurs often in the
Old Testament.

Thus, in Psalm 8:4 it is used as an equivalent for "man" in the parallel lines,
"What is man, that thou art mindful of him?

And the son of man, that thou visitest him ?"

This passage has sometimes been regarded as the source whence Jesus borrowed the title; and
for this a good deal might be said, the psalm being an incomparable exposition both of the
lowliness and the loftiness of human nature. But there is another passage in the Psalms from
which it is far from incredible that it may have been derived: in Psalm 80:17 occur the words,

"Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand,

Upon the son of man whom thou maddest strong for thyself."

This is an appeal, in an age of national decline, for the raising up of a hero to redeem Israel;
and it might well have kindled the spark of Messianic consciousness in the heart of the
youthful Jesus.

There is a book of the Old Testament in which the phrase "the son of man" occurs no fewer
than 90 times. This is the Book of Ezekiel, where it is always applied to the prophet himself
and designates his prophetic mission. In the words of Nosgen (Christus der Menschenund
Gotlessohn): "It expresses the contrast between what Ezekiel is in himself and what God will
make out of him, and to make his mission appear to him not as his own, but as the work of
God, and thus to lift him up, whenever the flesh threatens to faint and fail." Thus there was
one before Jesus of Nazareth who bore the title, at least in certain moments of his life; and,
after Ezekiel, there arose another Hebrew prophet who has put on record that he was
addressed from the same high quarter in the same terms; for, in Daniel 8:17, it is written, "So
he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was affrighted, and fell upon my face: but
he said unto me, Understand, O son of man"-words then following intended to raise the spirit
of the trembling servant of God. By Weizsacker and others the suggestion has been made that
Jesus may have borrowed the term from Ezekiel and Daniel to express His consciousness of
belonging to the same prophetic line.

2. "Son of Man" in Daniel 7-New Testament

Allusions:

There is, however, in the same Book of Daniel another occurrence of the phrase, in a totally
different sense, to which the attention of science is more and more being drawn.
In 7:3;, in one of the apocalyptic visions common to this prophet, four beasts are seen coming
out of the sea-the first a lion with eagle's wings, the second a bear, the third a fourheaded
leopard, and the fourth a terrible monster with ten heads. These beasts bear rule over the earth;
but at last the kingdom is taken away from them and given to a fifth ruler, who is thus
described, "I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one
like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near
before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the
peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed" (Daniel 7:13,
14). Compare with these words from Daniel the words of Jesus to the high priest during His
trial, "Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming
on the clouds of heaven" (Matthew 26:64), and the echo of the Old Testament words cannot
be mistaken. Equally distinct is it in the great discourse in Matthew 24:30, "Then shall appear
the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they
shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

3. Expressive of Messianic Idea:

The use of this self-designation by Jesus is especially frequent and striking in passages
referring to His future coming to judgment, in which there is necessarily a certain resemblance
to the apocalyptic scene in Daniel. In such utterances the Messianic consciousness of Jesus is
most emphatically expressed; and the passage in Daniel is also obviously Messianic. In
another considerable series of passages in which this phrase is used by Jesus, the references
are to His sufferings and death; but the assumption which explains these also most easily is
that they are Messianic too; Jesus is speaking of the fortunes to which He must submit on
account of His vocation. Even the more dignified passages, expressive of ideality, are best
explained in the same way. In short, every passage where the phrase occurs is best understood
from this point of view, whereas, from any other point of view, not a few appear awkward and
out of place. How little, for example, does the idea that the phrase is expressive of lowliness
or of brotherhood with suffering humanity accord with the opening of the judgment-scene in
Matthew 25:31, "But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with
him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory"!

4. Post-canonical Literature: Book of Enoch:

The son of man, or rather "one like unto a son of man" mentioned in Daniel, is primarily the
Hebrew people, as is expressly noted in the prophecy itself; but Jesus must have looked upon
Himself as the representative of the people of God, in the same way as, in the Old Testament
generally, the reigning sovereign was regarded as the representative of the nation. But the
question has been raised whether this transference of the title from a collective body to an
individual may have been mediated for Him through postcanonical religious literature or the
prevalence among the people of ideas generated through this literature. In the Book of Enoch
there occur numerous references to the son of man, which bear a remarkable resemblance to
some of the sayings of Jesus. The date usually assigned to this production is some 200 years
B.C.; and, if these passages in it actually existed as early as this, the book would almost
require to be included in the canonical Scriptures, though for other reasons it is far from
worthy of any such honor. The whole structure of the Book of Enoch is so loose and confused
that it must always have invited interpolation; and interpolations in it are
recognized as numerous. The probability, therefore, is that the passages referring to the son of
man are of later date and of Christian origin.

II. Why Jesus Made Use of the Title.

The conclusion that this title expresses, not the personal qualities of Jesus as a man, but His
functions as Messiah, may be disappointing; but there is a way of recovering
what seems to have been lost; because we must now inquire for what reasons He made use of
this term.

1. Consciousness of Being the Messiah:

The first reason, of course, is, that in Daniel it expressed Messiahship, and that Jesus was
conscions of being the Messiah. In the Old Testament He was wont all His days to read His
own history. He ranged over all the sacred books and found in them references to His own
person and work. With divinatory glance He pierced into the secrets of Scripture and brought
forth from the least as well as the best-known portions of the ancient oracles meanings which
are now palpable to all readers of the Bible, but which He was the first to discover. From the
passage in Daniel, or from some other passage of the Old Testament in which the phrase "the
son of man" occurs, a hint flashed out upon Him, as He read or heard; and the suggestion
grew in His brooding mind, until it rounded itself into the fit and satisfying expression for one
side of His self-consciousness.

2. Half Concealed, Yet Half Revealed His Secret:

Another reason why He fixed upon this as His favorite self-designation may have been that it
half concealed as well as half revealed His secret. Of the direct names for the Messiah He was
usually shy, no doubt chiefly because His contemporaries were not prepared for an open
declaration of Himself in this character; but at all stages of His ministry He called Himself the
Son of man without hesitation. The inference seems to be, that, while the phrase expressed
much to Himself, and must have meant more and more for those immediately associated with
Him, it did not convey a Messianic claim to the public ear. With this accords well the
perplexity once manifested by those listening to Him, when they asked, "Who is this Son of
man?" (John 12:34); as it also explains the question of Jesus to the Twelve at Caesarea
Philippi, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" or, as it is in the margin, "that I the Son of
man am?" (Matthew 16:13). That He was the Son of man did not evidently mean for all that
He claimed to be the Messiah.

3. Expressive of Identification with Men in Sympathy, Fortunes and Destiny:

But when we try to realize for what reasons Jesus may have picked this name out from all
which presented themselves to Him in His intimate and loving survey of the Old Testament, it
is difficult to resist the belief that a third and the principal reason was because it gave
expression to His sense of connection with all men in sympathy, fortunes and destiny. He felt
Himself to be identified with all as their brother, their fellow-sufferer, their representative and
champion; and, in some respects, the deepest word He ever spake was, "For the Son of man
also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many"
(Mark 10:45 parallel).
4. Speculations (Lietzmann, Wellhausen, etc.) on Aramaic Meaning: These Rejected
(Dalman, etc.):

In 1896, Hans Lietzmann, a young German scholar, startled the learned World with a
speculation on the "Son of man." Making the assumption that Aramaic was the language
spoken by Jesus, he contended that Jesus could not have applied to Himself the Messianic
title, because there is nothing corresponding with it in Aramaic. The only term approximating
to it is barnash, which means something very vague, like "anyone" or "everyman" (in the
sense of the old morality play thus entitled). Many supposed Lietzmann to be arguing that
Jesus had called Himself Anyone or Everyman; but this was not his intention. He tried to
prove that the Messianic title had been applied to Jesus in Asia Minor in the first half of the
2nd century and that the Gospels had been revised with the effect of substituting it for the first
personal pronoun. But he failed to show how the manuscripts could have been so universally
altered as to leave no traces of this operation, or how, if the text of the New Testament was
then in so fluid a state as to admit of such a substitution, the phrase should not have
overflowed into other books besides the Gospels. Although the hypothesis has secured wide
attention through being partially adopted by Wellhausen, whose view is to be found in
Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, VI, and at p. 66 of his Commentary on Mark, it may be reckoned
among the ghosts which appear for an hour on the stage of learning, attracting attention and
admiration, but have no permanent connection with the world of reality. Dalman, the leading
authority on Aramaic, denies the foundation on which the views of both Lietzmann and
Wellhausen rest, and holds that, had the Messianic title existed, the Aramaic language would
have been quite capable of expressing it. And in 1911 Wellhausen himself explicitly admitted
this (Einleitung in die drei eraten Evangelien(2), 130).

(1) In Biblical language the word "son" is used first of all in its strictly literal sense of
male issue or offspring of a man or woman. In a few cases in the Old Testament, as in Genesis
3:16 Joshua 17:2 Jeremiah 20:15, the Hebrew word ben, is translated correctly in the English
by the word "child" or "children" as it includes both sexes, as in Genesis 3:16, or is limited to
males by the use of the modifying term "male." Closely connected with this meaning of direct
male issue or of children is its use to denote descendants, posterity in the more general sense.
This usage which, as in the case of the sons (children) of Israel, may be regarded perhaps as
originating in the conception of direct descent from the common ancestor Israel, came in the
course of time to be a mere ethnographic designation, so that the term "the children of Israel"
and "the children of Ammon" meant no more than Israelites or Ammonites, that is, inhabitants
of the lands of Israel or Ammon respectively. An extension of this usage is to be found in the
designation of a people as the sons or children of a land or city; so in Amos 9:7 "children of
the Ethiopians," or Ezekiel 16:28, where the literal rendering would be "sons of Asshur,"
instead of the Assyrians, and "the children of Jerus" in Joel 3:6.

See BAR (prefix); BEN-.

(2) More characteristic of Biblical usage is the employment of the word "son" to indicate
membership in a class or guild, as in the common phrase "sons of the prophets," which
implies nothing whatever as to the ancestry, but states that the individuals concerned are
members of the prophetic guilds or schools. In the New Testament the word "sons" (huioi) in
Luke 11:19, rendered "children" in Matthew 12:27 the King James Version, means, not
physical descendants, but members of the class or sect; according to Matthew the Pharisees,
who were attacking Christ.

(3) The word "son" is used with a following genitive of quality to indicate some
characteristic of the person or persons described. In the English the word "son" is usually
omitted and the phrase is paraphrased as in 2 Samuel 3:34, where the words translated
"wicked men" in the King James Version mean literally, sons or children of wickedness. Two
examples of this usage may be cited: the familiar phrase "sons of Belial" in the Old Testament
(Deuteronomy 15:13 the King James Version, and often), where the meaning is simply base or
worthless fellows (compare Numbers 24:17, margin "children of Sheth" (Expository Times,
XIII, 64b)); and in the New Testament the phrase "sons of thunder," which is given in Mark
3:17 as the explanation of the epithet "Boanerges." This use is common in the New Testament,
as the phrases "children of the kingdom," "children of light," etc., indicate, the general
meaning being that the noun in the genitive following the word children indicates some
quality of the persons under consideration. The special phrases "Son of man" and "Son of
God" are considered in separate articles.
What is the meaning of the holy spirit

The Holy Spirit is a term used in the Bible to describe the third person of the Trinity. The Holy
Spirit is God’s power in action, his active force. God sends out his spirit by projecting his
energy to any place to accomplish his will. The word “spirit” is translated from the Hebrew
word ruʹach and the Greek word pneuʹma
The Holy Spirit is an equal among and a true member of what is known as “the Godhead.”
That’s just another way of describing the three-in-oneness of God. The Godhead is made up
of three equal persons living in perfect unity with each other
Things you should know about the holy spirit
1. The Holy Spirit is a person.
1. Being a person, the Holy Spirit has feelings. He can become sad or angry, and others can
insult Him and blaspheme against Him (Is 63:10; Mt 12:31; Ac 7:51; Eph 4:30; Heb 10:29).
Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he
himself fought against them. - Isaiah 63:10
And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the
Spirit will not be forgiven. - Matthew 12:31
“You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your
ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! - Acts 7:51
And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of
redemption.
- Ephesians 4:30
How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled
the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that
sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? - Hebrews 10:29
2. He has intentions, shows willfulness and discretion, loves, communicates, testifies,
teaches, and prays (Neh 9:20; Jn 15:26; Ac 13:2; Rm 8:26,27; 15:30; 1Co 12:11). These are
qualities that distinguish Him as a person.
You gave your good Spirit to instruct them. You did not withhold your manna from their
mouths, and you gave them water for their thirst. - Nehemiah 9:20
When the Advocate 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
While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me
Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” - Acts 13:2
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray
for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. And he who searches our
hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in
accordance with the will of God. - Romans 8:26-27
I urge you, brothers and sisters, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join
me in my struggle by praying to God for me. - Romans 15:30
All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as
he determines. - 1 Corinthians 12:11
The Holy Spirit was present during each stage of Christ’s life. When the angel appeared to
Mary, the mother of Jesus, he declared: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power
of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the holy one to be born will be called the
Son of God” (Lk 1:35).
Later on, at the baptism of Jesus, which marked the beginning of His public ministry, the Holy
Spirit was present and, on this occasion, could be seen in material form. “When Jesus was
baptized, he went up immediately from the water. The heavens suddenly opened for him,
and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming down on him” (Mt 3:16).
During His ministry, Jesus taught about the Holy Spirit and had a relationship with Him.
Furthermore, He urged His disciples to receive Him in their lives.

3. The Holy Spirit Works in the Lives of Believers

Jesus put a lot of emphasis on the Holy Spirit. He was the subject of intense prayer: “And I
will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever. He is the
Spirit of truth. The world is unable to receive him because it doesn’t see him or know him.
But you do know him, because he remains with you and will be in you” (Jn 14:16-17). The
Lord mentions two points: the Holy Spirit was already real and He was about to come. At that
time, the Spirit dwelled with the disciples, but they lacked having Him in them. If the Spirit of
God was so important to the life of Jesus, how much more so for the lives of the believers!
The Holy Spirit is an important figure throughout the Bible. In Genesis 1:2, we find Him
moving about the surface of the waters, and in Revelation 22:17, He and the bride cry with
one voice. From beginning to end, the Holy Spirit has always been active: In the beginning,
creating, and at the end of the story, tending to us. He comforts us, helps us, guides us,
reminds us, teaches us, comes along side us, counsels us, and intercedes and advocates for
us. There is no area of life in which the believer does not need the help of the Holy Spirit.
"Without a life full of the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to build the body of Christ."
A gospel with no emphasis on the Holy Spirit is flat. In certain moments, when there was a
special manifestation of God, the New Testament emphatically states that the partakers were
filled with the Holy Spirit. This was the experience of many: John the Baptist was full of the
Spirit in his mother’s womb (Lk 1:15); Elizabeth, when Mary greeted her (Lk 1:41); and
Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, when he prophesied (Lk 1:67). Jesus, filled with the
Holy Spirit, was led by the same Spirit into the desert (Lk 4:1). The disciples were filled with
the Spirit in the upper room, and Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, stood up to preach on the
day of Pentecost (Ac 2:14). The young Stephen, full of the Spirit, saw the glory of God when
he was stoned (Ac 7:55-56); and Paul, inspired by the Spirit, rebuked a sorcerer (Ac 13:9-11).
There is no doubt that in the church a life filled with the Holy Spirit should be the norm. The
filling of the Holy Spirit was even a requirement for serving in the church. Without a life full
of the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to build the body of Christ, and we end up limiting God’s
work in our lives.
4. The Holy Spirit Works in the World through Evangelism
Referring to the Holy Spirit, Jesus affirmed in John 16:8: “When he comes, he will convict the
world about sin, righteousness, and judgment.” The Lord used the legal term “convict” in
order to highlight that, even if man can point out an error, it is the Spirit that brings
conviction of sin. He shows the offense, reveals the foolishness of the sin, points out the
consequences, convinces of guilt, and leads the sinner to repentance. He is the church’s
greatest ally in its evangelizing effort. Without the help and the filling of the Spirit, the
evangelistic task of the church will fail.
The emphasis on the Holy Spirit does not come from any religious organization in particular,
but from Christ Himself. When the disciples asked the Lord about the future, Christ’s answer
was emphatic: “He said to them, ‘It is not for you to know times or periods that the Father
has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come on
you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of
the earth’” (Ac 1:7-8).

"In order to receive the power of God, one does not need a religious formula, but rather a
relationship with a person."

In Acts 1:7, Jesus points out what the disciples are not to know, but in verse 8, the emphasis
is placed on what they are to know. With the adversative word “but,” Jesus brings the off-
track attention of the disciples to the primary concern at hand: they would “receive power.”
However, this depended on the Holy Spirit’s coming to them. Perhaps they did not know this
person of the Trinity very well, but the idea of receiving power must have caught all of their
attention. For over three years, these men had been witnesses of the continual manifestation
of God’s power through Jesus, and now the doors were being opened for them to access this
power that they had so admired.
In order to receive the power of God, one does not need a religious formula, but rather a
relationship with a person. When a farmer grows crops, his desire is to receive its fruit, but
his relationship is with the plant. It is the plant that the farmer sows, waters, and takes care
of, even though he is waiting for the fruit. He knows that, without the plant, there will be no
fruit. The disciples also desired the fruit of the Holy Spirit, but for that, it was necessary for
them to relate to Him as a person. Before seeing the divine manifestation, the believer will
learn to love, serve, adore, and respect the Spirit, wait in Him and form a relationship with
Him.

5. The Power of the Holy Spirit Changes Lives

Acts clearly states how to recognize someone that is full of the Spirit: “You will be My
witnesses” (1:8). Love is a distinguishing mark of the disciples, while being a witness
distinguishes those who are full of the Spirit. It does not matter how many spiritual
experiences one may have, whoever does not testify of Christ does not show evidence of
being filled by the Spirit.
If we analyze what Paul says in Galatians 3:2—“I only want to learn this from you: Did you
receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by believing what you heard?”— we realize that
this is a rhetorical question; no one receives the Holy Spirit based on what they do. We
experience salvation freely; there is no reason to relate to God differently in our experience
with the Holy Spirit. It is also a grace-based experience. In the same way that we receive
Christ without doubting whether He will enter our lives or not, we should receive the Holy
Spirit by faith and believe that He will respond to our requests without delay.
Jesus skillfully expresses the essence of this experience: “If you then, who are evil, know how
to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy
Spirit to those who ask him?” (Lk 11:13).
Trinity explained
What Does it Mean That God is a Trinity?
The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three
distinct Persons — the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence
and three in person. These definitions express three crucial truths: (1) The Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, (2) each Person is fully God, (3) there is only one God.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct

Persons
The Bible speaks of the Father as God (Phil. 1:2), Jesus as God (Titus 2:13), and the Holy
Spirit as God (Acts 5:3-4). Are these just three different ways of looking at God, or simply
ways of referring to three different roles that God plays?

The answer must be no, because the Bible also indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit are distinct Persons. For example, since the Father sent the Son into the world (John
3:16), He cannot be the same person as the Son. Likewise, after the Son returned to the
Father (John 16:10), the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world (John 14:26;
Acts 2:33). Therefore, the Holy Spirit must be distinct from the Father and the Son.

In the baptism of Jesus, we see the Father speaking from heaven and the Spirit descending
from heaven in the form of a dove as Jesus comes out of the water (Mark 1:10-11). In John
1:1 it is affirmed that Jesus is God and, at the same time, that He was “with God”- thereby
indicating that Jesus is a distinct Person from God the Father (cf. also 1:18). And in John
16:13-15 we see that although there is a close unity between them all, the Holy Spirit is also
distinct from the Father and the Son.

The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons means, in other words,
that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the
Father. Jesus is God, but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but
He is not the Son or the Father. They are different Persons, not three different ways of
looking at God.

The personhood of each member of the Trinity means that each Person has a distinct
center of consciousness. Thus, they relate to each other personally — the Father regards
Himself as “I,” while He regards the Son and Holy Spirit as “You.” Likewise the Son regards
Himself as “I,” but the Father and the Holy Spirit as “You.”

Often it is objected that “If Jesus is God, then he must have prayed to himself while he was
on earth.” But the answer to this objection lies in simply applying what we have already
seen. While Jesus and the Father are both God, they are different Persons. Thus, Jesus
prayed to God the Father without praying to Himself. In fact, it is precisely the continuing
dialogue between the Father and the Son (Matthew 3:17; 17:5; John 5:19; 11:41-42; 17:1ff )
which furnishes the best evidence that they are distinct Persons with distinct centers of
consciousness.

Sometimes the Personhood of the Father and Son is appreciated, but the Personhood of
the Holy Spirit is neglected. Sometimes the Spirit is treated more like a “force” than a
Person. But the Holy Spirit is not an it, but a He (see John 14:26; 16:7-15; Acts 8:16). The fact
that the Holy Spirit is a Person, not an impersonal force (like gravity), is also shown by the
fact that He speaks (Hebrews 3:7), reasons (Acts 15:28), thinks and understands (1
Corinthians 2:10-11), wills (1 Corinthians 12:11), feels (Ephesians 4:30), and gives personal
fellowship (2 Corinthians 13:14).

These are all qualities of personhood. In addition to these texts, the others we mentioned
above make clear that the Personhood of the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Personhood of
the Son and the Father. They are three real persons, not three roles God plays.

Another serious error people have made is to think that the Father became the Son, who
then became the Holy Spirit. Contrary to this, the passages we have seen imply that God
always was and always will be three Persons. There was never a time when one of the
Persons of the Godhead did not exist. They are all eternal.

While the three members of the Trinity are distinct, this does not mean that any is inferior
to the other. Instead, they are all identical in attributes. They are equal in power, love,
mercy, justice, holiness, knowledge, and all other qualities.

Each Person is fully God

If God is three Persons, does this mean that each Person is “one-third” of God? Does the
Trinity mean that God is divided into three parts?

The Trinity does not divide God into three parts. The Bible is clear that all three Persons are
each one hundred percent God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God. For
example, it says of Christ that “in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form”
(Colossians 2:9).

We should not think of God as like a “pie” cut into three pieces, each piece representing a
Person. This would make each Person less than fully God and thus not God at all. Rather,
“the being of each Person is equal to the whole being of God.”[1] The divine essence is not
something that is divided between the three persons, but is fully in all three persons
without being divided into “parts.”

Thus, the Son is not one-third of the being of God, He is all of the being of God. The Father
is not one-third of the being of God, He is all of the being of God. And likewise with the Holy
Spirit. Thus, as Wayne Grudem writes, “When we speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
together we are not speaking of any greater being than when we speak of the Father alone,
the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone.”[2]

There is only one God

If each Person of the Trinity is distinct and yet fully God, then should we conclude that
there is more than one God? Obviously we cannot, for Scripture is clear that there is only
one God: “There is no other God besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none
besides me. Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is
no other” (Isaiah 45:21-22; see also 44:6-8; Exodus 15:11; Deuteronomy 4:35; 6:4-5; 32:39; 1
Samuel 2:2; 1 Kings 8:60).

Having seen that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, that they are
each fully God, and that there is nonetheless only one God, we must conclude that all three
Persons are the same God. In other words, there is one God who exists as three distinct
Persons.

If there is one passage which most clearly brings all of this together, it is Matthew 28:19:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” First, notice that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
are distinguished as distinct Persons. We baptize into the name of the Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit.

Second, notice that each Person must be deity because they are all placed on the same
level. In fact, would Jesus have us baptize in the name of a mere creature? Surely not.
Therefore, each of the Persons into whose name we are to be baptized must be deity.

Third, notice that although the three divine Persons are distinct, we are baptized into their
name (singular), not names (plural). The three Persons are distinct, yet only constitute one
name. This can only be if they share one essence.

Is the Trinity Contradictory?

This leads us to investigate more closely a very helpful definition of the Trinity which I
mentioned earlier: God is one in essence, but three in Person. This formulation can show
us why there are not three Gods, and why the Trinity is not a contradiction.

In order for something to be contradictory, it must violate the law of noncontradiction. This
law states that A cannot be both A (what it is) and non-A (what it is not) at the same time
and in the same relationship. In other words, you have contradicted yourself if you affirm
and deny the same statement. For example, if I say that the moon is made entirely of
cheese but then also say that the moon is not made entirely of cheese, I have contradicted
myself.

Other statements may at first seem contradictory but are really not. Theologian R.C. Sproul
cites as an example Dickens’ famous line, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of
times.” Obviously this is a contradiction if Dickens means that it was the best of times in the
same way that it was the worst of times. But he avoids contradiction with this statement
because he means that in one sense it was the best of times, but in another sense it was
the worst of times.

Carrying this concept over to the Trinity, it is not a contradiction for God to be both three
and one because He is not three and one in the same way. He is three in a different way
than He is one. Thus, we are not speaking with a forked tongue — we are not saying that
God is one and then denying that He is one by saying that He is three. This is very
important: God is one and three at the same time, but not in the same way.

How is God one? He is one in essence. How is God three? He is three in Person. Essence and
person are not the same thing. God is one in a certain way (essence) and three in a different
way (person). Since God is one in a different way than He is three, the Trinity is not a
contradiction. There would only be a contradiction if we said that God is three in the same
way that He is one.

So a closer look at the fact that God is one in essence but three in person has helped to
show why the Trinity is not a contradiction. But how does it show us why there is only one
God instead of three? It is very simple:

All three Persons are one God because, as we saw above, they are all the same essence.
Essence means the same thing as “being.” Thus, since God is only one essence, He is only
one being, not three. This should make it clear why it is so important to understand that all
three Persons are the same essence. For if we deny this, we have denied God’s unity and
affirmed that there is more than one being of God (i.e., that there is more than one God).

What we have seen so far provides a good basic understanding of the Trinity. But it is
possible to go deeper. If we can understand more precisely what is meant by essence and
person, how these two terms differ, and how they relate, we will then have a more
complete understanding of the Trinity.

Essence and Person

Essence
What does essence mean? As I said earlier, it means the same thing as being. God’s essence
is His being. To be even more precise, essence is what you are. At the risk of sounding too
physical, essence can be understood as the “stuff ” that you “consist of.”

Of course we are speaking by analogy here, for we cannot understand this in a physical way
about God. “God is spirit” (John 4:24). Further, we clearly should not think of God as
“consisting of ” anything other than divinity. The “substance” of God is God, not a bunch of
“ingredients” that taken together yield deity.

Person
In regards to the Trinity, we use the term “Person” differently than we generally use it in
everyday life. Therefore, it is often difficult to have a concrete definition of Person as we
use it in regards to the Trinity. What we do not mean by Person is an “independent
individual” in the sense that both I and another human are separate, independent
individuals who can exist apart from one another.

What we do mean by Person is something that regards himself as “I” and others as “You.”
So the Father, for example, is a different Person from the Son because He regards the Son
as a “You,” even though He regards Himself as “I.” Thus, in regards to the Trinity, we can say
that “Person” means a distinct subject which regards Himself as an “I” and the other two as
a “You.” These distinct subjects are not a division within the being of God, but “a form of
personal existence other than a difference in being.”[3]

How do they relate? The relationship between essence and Person, then, is as follows.
Within God’s one, undivided being is an “unfolding” into three personal distinctions. These
personal distinctions are modes of existence within the divine being, but are not divisions
of the divine being. They are personal forms of existence other than a difference in being.

The late theologian Herman Bavinck has stated something very helpful at this point: “The
persons are modes of existence within the being; accordingly, the Persons differ among
themselves as the one mode of existence differs from the other, and — using a common
illustration —as the open palm differs from a closed fist.”[4]

Because each of these “forms of existence” are relational (and thus are Persons), they are
each a distinct center of consciousness, with each center of consciousness regarding
Himself as “I” and the others as “You.” Nonetheless, these three Persons all “consist of ” the
same “stuff ” (that is, the same “what,” or essence). As theologian and apologist Norman
Geisler has explained it, while essence is what you are, person is who you are. So God is
one “what” but three “whos.”

The divine essence is thus not something that exists “above” or “separate from” the three
Persons, but the divine essence is the being of the three Persons. Neither should we think
of the Persons as being defined by attributes added on to the being of God. Wayne Grudem
explains:

But if each person is fully God and has all of God’s being, then we also should not think that
the personal distinctions are any kind of additional attributes added on to the being of God
. . . Rather, each person of the Trinity has all of the attributes of God, and no one Person has
any attributes that are not possessed by the others.

On the other hand, we must say that the Persons are real, that they are not just different
ways of looking at the one being of God...The only way it seems possible to do this is to say
that the distinction between the persons is not a difference of "being" but a difference of
"relationships." This is something far removed from our human experience, where every
different human "person" is a different being as well. Somehow God’s being is so much
greater than ours that within his one undivided being there can be an unfolding into
interpersonal relationships, so that there can be three distinct persons.[5]

Trinitarian Illustrations?
There are many illustrations which have been offered to help us understand the Trinity.
While there are some illustrations which are helpful, we should recognize that no
illustration is perfect. Unfortunately, there are many illustrations which are not simply
imperfect, but in error.

One illustration to beware of is the one which says, “I am one person, but I am a student,
son, and brother. This explains how God can be both one and three.” The problem with this
is that it reflects a heresy called modalism. God is not one person who plays three different
roles, as this illustration suggests. He is one Being in three Persons (centers of
consciousness), not merely three roles. This analogy ignores the personal distinctions
within God and mitigates them to mere roles.

Summary
Let us quickly review what we have seen.

1. The Trinity is not belief in three gods. There is only one God, and we must never
stray from this.
2. This one God exists as three Persons.
3. The three Persons are not each part of God, but are each fully God and equally
God. Within God’s one undivided being there is an unfolding into three
interpersonal relationships such that there are three Persons. The distinctions
within the Godhead are not distinctions of His essence and neither are they
something added on to His essence, but they are the unfolding of God’s one,
undivided being into three interpersonal relationships such that there are three real
Persons.
4. God is not one person who took three consecutive roles. That is the heresy of
modalism. The Father did not become the Son and then the Holy Spirit. Instead,
there have always been and always will be three distinct persons in the Godhead.
5. The Trinity is not a contradiction because God is not three in the same way that
He is one. God is one in essence, three in Person.

Application
The Trinity is first of all important because God is important. To understand more fully what
God is like is a way of honoring God. Further, we should allow the fact that God is triune to
deepen our worship. We exist to worship God. And God seeks people to worship Him in
“spirit and truth” (John 4:24). Therefore, we must always endeavor to deepen our worship
of God — in truth as well as in our hearts.

The Trinity has a very significant application to prayer. The general pattern of prayer in the
Bible is to pray to the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:18). Our
fellowship with God should be enhanced by consciously knowing that we are relating to a
tri-personal God!

Awareness of the distinct role that each Person of the Trinity has in our salvation can
especially serve to give us greater comfort and appreciation for God in our prayers, as well
as helping us to be specific in directing our prayers. Nonetheless, while recognizing the
distinct roles that each Person has, we should never think of their roles as so separate that
the other Persons are not involved. Rather, everything that one Person is involved in, the
other two are also involved in, one way or another.