(Continuation) The Trinity case (historical, philosophial, etc)

BY RONY MIKHAIL

 Section 2. TRINITY

The doctrine of the Trinity maintains that the Scriptures teach that there is one God – one being, nature or essence of God. This one being of God, based on Scripture, is shared by three eternally distinct persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These three persons who make up the one being of God are co-eternal, co-equal, interdependant, and in perfect harmony or unity with every sovereign choice or action they make. This is unlike any other concept of God. They are unified in their essence, nature or substance (what they are) but distinct in their person (who they are). This is the doctrine of the Trinity and it is the only consistent Biblical belief to maintain if you want to be true to all of what Scripture says.

There is not a shred of evidence that the Roman Emperor Constantine invented this concept in the 4th century and no one has ever produced any. What Emperor Constantine did do is halt the persecution of the Christian people by legalizing Christianity in the Roman Empire.1 This occurred in 313 A.D. Before Constantine reigned, Christianity was illegal and persecuted for the first 300 years of Christian history. Constantine also summoned the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. due to the Arian Controversy. Arius (A.D. 256-336), although affirming the divinity of Jesus as an exalted creature, went against orthodoxy and argued that Jesus was the first creation, and hence, not truly God. He was a very persuasive speaker and had deceived many Christians in the Roman Empire. This caused major division among the Christians throughout the Roman Empire since Jesus’ deity was the popular understanding, as I will show. Therefore, 220 Bishops (elders of churches) from all over the world were summoned to consider the issue in this Council. The Bishops gathered and there was a vote as to whether or not Jesus was the first creation or if He was God. Out of the 220 Bishops that assembled to vote, all but two of them affirmed that Arius’s teachings were wrong and that the deity of Jesus was Biblical. Hence, the Council condemned Arianism as a heresy, which many had already done, and affirmed Jesus’ deity in the Nicene Creed.2 After Nicaea, Christians like Athanasius and Augustine refuted Arius’ teaching in numerous works arguing from Scripture. These myths and legends about Constantine inventing the Trinity are not to be found in history or scholarship. There is, however, much evidence that the doctrine of the Trinity was believed in long before Arius came along and long before the Council of Nicaea. The doctrine of the Trinity was widely held in pre-Nicene Christendom while Rome was still persecuting the Christians.

180 A.D. Theophilus the Bishop of Antioch says

“In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.”3

Notice, Theophilus uses the three days prior the creation of the stars as being analogous to the nature of God in that while there were three days, which is a type of Trinity or “trias” (Greek), there are three in the God-head; the Father (commonly called God to safeguard His distinction from the Son and Spirit as well as his authority), His Word which is Jesus, and His wisdom the Holy Spirit. This is Trinitarian language in the 2nd century. What is deduced from this is that Theophilus, being the Bishop of church in Antioch (modern day Antakya, Turkey), having the sphere of influence that he had, shows that many of those in 2nd century Turkey affirmed this Trinitarian concept.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum (A.D. 115-202) wrote a popular work called ‘Against Heresies’ around 180 A.D.

“For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness.”4

Here Irenaeus affirms the eternality of the members of the God-head, their role in creation and their distinction in person-hood with the phrase “with Him were always present.” This indicates a distinction in person-hood since the Son and the Spirit are with the Father. This is not something someone would say if they believed the Son and Spirit were the same person as the Father. Irenaeus was Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, modern day Lyons, France and thus his influence as elder of this church ensures that this Trinitarian belief was held by many in modern France in the late 2nd century.

Hippolytus of Rome (A.D. 170-236) wrote the following in his work ‘Against the Heresy of One Noetus’ in the early 3rd century

“See, brethren, what a rash and audacious dogma they have introduced, when they say without shame, the Father is Himself Christ, Himself the Son, Himself was born, Himself suffered, Himself raised Himself. But it is not so...For who will not say that there is one God? Yet he will not on that account deny the economy (i.e., the number and disposition of persons in the Trinity)… As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation… And the blessed John, in the testimony of his Gospel, gives us an account of this economy (disposition) and acknowledges this Word as God, when he says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost.”5

Tertullian (A.D. 160-215)

“… in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”6

Around 225 A.D. the Egyptian (hey that's like me!) Christian Origen (A.D. 185-254) wrote the following in his work ‘De Principiis

“Let no one indeed suppose that we, from having said that the Holy Spirit is conferred upon the saints alone, but that the benefits or operations of the Father and of the Son extend to good and bad, to just and unjust, by so doing give a preference to the Holy Spirit over the Father and the Son, or assert that His dignity is greater, which certainly would be a very illogical conclusion… Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification ...”7

From this we can deduce that Origen and probably his followers in Egypt affirmed Trinitarian concepts. Origen used the term “Trinity” and seems to believe that the Father, Son and Spirit are distinct in person-hood by using personal pronouns like “He” or “His” when referring to the Spirit in distinction from the Father and Son. The use of such personal pronouns does not prove a distinction in person-hood but it is what we would expect if he did affirm their personal distinction. The Spirit is also omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent in Origen’s view since He sanctifies and indwells all believers around the world and would need the power, knowledge and ability to do so. These are characteristics of God alone.

Sec. 2a. The Trinity is One God

One God. Not three gods. Not one person. One divine essence, three distinct persons. This is not invented language, it is forced by Scripture itself.

“Go therefore and make disciples… baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19)

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 guiding principle has been the creedal declaration that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of the New Testament are consubstantial (i.e. the same in substance or essence, Greek: homoousios). Because this shared substance or essence is a divine one, this is understood to imply that all three named individuals are divine, and equally so. Yet the three in some sense “are” the one God of the Bible

It is often alleged that the doctrine of the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine. While the word Trinity is not in the Bible, the substance of the doctrine is definitely biblical. The doctrine is simply a formal way of systematizing the following six propositions, which may be viewed as premises 

of the doctrine:

PREMISE AND PROPOSITIONS

I. There is one God (i.e., one proper object of religious devotion).

II. This one God is a single divine being, called Jehovah or Yahweh in the Old Testament (the LORD).

III. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is God, the LORD.

IV. The Son, Jesus Christ, is God, the LORD.

V. The Holy Spirit is God, the LORD.

VI. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each someone distinct from the other two.

Anyone who affirms all six of these propositions is affirming what is essential to the doctrine of the Trinity, since this is just what the doctrine of the Trinity says. In order to dispute the doctrine of the Trinity, then, one must take issue with one or more of the propositions stated above. Anything else is tangential to the issue. Objections based on the special theological vocabulary used in Trinitarian creeds, the conceptual difficulty of the doctrine, the political dimensions of ecclesiastical controversies involving the doctrine, the questionable conduct of some of those who adhere to the doctrine, and the like, fail to engage the biblical basis of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Ironically, anti-Trinitarians who profess faith in the Bible can be found who affirm all of these propositions, though they disagree among themselves as to which ones are biblical. All anti-Trinitarians affirm proposition #3

A proper evaluation of the biblical evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity will depend on the faithful application of sound principles of biblical interpretation. Here I will mention just two principles which, if followed, would prevent almost all interpretive errors on this subject.

The first is to interpret the implicit in light of the explicit. That is, texts that explicitly state that such-and-such is true are to govern our understanding of passages that do not address the issue directly. For example, many passages of the Bible state explicitly that God is omniscient, that is, that he knows all things, including the thoughts of men and all future events (1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron. 28:9; Job 37:16; Ps. 139:1-4; Is. 41:22-23; 42:9; 44:7; Jer. 17:10a). These texts must govern our understanding of passages which might seem to imply, but which do not assert, that God did not know something (e.g., Gen. 3:9-13; 4:9; 18:9, 20-21).

The other principle is that we interpret logically but not rationalistically. Using the same illustration, if God knows everything ahead of time, then logically He must have known that Adam and Eve would fall into sin. However, to argue that if God knew Adam and Eve would sin then they would not be responsible for their choosing to sin is not “logical,” it is rationalistic. It may be difficult to understand how persons could be responsible for their sinful actions if God knew ahead of time that they would sin, but it is not illogical (not self-contradictory) to say so.

I. There Is One God

One God: Explicit Statements

OT: Deut. 4:35, 39; 32:39; 2 Sam. 22:32; 2 Kings 5:15; Is. 37:20; 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5, 14, 21-22; 46:9

NT: John 5:44; Rom. 3:30; 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25

None like God (in his essence)

Explicit statements: Ex. 8:10; 9:14; 15:11; 2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Kgs. 8:23; 1 Chr. 17:20; Ps. 86:8; Is. 40:18, 25; 44:7; 46:5, 9; Jer. 10:6-7; Micah 7:18

Being like God a Satanic lie: Gen. 3:5; Is. 14:14; John 8:44

Fallen man become “like God” only in that he took upon himself to know good and evil, not that he acquired godhood: Gen. 3:22

Only one true God: 2 Chr. 15:3; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 John 5:20-21

Antitrinitarians sometimes argue that the word translated “true” in John 17:3 (alêthinos) actually means “archetypal,” referring to the Father as the archetypal or original God, thus allowing Christ to be designated “God” in a derivative or secondary sense.

Even if this interpretation were possible for John 17:3, it is not for the OT texts, since the Hebrew word for “true” (’emet) never means “archetypal.”

Elsewhere, the expression “the true God” in context contrasts this God with idols or false gods, not with genuine though derivative gods:

2 Chron. 15:3—Just as Israel was for many days “without the true God” but then turned back to him (vv. 3-6), so Asa turned to him by first removing all the idols from the land (v. 7[1]).

Jer. 10:10—Israel not to fear the gods of the nations, worshiped in idols (10:1-9); the true God is the living God (v. 10) and the Creator of the world (vv. 11-12).

1 Thess. 1:9—the Thessalonians turned from idols to serve the living and true God.

1 John 5:20-21—We are in the true God and eternal life (v. 20b), and should guard ourselves from idols (v. 21).

We should read the expression “the true God” in John 17:3 in light of its use elsewhere in the Bible as well as in its immediate context in John. Jesus’ point is not that the Father is the archetypal God from whom all other Gods are derived, but that God is only truly known in the Father whom Jesus his Son came to glorify. That God the Father cannot be known apart from the Son is a major theme in John’s writings (e.g., John 1:18; 8:19; 14:6-7, 9, 23; 17:25-26; 1 John 2:23; 5:20). The parallel with 1 John 5:20 is especially significant: eternal life consists in knowing the Father as the true God and Jesus Christ (John 17:3); we know the true one in his Son Jesus Christ, and this is the true God and eternal life (1 John 5:20).

Ironically, critics of the Trinity often lean hard on John 17:3 to try to prove that Jesus cannot be God because the text says that the Father, as distinct from Jesus Christ, is the only true God. But this argument backfires when the “archetypal” understanding of John 17:3 is refuted, because John explicitly identifies Jesus as God (John 1:1, 18; 20:28; see IV.A.2-4 below). Although Christ humbly honors the Father in this statement as the only true God, his statement does not necessarily mean that he (Jesus) is not also God—and the explicit statements in the same Gospel prove this was not his meaning.

All other “gods” are therefore false gods (idols), not gods at all: Deut. 32:21; 1 Sam. 12:21; Ps. 96:5; Is. 37:19; 41:23-24, 29; Jer. 2:11; 5:7; 16:20; 1 Cor. 8:4; 10:19-20

Demons, not gods, are the power behind false worship: Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37; 1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8

How human beings are meant to be “like God”

The image of God indicates that man is to represent God and share his moral character, not that man can be metaphysically like God: Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 1 Cor. 11:7; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10

The goal of being like Christ has the following aspects only:

Sharing His moral character: 1 John 3:2; Rom. 8:29.

Being raised with glorified, immortal bodies like His: Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:49.

Becoming partakers of the divine nature refers again to moral nature (“having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust”), not metaphysical nature: 2 Pet. 1:4; see also Heb. 12:10; on the meaning of “partakers,” see 1 Cor. 10:18, 20; 2 Cor. 1:17; 1 Pet. 5:1.

Are mighty or exalted men gods?

Scripture never says explicitly that human beings are gods.

Powerful, mighty men are explicitly said not to be gods: Ezek. 28:2, 9; Is. 31:3; 2 Thess. 2:4.

Man and God are opposite, exclusive categories: Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron. 29:1; Job 32:13; Ps. 56:4, 11; Prov. 3:4; Is. 31:3; Ezek. 28:2, 9; Hosea 11:9; Matt. 19:26; John 10:33; Acts 12:22; 1 Cor. 14:2.

Moses was “as God,” not really a god: Ex. 4:16; 7:1.

Ezek. 32:21 speaks of warriors or soldiers as “mighty gods,” but in context they are so regarded by their pagan nations, not by God or Israel; cf. Ezek. 28:2, 9

The elohim before whom accused stood in Exodus was God himself, not judges, as many translations incorrectly render: Ex. 22:8-9, 28; compare Deut. 19:17.

The use of elohim in Psalm 82, probably in reference to wicked judges, as cited by Jesus in John 10:34-36, does not mean that men really can be gods.

It is Asaph, not the Lord, who calls the judges elohim in Ps. 82:1, 6. This is important, even though we agree that Ps. 82 is inspired.

Asaph’s meaning is not “Although you are gods, you will die like men,” but rather “I called you gods, but in fact you will all die like the men that you really are.”

The Psalmist was no more saying that wicked judges were truly gods than he was saying that they were truly “sons of the Most High” (v. 6b).

Thus, Ps. 82:1 calls the judges elohim in irony. They had quite likely taken their role in judgment (cf. point 6 above) to mean they were elohim, or gods, and Asaph’s message is that these so-called gods were mere men who would die under the judgment of the true elohim (vss. 1-2, 7-8).

Christ’s use of this passage in John 10:34-36 does not negate the above interpretation of Psalm 82.

The words, “The Scripture cannot be broken,” in this context probably mean “the Scripture cannot go without having some ultimate fulfillment” (cf. John 7:23; Matt. 5:17). Thus Jesus is saying that what the OT judges were called in irony, he is in reality; he does what they could not do and is what they could never be (see the Adam—Christ contrasts in Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45 for a similar use of OT Scripture).

The clause, “those against whom the word of God came” (John 10:35) shows that this “word” was a word of judgment against the so-called gods; which shows that they were false gods, not really gods at all.

Finally, these wicked men were certainly not “godlike” or “divine” by nature, so that in any case the use of elohim to refer to them must be seen as figurative, not literal.

Even if men were gods (which they are not), this would be irrelevant to Jesus, since He was God as a preexistent spirit before creation: John 1:1.

Are angels gods?

Scripture never explicitly states that angels are gods.

Demonic spirits are not gods, 1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8; thus, being “mighty spirits” does not make angels gods.

Satan is therefore also a false god: 2 Cor. 4:4.

Psalm 8:5 does not teach that angels are gods.

Ps. 8:5 is paraphrased in Heb. 2:7, not quoted literally (for a similar example of such paraphrase, cf. Ps. 68:18 with Eph. 4:8). In Ps. 8:5, elohim certainly means God, not angels, since Ps. 8:3-8 parallels Gen. 1:1, 8, 16, 26-28. (Hebrews is here following the Septuagint, or Greek translation of the OT, in using “angels” in place of “God.”) Note that the Psalmist is speaking of man’s exalted place in creation, whereas Hebrews, while agreeing on man’s exalted status compared to the rest of creation, applies the Psalm to speak of the lower place taken by Christ in becoming a man compared to his intrinsic status as divine. Thus, Heb. 2:7 may not mean to equate angels with gods at all (and the writer never draws that conclusion).

Having argued that Christ, unlike the angels, bears the designation “God” (1:8), it would be odd for the writer to imply just several verses later that the angels were “gods” (supposedly in 2:7).

Even if Heb. 2:7 did imply that angels are “gods,” in the context of Hebrews 1-2 these angels would be those falsely exalted above Christ. (The focal claim of Hebrews 1-2 is that Christ is greater than all the angels.) Cf. also Rev. 19:10 and 22:8-9 on the problem of the worship of angels (as well as possibly Col. 2:18).

Elsewhere in the Psalms angels, if spoken of as gods (or as “sons of the gods”), are considered false gods: Ps. 29:1; 86:8-10; 89:6; 95:3; 96:4-5; 97:7-9 (note that these false gods are called “angels” in the Septuagint); 135:5; 136:2; 138:1; cf. Ex. 15:11; 18:11; Deut. 10:17; 1 Chr. 16:25; 2 Chr. 2:5.

Does the plural form of Elohim refer to “gods” or “Gods”?

It is true that the Hebrew word elohim (usually translated “God”) is grammatically a plural form. However, when it refers to “gods” in the plural (typically false deities), elohim regularly takes plural verbs, adjectives, and pronouns (e.g., “other [pl.] gods,” Ex. 20:3; Deut. 5:7; frequent in the OT; “these [pl.] are the gods,” 1 Sam. 4:8; “so may the gods do [pl.] to me,” 1 Kings 19:2; “you [pl.] are our gods,” Is. 42:17; etc.). When it refers to the true God, the Creator, the object of Israel’s proper worship, it regularly takes singular verbs, singular adjectives, and singular pronouns. For example, “created” in Genesis 1:1 is a singular verb form, despite the fact that elohim (“God”) is grammatically a plural noun. Most Hebrew scholars understand this use of the plural form elohim for God to be an example of the plural of fullness (or plenitude, amplitude, etc.).

The simple fact that the OT occasionally uses elohim with reference to a single pagan god, such as Ashtoreth, Chemosh, or Molech (1 Kings 11:5, 33), is sufficient to show that elohim can refer to a single deity (see also Judg. 6:31; 11:24; 16:23, 24; 1 Sam. 5:7; 1 Kings 18:24a, 25; 2 Kings 1:2, 3, 6, 16; 19:37).

The Greek OT (or Septuagint) translated elohim in these contexts consistently with the singular noun theos (“God”), and when the NT quotes the OT it also uses the singular form theos (e.g., Deut. 6:13, in Matt. 4:10 and Luke 4:8; Deut. 6:16, in Matt. 4:7 and Luke 4:12; Ex. 3:6, in Matt. 22:32, Mark 12:26, and Luke 20:37; Ps. 22:1 in Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34; etc.).

Since the plural form elohim can be used even with reference to an individual pagan deity, we should also not regard this plural form as evidence of the Trinity

II. This One God Is the Single Divine Being Known in the OT as Jehovah or Yahweh (“The LORD”)

This one God is known in the OT as Jehovah or Yahweh (“the LORD”)

Texts where Jehovah is said to be elohim or el: Deut. 4:35, 39; Josh. 22:34; 1 Kings 8:60; 18:21, 39; Ps. 100:3; 118:27; etc.

Texts where the compound name “Jehovah God” (Yahweh Elohim) is used: Gen. 2:4-9, 15-22; 3:1, 8-9, 13-14, 21-23; 24:3; Ex. 9:30; Ps. 72:18; 84:11; Jonah 4:6

Only one Yahweh/Jehovah: Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29

The Bible never speaks of “the gods” as a group that includes Yahweh; nor is creation ever credited to “gods”; nor does it ever enjoin the worship of “gods”; nor does it speak in any other way that would imply that Yahweh was one of a group of deities. In fact the Bible explicitly rejects these types of statements (e.g., Deut. 5:6-10; 6:4-5, 13; Is. 43:10; 44:6-8, 24).

Conclusion: Jehovah is the only God, the only El or Elohim

This one God, the LORD, is one single divine being

The Bible always refers to the LORD or God in the third person singular (he, his, him), never as they, and speakers in the Bible addressing God/the LORD always do so in the second person singular (you singular). Citing texts is really unnecessary because there are far too many occurrences, but see, for example, Gen. 1:5, 10; Ex. 3:6, 12-14; 20:7; Deut. 32:39; 1 Kings 18:39; Ps. 23:2-3.

Whenever in the Bible the LORD or God speaks to human beings or other creatures, he always speaks of himself in the first person singular (I and my/mine, not us/we and our/ours). Of the obviously numerous examples, see the especially famous examples in Ex. 3:14; Ex. 20:2; Deut. 5:6. He says “I am the LORD” or “I am the LORD your/their God” some 164 times in the OT (especially in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Isaiah, and Ezekiel).

This conclusion cannot be circumvented by saying that there is one “Godhead” consisting of a plurality of divine beings. The word “Godhead” is equivalent to the word “Godhood” (-head is an old English suffix meaning the state or status of something, as in maidenhead, the state of being a maiden or virgin). In the English Bible it is used to translate three closely related words: theion (“divine being,” Acts 17:29), theiotês (“divine nature,” Rom. 1:20), and theotês (“deity,” Col. 2:9). In none of these texts does “Godhead” refer to more than one divine being. The use of “Godhead” as a term for the Trinity is not found in the Bible; it is not inaccurate per se, but it must be understood as a term for a single divine being, not a group of gods.

However, the Bible never says that God is “one person.”

Heb. 1:3 KJV speaks of God’s “person,” but the word used here, hupostasis, is translated “substance” in Heb. 11:1 KJV; also in Heb. 1:3 “God” refers specifically to the Father.

Gal. 3:20 speaks of God as one party in the covenant between God and man, not as one person.

Job 13:8 KJV speaks of God’s “person,” but ironically the Hebrew literally means “his faces.”

The use of plural pronouns by God in Genesis 1-11

As already noted, the Bible always refers to God in the singular, and he always speaks of himself with singular pronouns (I, me, mine, my) when addressing creatures. These singular forms do not disprove that God exists as three “persons” as long as these persons are not separate beings.

At least three times God speaks of or to himself using plural pronouns (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7), and nontrinitarian interpretations cannot account for these occurrences.

A plural reference to God and the angels is not likely in these texts. In 1:26 “our image” is explained by the parallel in 1:27, “in God’s image.” In 3:22 “like one of us” refers back to 3:5, “like God.” In 11:7 “let us go down and there confuse their language” is explained immediately in 11:8-9, “So the LORD [Yahweh] scattered them abroad from there … The LORD confused the language of the whole earth.” Angels were evidently present when God created human beings (cf. Job 38:4-7), but the Bible never includes them as participants in creating human beings. Nor does the Bible ever speak of humans as being in the image of angels.

That the plural is in some way literal is evident from 3:22 (“like one of us”) and from 11:7 (“Come, let us go down”), which parallels the people’s statements “Come, let us …” (11:3, 4).

The “literary plural” (possibly, though never clearly, attested in Paul) is irrelevant to OT texts in which God is speaking, not writing.

The “plural of deliberation” or “cohortative plural” (as in “Let’s see now …”) with reference to a single person is apparently unattested in biblical writings, and clearly cannot explain the plural in Gen. 3:22 (“like one of us”).

The “plural of amplitude” or of “fullness” (which probably does explain the use of the plural form elohim in the singular sense of “God”) is irrelevant to the use of plural pronouns, and again cannot explain Gen. 3:22 and 11:7.

The “plural of majesty” (the royal “we”) is possibly attested in 1 Kings 12:9; 2 Chron. 10:9; more likely Ezra 4:18; but none of these is a certain use of that idiom; and again, it cannot explain Gen. 3:22 and 11:7.

There are two factors that may explain why these intradivine plural pronouns occur only in Genesis 1-11.

These plural pronouns express communication among the divine persons, rather than communication from God to human beings or angelic creatures.

It may be significant that the use of these plural forms is reported only in Genesis 1-11, prior to the revelations to Abraham, when the focus of biblical revelation became the fostering of a monotheistic faith. The history of the OT is a history of the struggle to establish Israel as a community committed to belief in one God. In that context it would have been confusing to have referred overtly to the three divine persons of the triune God. This also explains why there is no overt revelation of the three persons in the OT.

The uniqueness of God should prepare us for the possibility that the one divine Being exists uniquely as a plurality of persons

God cannot be fully comprehended: Is. 40:18, 25; 1 Cor. 8:2-3

God can be known only insofar as the Son reveals Him: Matt. 11:25-27; John 1:18

Analogical language needed to describe God: Ezek. 1:26-28; Rev. 1:13-16

God is transcendent, entirely distinct from and different than the universe, as the carpenter is distinct from the bench

Separate from the world: Is. 40:22; Acts 17:24

Contrasted with the world: Ps. 102:25-27; 1 John 2:15-17

Created the world: Gen. 1:1; Ps. 33:6; 102:25; Is. 42:5; 44:24; John 1:3; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 1:2; 11:3

The Hebrew Bible often equates God’s Name with God himself, which is why blaspheming the Name or using it in vain makes a person guilty of a heinous sin punishable by death:

“You shall not take the name of Yahweh your God in vain, for Yahweh will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.” Exodus 20:7

“And the son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name and cursed. So they brought him to Moses. (Now his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.)… Moreover, the one who blasphemes the name of Yahweh shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.” Leviticus 24:11, 16

In fact, the Name is so important that God has committed himself to make sure that it will never be profaned again: 

“And My holy name I will make known in the midst of My people Israel; and I will not let My holy name be profaned anymore. And the nations will know that I am Yahweh, the Holy One in Israel.” Ezekiel 39:7

We are further told that the ark of the covenant, which symbolizes God’s presence among his people, is called after the Name

“Then David again gathered all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Baale-judah, to bring up from there the ark of God which is called by the Name, the very name of Yahweh of hosts who is enthroned above the cherubim.” 2 Samuel 6:1-2

The prophetic Scriptures, along with Jewish and Christian writings even go as far as to personify the Name of God, attributing to it personal agency and characteristics such as the creation of all things and coming in judgment to unleash its wrath against the disbelieving nations:

“Behold, the name of Yahweh comes from afar; Burning is His anger and heavy is His smoke; His lips are filled with indignation And His tongue is like a consuming fire; His breath is like an overflowing torrent, Which reaches to the neck, To shake the nations back and forth in a sieve of worthlessness, And to put in the jaws of the peoples the bridle which staggers one to ruin.” Isaiah 30:27-28

And now I shall make you swear a great oath–for there is no oath which is greater than it by the name glorious and honoured and great and splendid and wonderful and mighty, which created the heavens and the earth and all things together. (Book of Jubilees 36:8; emphasis mine)

Chapter 59. Warning Against Disobedience. Prayer.

If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin, and, instant in prayer and supplication, shall desire that the Creator of all preserve unbroken the computed number of His elect in the whole world through His beloved Son Jesus Christ, through whom He called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to knowledge of the glory of His name, our hope resting on Your name which is primal cause of every creature — having opened the eyes of our heart to the knowledge of You, who alone rests highest among the highest, holy among the holy, Isaiah 57:15 who layest low the insolence of the haughty, Isaiah 13:11 who destroyest the calculations of the heathen, who settest the low on high and bringest low the exalted; who makest rich and makest poor, 1 Samuel 2:7 who killest and makest to live, Deuteronomy 32:39 only Benefactor of spirits and God of all flesh, who beholdest the depths, the eye-witness of human works, the help of those in danger, the Saviour of those in despair, the Creator and Guardian of every spirit, who multipliest nations upon earth, and from all made choice of those who love You through Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, through whom You instructed, sanctify, honour us. We would have You, Lord, to prove our help and succour. Those of us in affliction save, on the lowly take pity; the fallen raise; upon those in need arise; the sick heal; the wandering ones of Your people turn; fill the hungry; redeem those of us in bonds; raise up those that are weak; comfort the faint-hearted; let all the nations know that You are God alone and Jesus Christ Your Son, and we are Your people and the sheep of Your pasture. (First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians; emphasis mine)

Other divine functions which are ascribed to the Name include forgiveness of sins, redemption/salvation, everlasting security, etc.:

“May Yahweh answer you in the day of distress! May the name of the God of Jacob set you securely on high! May He send you help from the sanctuary And uphold you from Zion! Some boast in chariots and some in horses, But we will boast in the name of Yahweh, our God.” Psalm 20:1-2, 7

“Lamedh For Your name’s sake, O Yahweh, Pardon my iniquity, for it is great.” Psalm 25:11

“For the choir director. With stringed instruments. A Maskil of David. When the Ziphites came and said to Saul, ‘Is not David hiding himself among us?’ O God, save me by Your name, And render justice to me by Your might.” Psalm 54:1

“Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of Your name; And deliver us and atone for our sins for Your name’s sake.” Psalm 79:9

It is at this point where it becomes truly remarkable since the New Testament associates the Name with Jesus Christ!

The Apostles wen forth proclaiming that Jesus is or bears the Name, and were willing to suffer and be killed for it:

“So they followed his advice. And after calling the apostles in and beating them, they commanded them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them. So they went on their way from the presence of the Sanhedrin, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for the Name.” Acts 5:40-41 

“which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was designated as the Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we received grace and apostleship for the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of His name,” Romans 1:2-5 

“For they went out for the sake of the Name, receiving nothing from the Gentiles.” 3 John 7

The Apostolic witness even attributes to Christ’s Name the same divine prerogatives and functions, ascribed to YHWH’s Nme in the OT writings.

For instance, it is in Jesus’ Name alone that individuals receive physical healing and salvation:

“Now it happened that on the next day, their rulers and elders and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem; and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent. And when they had placed them in their midst, they began to inquire, ‘By what power, or in what name, have you done this?’ Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, ‘Rulers and elders of the people, if we are being examined today for a good deed done to a sick man, as to how this man has been saved from his sickness, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by this name this man stands here before you in good health. He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the chief corner stone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.’ (Read

“Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and comprehended that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were marveling, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus. And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they had nothing to say in reply. But when they had ordered them to leave the Sanhedrin, they began to confer with one another, saying, ‘What should we do with these men? For the fact that a noteworthy sign has happened through them is apparent to all who live in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. But lest it spread any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no longer to any man in this name.’ And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.’” Acts 4:5-20

The Apostles’ miraculously healing a paralytic provided supernatural confirmation that Christ is not only alive in heaven after being killed, but that his Name alone is able to save anyone.

To say that this is astonishing would be a wild understatement in light of the fact that the Hebrew Bible emphatically states that YHWH is the only just God who is able to save, which is why all the nations must to turn to him and to no other! 

“Declare and draw near with your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has made this heard from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.” Isaiah 45:21-23

“John said to Him, ‘Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to hinder him because he was not following us.‘ But Jesus said, ‘Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is for us. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name because you are of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward.'” Mark 9:38-41

“Now He said to them, ‘These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.’ Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.’” Luke 24:44-47

“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:12-13

“Therefore many other signs Jesus also did in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” John 20:30-31

“Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Men, brothers, what should we do?’ And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” Acts 2:37-38 that you have eternal life.” 1 John 5:9-13

“As for the word which He sent to the sons of Israel, proclaiming the good news of peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all—… And He commanded us to preach to the people, and solemnly to bear witness that this is the One who has been designated by God as Judge of the living and the dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” Acts 10:36, 42-43 

“Now it happened that as we were going to the place of prayer, a servant-girl having a spirit of divination met us, who was bringing her masters much profit by fortune-telling. Following after Paul and us, she kept crying out, saying, ‘These men are slaves of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.’ And she continued doing this for many days. But being greatly annoyed, Paul turned and said to the spirit, ‘I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to leave her!’ And it left at that very moment.” Acts 16:16-18

“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world… I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake.” 1 John 2:1-2, 12 

“If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for the witness of God is this, that He has borne witness about His Son. The one who believes in the Son of God has this witness in himself. The one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness which God has borne witness about His Son. And the witness is this, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have that life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know

V. The Holy Spirit Is God (forgot the other sections above)

Equated with God/the Lord

Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor. 3:17-18

Has the incommunicable attributes of God

Eternal: Heb. 9:14; this poses a problem for anyone suggesting that the Holy Spirit is something other than God (implies someone or something else besides God is eternal)

Omnipresent: Ps. 139:7

Omniscient: 1 Cor. 2:10-11

Involved in all the works of God

Creation: Gen. 1:2; Ps. 104:30

Incarnation: Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35

Resurrection: Rom. 1:4; 8:11

Salvation: Rom. 8:1-27

Is a person

Has a name: Matt. 28:19; note that even though “name” might be used of a nonperson, here, in conjunction with the Father and the Son, it must be used of a person.

Is the “Helper”

Is another Helper: John 14:16, cf. 1 John 2:1; note also that “Helper” (paraklêtos) was used in Greek always or almost always of persons.

Is sent in Jesus’ name, to teach: John 14:26.

Will arrive, and then bear witness: John 15:26-27.

Is sent by Christ to convict of sin, will speak not on his own but on behalf of Christ, will glorify Christ, thus exhibiting humility: John 16:7-14.

\Is the Holy Spirit, in contrast to unholy or unclean spirits: Mark 3:22-30, cf. Matt. 12:32; 1 Tim. 4:1; 1 John 3:24–4:6.

Speaks, is quoted as speaking: John 16:13; Acts 1:16; 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 13:2; 16:6; 20:23; 21:11; 28:25-27; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 3:7-11; 10:15-17; 1 Pet. 1:11; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22.

Can be lied to: Acts 5:3

Can make decisions, judgments: Acts 15:28

Intercedes for Christians with the Father: Rom. 8:26

“Impersonal” language used of the Spirit paralleled by language used of other persons

The Holy Spirit as fire: Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16; cf. Ex. 3:2-4; Deut. 4:24; 9:3; Heb. 12:29

The Holy Spirit poured out: Acts 2:17, 33; cf. Is. 53:12; Phil. 2:17; 2 Tim. 4:6

Being filled with the Holy Spirit: Eph. 5:18, etc.; cf. Eph. 3:17, 19; John 14:10

VI. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Are Each Someone Distinct from the Other Two (i.e., they are three “persons”)

Matt. 28:19

“the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”: use of definite article before each personal noun indicates distinct persons unless explicitly stated otherwise; compare Rev. 1:17; 2:8, 26

The views that “Father” and “Son” are distinct persons but not the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit is not a person at all, or that all three are different offices or roles of one person, are impossible in view of the grammar (together with the fact that in Scripture a “spirit” is a person unless context shows otherwise).

Does singular “name” prove that the three are one person? No; cf. Gen. 5:2; 11:14; 48:6; and esp. 48:16. Thus, the word “name” can apply distinctly to each of the three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and does not imply that they have only one name.

The New Testament presents a consistent triad of Father, Son, Holy Spirit (God, Christ, Spirit): Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; also Luke 1:35; 3:21-22 par.; 4:1-12; John 4:10-25; 7:37-39; 14-16; 20:21-22; Acts 1:4-8; 2:33, 38-39; 5:3-4, 9, 30-32; 7:55-56; 10:36-38, 44-48; 11:15-18; 15:8-11; 20:38; 28:25-31; Rom. 1:1-4; 5:5-10; 8:2-4, 9-11, 14-17; 1 Cor. 6:11; 12:4-6, 11-12, 18; 2 Cor. 1:19-22; 3:6-8, 14-18; Gal. 3:8-14; 4:4-7; Eph. 1:3-17; 2:18, 21-22; 3:14-19; 4:4-6, 29-32; 5:18-20; Phil. 3:3; 1 Thess. 1:3-6; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; Tit. 3:4-6; Heb. 2:3-4; 9:14; 10:28-31; 1 Pet. 1:2; 1 John 3:21-24; 4:13-14; Jude 20-21; Rev. 2:18, 27-29.

Therefore, the Bible does teach the Trinity.

Sovereignty: Because the three persons have each other, we can be assured that God created us only to share the love they have and not as a means to his own end: Acts 17:25; John 17:21-26.

Mystery: The triune God is totally unlike anything in our world, and therefore greater than anything we can comprehend: Rom. 11:33-36; Isa. 40:18.

Salvation: God alone planned our salvation, came to save us, and dwells in us to complete our salvation: 1 Pet. 1:2; Eph. 1:3-18; etc.

Prayer: We pray to the Father through the Son, and also pray to the Son directly, in the Spirit: John 14:13-14; Eph. 2:18; etc.

Worship: We worship Father and Son in the Spirit: John 4:23-24; Phil. 3:3; Heb. 1:8; etc.

Love: The love among the three persons is the basis and model for our love for one another: John 17:26.

Unity: The unity of the three persons is the basis and model for the unity of the church: John 17:21-23.

Humility: As the persons of the Trinity seek the glory of each other, so we should seek the interests of others above our own: Phil. 2:5-11; John 16:13-14.

Sonship: We are “sons of God” as we are united with the Son of God by the work of the Holy Spirit and the adoption of the Father: John 1:12-23; Rom. 8:14-17.

Truth: All those who wish to worship and love God must seek to know Him as He is in truth, for God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is truth: John 4:24; 14:6, 17; 15:26; 16:13.

the NT further states that true believers were/are to be called Christians, since they have been commanded to bear the Name of Christ:

“If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you… but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be put to shame, but is to glorify God in this name.” 1 Peter 4:14, 16

Again, this is an astonishing claim in light of the OT witness that believers were called after/by YHWH’s Name:

“So all the peoples of the earth will see that you are called by the name of Yahweh, and they will be afraid of you.” Deuteronomy 28:10

“and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their evil ways, then I will listen from heaven, I will forgive their sin, and I will heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14

The foregoing shows that Christ now is and/or bears the Name, and in so doing he is being described as YHWH God Almighty who became Man for the redemption of his creation.

1. The Scriptures are inerrant, having no real contradictions.

2. The Jewish elders reject specific verses from the Greek version of the Old Testament, which was composed by a group of seventy Jewish scribes, claiming that they were never a part of the sacred text.

3. The Hebrew Bible prophesied that the Messiah is the Lord God who will be born as a man from a holy Virgin, citing Isaiah 7:14 as proof.

4. Rejects the claim that Isaiah 7:14 speaks of a young woman conceiving, not a virgin, and denies that this refers to Hezekiah.

5. Employs Genesis 1:26, 3:22 and Proverbs 8 to demonstrate that the Son was there with Father where they created all things together.

6. Quotes Joshua 5:13-6:2, Psalms 45, 72 and 99 to prove that all of these are statements and/or messianic prophecies about Christ being the Lord God that appeared as and would eventually become Man, worthy of all worship, and that his Church is one and universal.

7. Argues that Isaiah 42:8 proclaims that God swears to only give his glory to the Christ, and to none else, thereby further proving that both the Father and the Christ are worthy to be called Lord, God and to receive worshi

Cross-referencing Acts 2:38 and other Acts references to baptism “in Jesus’ name” with Matthew 28:19 to prove that Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is hermeneutically flawed, since none of these passages is seeking to make such a point and none of them is claiming that baptism must be performed using a particular formula.

God the Father and the Son Jesus Christ are two persons

The salutations: Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; 6:23; Phil. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1, 2; 1 Tim. 1:1, 2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4; Philem. 3; James 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:2; 2 John 3

Two witnesses: John 5:31-32; 8:16-18; cf. Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15

The Father sent the Son: John 3:16-17; Gal. 4:4; 1 John 4:10; etc.; cf. John 1:6; 17:18; 20:21

The Father and the Son love each other: John 3:35; 5:20; 14:31; 15:9; 17:23-26; cf. Matt. 3:17 par.; 17:5 par.; 2 Pet. 1:17

The Father speaks to the Son, and the Son speaks to the Father: John 11:41-42; 12:28; 17:1-26; etc.

The Father knows the Son, and the Son knows the Father: Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 7:29; 8:55; 10:15

Jesus our Advocate with the Father: 1 John 2:1

Jesus is not God the Father

Is. 9:6: “Father of eternity” means eternal; compare other names formed with word “father”: Abialbon, “father of strength” = strong (2 Sam. 23:31); Abiasaph, “father of gathering” = gatherer (Ex. 6:24); Abigail, a woman’s name (!), “father of exultation” = exulting (1 Chron. 2:16).

“Name” need not be personal name, may be title: Is. 9:6; Matt. 1:23.

Acts 2:38 and Matt. 28:19

Neither passage specifies that certain words are to be spoken during baptism; nor does the Bible ever record someone saying, “I baptize you in the name of….”

Those said to be baptized in the name of Jesus (whether or not the formula “in the name of Jesus” was used) were people already familiar with the God of the OT:

Jews: Acts 2:5, 38; 22:16

Samaritans: Acts 8:5, 12, 16

God-fearing Gentiles: Acts 10:1-2, 22, 48

Disciples of John the Baptist: Acts 19:1-5

The first Christians in Corinth were Jews and God-fearing Gentiles: Acts 18:1-8; 1 Cor. 1:13

Trinitarian formula for baptism (if that is what Matt. 28:19 is) was given in context of commissioning apostles to take the gospel to “all the nations,” including people who did not know of the biblical God

Chapter 61. Wisdom is begotten of the Father, as fire from fire

Justin: I shall give you another testimony, my friends, from the Scriptures, that God begot BEFORE ALL CREATURES a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun).

For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled.

The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me, when He speaks by Solomon the following:

If I shall declare to you what happens daily, I shall call to mind events from everlasting, and review them. The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He had made the earth, and before He had made the deeps, before the springs of the waters had issued forth, before the mountains had been established. Before all the hills He begets me. God made the country, and the desert, and the highest inhabited places under the sky. When He made ready the heavens, I was along with Him, and when He set up His throne on the winds: when He made the high clouds strong, and the springs of the deep safe, when He made the foundations of the earth, I was with Him arranging. I was that in which He rejoiced; daily and at all times I delighted in His countenance, because He delighted in the finishing of the habitable world, and delighted in the sons of men. Now, therefore, O son, hear me. Blessed is the man who shall listen to me, and the mortal who shall keep my ways, watching daily at my doors, observing the posts of my ingoings. For my outgoings are the outgoings of life, and [my] will has been prepared by the Lord. But they who sin against me, trespass against their own souls; and they who hate me love death.

Chapter 62. The words Let Us make man agree with the testimony of Proverbs

Justin: And the same sentiment was expressed, my friends, by the word of God [written] by Moses, when it indicated to us, with regard to Him whom it has pointed out, that God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words:

‘Let Us make man after our image and likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creeping things that creep on the earth. And God created man: after the image of God did He create him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them, and said, Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and have power over it.’

And that you may not change the [force of the] words just quoted, and repeat what your teachers assert — either that God said to Himself, ‘Let Us make,’ just as we, when about to do something, oftentimes say to ourselves, ‘Let us make;’ or that God spoke to the elements, to wit, the earth and other similar substances of which we believe man was formed, ‘Let Us make,’— I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with some one who was numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational Being.

‘And God said, Behold, Adam has become as one of us, to know good and evil.‘

Genesis 3:22 In saying, therefore, ‘as one of us,’ [Moses] has declared that [there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two. For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy which is said to be among you is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that [God] spoke to angels, or that the human frame was the workmanship of angels. But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, WAS WITH the Father BEFORE ALL CREATURES, and the Father communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning BEFORE ALL HIS CREATURES and as Offspring by God, who has also declared this same thing in the revelation made by Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). Listen, therefore, to the following from the book of Joshua, that what I say may become manifest to you; it is this:

‘And it came to pass, when Joshua was near Jericho, he lifted up his eyes, and sees a man standing over against him. And Joshua approached to Him, and said, Are you for us, or for our adversaries? And He said to him, I am Captain of the Lord’s host: now have I come. And Joshua fell on his face on the ground, and said to Him, Lord, what do You command Your servant? And the Lord’s Captain says to Joshua, Loose the shoes off your feet; for the place whereon you stand is holy ground. And Jericho was shut up and fortified, and no one went out of it. And the Lord said to Joshua, Behold, I give into your hand Jericho, and its king, [and] its mighty men.’

Chapter 63. It is proved that this God was incarnate

Trypho: This point has been proved to me forcibly, and by many arguments, my friend. It remains, then, to prove that He submitted to become man by the Virgin, according to the will of His Father; and to be crucified, and to die. Prove also clearly, that after this He rose again and ascended to heaven.

Justin: This, too, has been already demonstrated by me in the previously quoted words of the prophecies, my friends; which, by recalling and expounding for your sakes, I shall endeavour to lead you to agree with me also about this matter. The passage, then, which Isaiah records, ‘Who shall declare His generation? For His life is taken away from the earth,’ Isaiah 53:8— does it not appear to you to refer to One who, not having descent from men, was said to be delivered over to death by God for the transgressions of the people?— of whose blood, Moses (as I mentioned before), when speaking in parable, said, that He would wash His garments in the blood of the grape; since His blood did not spring from the seed of man, but from the will of God.

And then, what is said by David, ‘In the splendours of Your holiness have I begotten You from the womb, before the morning star. The Lord has sworn, and will not repent, You are a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek,’ — does this not declare to you that [He was] from of old, and that the God and Father of all things intended Him to be begotten by a human womb? And speaking in other words, which also have been already quoted, [he says]:

‘Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of rectitude is the sceptre of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness, and have hated iniquity: therefore God, even your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows. [He has anointed You] with myrrh, and oil, and cassia from Your garments, from the ivory palaces, whereby they made You glad. King’s daughters are in Your honour. The queen stood at Your right hand, clad in garments embroidered with gold. Hearken, O daughter, and behold, and incline your ear, and forget your people and the house of your father; and the King shall desire your beauty: because he is your Lord, and you shall worship Him.’

Therefore these words testify explicitly that He is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ. Moreover, that the word of God speaks to those who believe in Him as being one soul, and one synagogue, and one church, as to a daughter; that it thus addresses the church which has sprung from His name and partakes of His name (for we are all called Christians), is distinctly proclaimed in like manner in the following words, which teach us also to forget [our] old ancestral customs, when they speak thus:

Hearken, O daughter, and behold, and incline your ear; forget your people and the house of your father, and the King shall desire your beauty: because He is your Lord, and you shall worship Him.’

Chapter 64. Justin adduces other proofs to the Jew, who denies that he needs this Christ

Trypho: Let Him be recognised as Lord and Christ and God, as the Scriptures declare, by you of the Gentiles, who have from His name been all called Christians; but we who are servants of God that made this same [Christ], do not require to confess or worship Him.

Justin: If I were to be quarrelsome and light-minded like you, Trypho, I would no longer continue to converse with you, since you are prepared not to understand what has been said, but only to return some captious answer; but now, since I fear the judgment of God, I do not state an untimely opinion concerning any one of your nation, as to whether or not some of them may be saved by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth.

Therefore, although you act wrongfully, I shall continue to reply to any proposition you shall bring forward, and to any contradiction which you make; and, in fact, I do the very same to all men of every nation, who wish to examine along with me, or make inquiry at me, regarding this subject.

Accordingly, if you had bestowed attention on the Scriptures previously quoted by me, you would already have understood, that those who are saved of your own nation are saved through this [man], and partake of His lot; and you would not certainly have asked me about this matter. I shall again repeat the words of David previously quoted by me, and beg of you to comprehend them, and not to act wrongfully, and stir each other up to give merely some contradiction. The words which David speaks, then, are these:

‘The Lord has reigned; let the nations be angry: [it is] He who sits upon the cherubim; let the earth be shaken. The Lord is great in Zion; and He is high above all the nations. Let them confess Your great name, for it is fearful and holy; and the honour of the king loves judgment. You have prepared equity; judgment and righteousness have You performed in Jacob. Exalt the Lord our God, and worship the footstool of His feet; for He is holy. Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among them that call upon His name; they called on the Lord, and He heard them. In the pillar of the cloud He spoke to them; for they kept His testimonies and His commandments which He gave them.’

And from the other words of David, also previously quoted, which you foolishly affirm refer to Solomon, [because] inscribed for Solomon, it can be proved that they do not refer to Solomon, and that this [Christ] existed before the sun, and that those of your nation who are saved shall be saved through Him. [The words] are these:

‘O God, give Your judgment to the king, and Your righteousness unto the king’s son. He shall judge Your people with righteousness, and Your poor with judgment. The mountains shall take up peace to the people, and the little hills righteousness. He shall judge the poor of the people, and shall save the children of the needy, and shall abase the slanderer: and He shall co-endure with the sun, and before the moon unto all generations;’ and so on until, ‘His name endures before the sun, and all tribes of the earth shall be blessed in Him. All nations shall call Him blessed. Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, who only does wondrous things: and blessed be His glorious name for ever and ever: and the whole earth shall be filled with His glory. Amen, Amen.’

And you remember from other words also spoken by David, and which I have mentioned before, how it is declared that He would come forth from the highest heavens, and again return to the same places, in order that you may recognise Him as God coming forth from above, and man living among men; and [how it is declared] that He will again appear, and they who pierced Him shall see Him, and shall bewail Him. [The words] are these:

‘The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night shows knowledge: They are not speeches or words whose voices are heard. Their sound has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world. In the sun has he set his habitation; and he, like a bridegroom going forth from his chamber, will rejoice as a giant to run his race: from the highest heaven is his going forth, and he returns to the highest heaven, and there is not one who shall be hidden from his heat.’

Chapter 65. The Jew objects that God does not give His glory to another. Justin explains the passage

Trypho: Being shaken by so many Scriptures, I know not what to say about the Scripture which Isaiah writes, in which God says that He gives not His glory to another, speaking thus

‘I am the Lord God; this is my name; my glory will I not give to another, nor my virtues.’

Isaiah 42:8

Justin: If you spoke these words, Trypho, and then kept silence in simplicity and with no ill intent, neither repeating what goes before nor adding what comes after, you must be forgiven; but if [you have done so] because you imagined that you could throw doubt on the passage, in order that I might say the Scriptures contradicted each other, you have erred.

But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a pretext [for saying] that it is contrary [to some other], since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself. With what intent, then, you have brought forward the difficulty, God knows.

But I shall remind you of what the passage says, in order that you may recognise even from this very [place] that God gives glory to His Christ alone. And I shall take up some short passages, sirs, those which are in connection with what has been said by Trypho, and those which are also joined on in consecutive order. For I will not repeat those of another section, but those which are joined together in one. Do you also give me your attention. [The words] are these:

Thus says the Lord, the God that created the heavens, and made them fast, that established the earth, and that which is in it; and gave breath to the people upon it, and spirit to them who walk therein: I the Lord God have called You in righteousness, and will hold Your hand, and will strengthen You; and I have given You for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring out them that are bound from the chains, and those who sit in darkness from the prison-house. I am the Lord God; this is my name: my glory will I not give to another, nor my virtues to graven images. Behold, the former things have come to pass; new things which I announce, and before they are announced they are made manifest to you. Sing unto the Lord a new song: His sovereignty [is] from the end of the earth. [Sing], you who descend into the sea, and continually sail [on it]; you islands, and inhabitants thereof. Rejoice, O wilderness, and the villages thereof, and the houses; and the inhabitants of Cedar shall rejoice, and the inhabitants of the rock shall cry aloud from the top of the mountains: they shall give glory to God; they shall publish His virtues among the islands. The Lord God of hosts shall go forth, He shall destroy war utterly, He shall stir up zeal, and He shall cry aloud to the enemies with strength. Isaiah 42:5-13

The “Son of God” Text (4Q246)

A pre-Christian Aramaic document was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), dated to the late first century B.C., which describes the Danielic Son of Man as the Son of God Most High. I quote here the late Jewish scholar Geza Vermes’ English rendering of this specific scroll: 

For the edition princeps, see E. Puech, DJD, XXII, 165-84.

I … [the spirit of God] dwelt on him, he fell down before the throne … O [K]ing, you are angry for ever and your years … your vision and all. For ever you … [the gre]at ones. An oppression will come to the earth … a great massacre in the provinces … the king of Assyria [and E]gypt … he will be great on earth … will make and all will serve … he will be called (or: call himself) [gran]d … and by his name he will be designated (or: designate himself). II The son of God he will be proclaimed (or: proclaim himself) and the son of the Most High they will call him. Like the sparks of the vision, so will be their kingdom. They will reign for years on the earth and they will trample all. People will trample people (cf. Dan. vii, 23) and one province another province vacat until the people of God will arise and all will rest from the sword. Their (the people of God’s) kingdom will be an eternal kingdom (cf. Dan. vii, 27) and all their path will be in truth. They will jud[ge] the earth in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease from the earth, and all the provinces will pay homage to them. The Great God (cf. Dan. ii, 45) is their helper. He will wage war for them. He will give peoples into their hands and all of them (the peoples) He will cast before them (the people of God). Their dominion will be an eternal dominion (Dan. vii, 14) and all the boundaries of… (Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English [Penguin Books, Revised Edition 2004], 4Q246. An Aramaic Scroll, p. 673; emphasis mine)

“And I will appoint a place for My people Israel and will plant them, that they may dwell in their own place and not be disturbed again; and the unrighteous will not waste them anymore as formerly, even from the day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel. And I will subdue all your enemies. And I tell you that Yahweh will build a house for you. And it will be that when your days are fulfilled to go to be with your fathers, I will raise up one of your seed after you, who will be of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build for Me a house, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; and I will not remove My lovingkindness from him, as I removed it from him who was before you. But I will cause him to stand in My house and in My kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever.” 1 Chronicles 17:9-14

“Why do the nations rage And the peoples meditate on a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together Against Yahweh and against His Anointed, saying… I will surely tell of the decree of Yahweh: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth as Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like a potter’s vessel.’” Psalm 2:1-2, 7-9

“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And came near before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Glory, and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations, and men of every tongue Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not be taken away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.” Daniel 7:13-14

Reputable liberal biblical scholar John J. Collins gives reasons why he believes the royal figure of the scroll is supposed to be the Messiah:

 you will see that there is a blank space (vacat, in scholarly jargon) in the middle of the column, before the phrase “until the people of God arises.” Several scholars have taken this break as an indication of the turning point of the text. Everything before the break, then, would pertain to the rule of the nations, and would be viewed negatively from a Jewish point of view. So Milik, in his lecture at Harvard, argued that the one who would be called “Son of God” was a Syrian king, Alexander Balas, son of the notorious Antiochus IV Epiphanes who had persecuted the Jews in the time of the Maccabees (167–164 B.C.E.). Balas is called theopator (god-begotten) and Deo patre natus (born of a divine father) on coins. Puech, in his publication of our Dead Sea Scroll text, also allowed as one possibility that the reference might be to a Syrian king, although he preferred the better-known Epiphanes.

It was not uncommon in antiquity for pagan kings to be regarded as gods or sons of gods. In a Jewish context, however, “Son of God” is a highly honorific title. If this reference was to a Syrian king, we would expect to find some indication in this Jewish text that the title was inappropriate. If the Son of God was viewed negatively, we would expect the text to tell of his eventual downfall. In fact, however, there is no indication in the extant text that the Son of God was regarded with disapproval.

The individual most often designated as “the son of God” in the Hebrew Bible is undoubtedly the Davidic king, or his eschatological counterpart.47 The adoption of David as God’s son is clearly stated in 2 Samuel 7:14 (“I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me”) and in Psalm 89:26-27 (“He shall cry to me: ‘You are my Father’… I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth”). The relationship is expressed in more mythological terms in Psalm 2:7 (“I will tell of the decree of the Lord: he said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you'”). The statements in the Son of God text, that the great God will be his strength and will give peoples into his hand, can apply equally well to the king in the psalm. Psalm 2 also refers to the king as “His (the Lord’s) anointed (meshicho)” (2:2).

The title “Son of God” takes on a clear messianic connotation in the New Testament, notably in the Lukan infancy narrative cited earlier. Fitzmyer, however, argues strongly that “Per se, the titles do not connote ‘messiah’ in the Old Testament, and only a naive interpretation emerging from tradition espouses that connotation. Nor do they do so in any Qumran texts.”48 He further adds that “There were undoubtedly other kings in Israel’s history, who had sat on the Davidic throne, but were not accorded the title mashiach much less “Messiah” in the proper sense.”49 I believe that these statements show confusion in regard to the Old Testament evidence, and fail to do justice to the evidence from Qumran.

First, in the context of the Hebrew Bible, 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 refer to the historical Davidic kings. They are not eschatological, and so not “messianic” in the sense in which we have been using the word. Fitzmyer’s strictures against naive traditionalists who read these texts as predictions of the messiah are fair enough if one is speaking about the original meaning of the text. Confusion arises, however, when he claims, without any supporting evidence, that some kings “were not accorded the title mashiach.” The word mashiach, anointed one, is an epithet applied to the king, in virtue of the fact that he was anointed.50 Whether it is regarded as a title is a matter of definition, but the term was clearly applicable to any anointed king. There is no evidence that any king of Israel or Judah was not anointed. Fitzmyer here seems to load the term mashiach, anointed, with a special significance that it does not have in the Hebrew Bible. Correspondingly, a future “successor to the Davidic throne” in an apocalyptic or eschatological context is by definition a Davidic messiah. Fitzmyer’s notion of “a sectarian affirmation of God’s provision and guarantee of the Davidic dynasty” by a king who is not a “messiah” makes no sense in the context of ancient Judaism.51

Second, the claim that “Son of God” does not have messianic significance in any Qumran text overlooks the clear evidence of the Florilegium (4Q174). There we have an exposition of 2 Sam 7:14:

The Lord declares to you that He will build you a House. I will raise up your seed after you. I will establish the throne of his kingdom [for ever]. I [will be] his father and he shall be my son. He is the Branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law [to rule] in Zion [at the end] of days.

The citation from 2 Samuel 7 provides an explicit basis for identifying the Branch of David as the Son of God. Since the Branch is explicitly called the Messiah of Righteousness in the Patriarchal Blessings (4Q252 = 4QpGen), it is surely justified to speak of him as a Davidic messiah.52 Fitzmyer’s insistence that “There is nothing in the OT or Palestinian Jewish tradition that we know of to show that ‘Son of God’ had a messianic nuance”53 cannot be maintained unless “messianic nuance” is equated with explicit use of the word “messiah” in the same passage. (Collins, “The Messiah as the Son of God”, in The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls [William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge, U.K.: second edition, 2010], pp. 183-185; emphasis mine)

Collins bolsters his case for a Messianic interpretation by appealing to additional evidence from that time period:

The attestation of “Son of God” as a messianic title in Jewish texts of the Hellenistic and Roman periods is not extensive, but an important instance is found in 4 Ezra. The Latin and Syriac texts of this pseudepigraphon refer to the messiah as “my son” in a number of passages, in chapters 7 and 13 and finally in 14:9.59 The originality of this reading has been disputed. Some versions use words that mean “servant” in a few instances, and there are other textual variations.60 Michael Stone has argued that the Greek version, which has not been preserved, read pais, and reflected an original Hebrew “servant” rather than “son.”61 Yet the scene in chapter 13, where the messianic figure takes his stand on a mountain and repulses the attack of the nations, is clearly dependent on Psalm 2, where God sets his anointed king on Zion, his holy mountain, and terrifies the nations, and where the king is also told “You are my son, today I have begotten you.” Even if the Greek read pais, as the versions that read “servant” require, this term, too, could be used for “son,” as is evident from The Wisdom of Solomon, where the righteous man calls himself a child of God {pais theou, 2:13) and boasts that God is his father (2:16). The Latin and Syriac reading, “my son,” should be accepted as a faithful rendering of the original, at least in chapter 13.

4 Ezra 13 is of considerable interest for the interpretation of the Son of God text from Qumran. Ezra’s vision of a man coming up out of the heart of the sea and flying with the clouds is evidently inspired by Daniel 7. In the preceding chapter, 4 Ezra 12, Ezra had seen an eagle coming up from the sea, and was told that this was “the fourth kingdom that appeared in a vision to your brother Daniel, but it was not explained to him as I now explain to you or have explained it” (4 Ezra 12:11-12). A similar comment might be made about the man from the sea in chapter 13, who must equally be identified with the “one like a son of man” from Daniel’s vision, but is also interpreted in a new way. As in the Qumran text, the advent of this figure is preceded by conflict between the nations: “They shall plan to make war against one another, city against city, place against place, people against people and kingdom against kingdom” (13:31).

In 4 Ezra 13, the messiah repulses the attack of the Gentiles with a fiery breath (cf. Isa 11:4) and gathers the dispersed of Israel. He is also said to reprove the assembled nations for their ungodliness (13:37). In the preceding vision of the eagle, the messiah has a more prominent judicial function: “First he will bring them alive before his judgment seat, and when he has reproved them he will destroy them” (12:33). It is clear then that the messiah has taken over some of the function of judging the nations, which was usually reserved for God in the Hebrew Bible. There is no place here, however, for worship of this figure by the nations, since they are destroyed after the judgment, like the fourth beast in Daniel.

The eschatology of 4 Ezra is considerably different from that of a document like the Qumran War Scroll. It has no place for an angelic deliverer, although the messiah has a transcendent character (he rises from the heart of the sea and flies with the clouds). Heavenly savior figures (Michael, Melchizedek) play a part in the Scrolls, but as we have seen the Davidic messiah also has an established place there. Since Michael or the Prince of Light is never called “Son of God,” and since there is a clear basis for applying this title to the Davidic king, whether past or future, the messianic interpretation of 4Q246 should be preferred. Indeed the parallel in Luke points strongly in this direction: “He will be great and will be hailed as Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will bestow on him the throne of his father David.”62 (Ibid., pp. 186-187)

It is difficult to say whether the Son of God figure should be regarded as an interpretation of the “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7. If so, it would probably be the oldest surviving interpretation. No other adaptation or interpretation of that chapter has yet been identified in the Qumran corpus. The two earliest Jewish interpretations of Daniel 7 are found in the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra 13. Both these passages assume that Daniel’s “one like a son of man” is an individual, and both use the term “messiah” with reference to him. In both these documents, the Son of Man figure is pre-existent, and therefore transcendent in some sense. The Son of God in the Qumran text is not identical with either of these figures, but he has much in common with them. It should be emphasized that the extant fragment from Qumran lacks clear allusions to Daniel’s “one like a son of man” such as we find in the Similitudes and in 4 Ezra. Nonetheless, it is difficult to avoid the impression that the author had Daniel’s figure in mind. The Danielic paradigm becomes an important factor in messianism in the first century of the Common Era. The Son of God text suggests that the messianic interpretation of Daniel 7 had begun already in the Hasmonean period. (Ibid., p. 188; emphasis mine)

By combining these specific OT motifs together, the document is in basic agreement with the NT proclamation that Jesus is both the Davidic Son of God and the Danielic Son of Man:

“Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. And coming in, he said to her, ‘Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.’ But she was very perplexed at this statement, and was pondering what kind of greeting this was. 30 And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of His kingdom.’ But Mary said to the angel, ‘How will this be, since I am a virgin?’ The angel answered and said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.’” Luke 1:26-35

“And as the day came, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their Sanhedrin, saying, ‘If You are the Christ, tell us.’ But He said to them, ‘If I tell you, you will not believe, and if I ask a question, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.’ And they all said, ‘Are You the Son of God, then?’ And He said to them, ‘You yourselves say that I am.’ Then they said, ‘What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.’” Luke 22:66-71 – cf. Acts 4:23-31; 7:55-56; 13:32-33; Hebrews 1:3-9, 13; 5:5-6

I too hold that the figure designated as Son of the Most High and Son of God is best regarded as a Davidic (messianic), eschatological redeemer. In what follows, I present several reasons for adopting this position. The subject of this study, however, is the nature of the literary relationships between the fragment found near Qumran and the two canonical texts, Daniel 7 and Luke 1:31b-35, and what those relationships suggest concerning pre- and early Christian perspectives on divine sonship. Several scholars have argued that the author of 4Q246 drew from Daniel 7 and that Luke in some fashion made use of the Aramaic Apocalypse in composing Luke 1:31b-35.12 I first attempt to demonstrate that the Aramaic Apocalypse not only borrows from Daniel 7 but also offers an interpretation of that text by designating the Danielic “one like a son of man” as the “Son of the Most High” and “Son of God.” These titles, I claim, cast Daniel’s eschatological redeemer against the royal background of the Davidic monarchy, and yet also mark a development in the transcendent character of this heavenly figure by attributing to him divine sonship. Next, by laying out in detail the evidence for Luke’s dependence on the Aramaic Apocalypse or on a close reproduction of it in another source, I attempt to strengthen the claim of Collins that Luke either directly or indirectly drew on the text now partially extant in 4Q246 when composing Gabriel’s announcement to Mary of Jesus’ birth (1:31b-35). Finally, I propose that Luke’s use of this text at the very point in his Gospel at which he establishes Jesus’ divine sonship (Luke 1:31b35) suggests, in tandem with other considerations, that Jewish apocalyptic traditions about a heavenly, eschatological redeemer served as important sources for early Christian understandings and expressions of the Messiah’s divinity. (The “One like a Son of Man” Becomes the “Son of God”, in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Published by the Catholic Biblical Association of America, Volume 69, Number 1, January, 2007, pp. 23-24; emphasis mine)

9 A few scholars have followed Hengel’s suggestion in regarding the figure collectively as a reference to Israel. See, e.g., Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (4th ed.; New York: Penguin, 1995) 332; Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: Harper, 1996) 268-70. As noted above, both Steudal (“Eternal Reign,” 507-25) and Puech (“Remarks,” 545-51) view the figure of 4Q246 2:1 as Antiochus IV Epiphanes. but interpret the third person singular references in 2:4-9 as referring collectively to Israel. Several factors tell against a collective interpretation, however. First, both Fitzmyer and Collins point to the reference to judgment in 2:6 as indicative of an individual redeemer, with Collins (Scepter, 154) arguing that “there is no parallel for the notion that the people, collectively, will judge the earth.” Similarly, the listing of attributes of the coming idyllic rule in 2:5-9 are in the Hebrew Scriptures much more commonly found in reference to an individual ruler than to God’s people in general: e.g., Isa 11:1-9, which describes the coming Davidic king as one who, guided by God’s wisdom and righteousness, will judge (vv. 1-4), kill the wicked (v. 4), and usher in a paradisiacal era of peace (vv. 5-9). Psalm 2 speaks of the Davidic king as God’s son (v. 7), who will be granted victory over the nations by God. Psalm 72 records a petition to God that the king may judge with righteousness (vv. 1-4), overthrow and receive homage from the nations (vv. 8-11), and establish an era of peace (v. 7). Moreover, two of the earliest interpretations of Daniel 7, the Similitudes(1 Enoch 37-71) and 4 Ezra, both refer to the Danielic son of man as an individual. (Ibid., p. 23; emphasis mine)

The nature and extent of the correspondences between these two texts indicate that the writer of the Aramaic Apocalypse intended to recast the Danielic “one like a son of man” as a figure to be known by the titles “Son of the Most High” and “Son of God.” Such a recasting suggests two significant developments in the portrayal of this eschatological redeemer. First, these titles present him in the royal tradition of the Davidic kingship. That the royal tradition is here in view is also argued by Fitzmyer, Kim, Collins, Cross, and Zimmermann. The latter four scholars all consider the character to be presented as a Davidic and messianic redeemer by virtue of the title “Son of God,” which they take as an allusion to 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7-8; and Ps 89:26-27.23 Fitzmyer, while rejecting the messianic interpretation, concludes that this apocalyptic text speaks “positively of a coming Jewish ruler, perhaps a member of the Hasmonean dynasty, who will be a successor to the Davidic throne.”24

A second element introduced by 4Q246 in its recasting of the Danielic figure–and the one more crucial to the present discussion–also resides in the author’s use of the titles “Son of God” and “Son of the Most High.” In adopting the language of these earlier royal traditions and forming it into a pair of titles (“he shall be called… he will be named…” [2:1]), the author of 4Q246 has focused attention on the divine sonship of the redeemer figure as a central feature of his personhood. This raises the question of what exactly such expressions of “divine sonship” were meant to convey. Collins argues that the titles simply continue to present the “adoptionist sonship” presented in 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7-8; and Ps 89:26-27; while implying a special relationship to the deity.25 Yet the titular use of these expressions suggests that something other than adoptionist divine sonship may be in view. Beyond connecting Daniel’s transcendent “one like a son of man” to the royal, Davidic tradition, the titular form of these designations may also be meant to emphasize the exalted and unique character of the awaited redeemer. He is to be seen not merely as the adopted son of Yhwh as the other kings before him, but as the unique and transcendent divine Son, through whom God’s salvation is finally to achieve victory among God’s people.

Two additional factors commend this way of regarding the function of the titles in 4Q246. First, the transcendence of the figure portrayed in 4Q246 is suggested already by the fact that the fragment is recasting the heavenly (transcendent) personage of Daniel 7.26 The author of the fragment further signals the wish to maintain this sense by also attributing to the redeemer of 4Q246 an eternal kingdom. Second, the portrayal of an eschatological redeemer as uniquely transcendent, and even as possessing characteristics that are normally assigned only to God in Hebrew tradition, is not out of character for Jewish writings of this era. In fact, 4Q246 appears to belong to a trajectory of Jewish apocalyptic tradition that presents Daniel’s “one like a son of man” as possessing quasi-divine characteristics. The Dead Sea fragment shares with these other texts a host of details concerning the character of the awaited figure, recasting Daniel’s eschatological agent of salvation in starkly exalted terms.27… (Ibid., pp. 30-32; emphasis mine)

On the transcendent character of Daniel’s “one like a son of man,” see Chrys C. Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation (WUNT 38; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986) 71-80; Collins, Scepter, 182; and Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Origin ofthe Designation of Jesus as ‘Son of Man,” HTR 80 (1987) 391-407, esp. 406. The transcendence of Daniel’s eschatological agent, however, has recently been disputed by Douglas R. A. Hare (Son of Man Tradition [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990] 10-21). Hare argues, citing Testament of Abraham (Rec. A, 10:1; B, 8:3); Rev 11:12 and 1 Thess 4:16-17, that there is ample evidence that the use of the clouds as a means of transport was not reserved for God in Jewish tradition, and “it is entirely unlikely that a second god was here portrayed by the Jewish apocalyptist” (p. 11). In these texts Hare cites as evidence for his view, however, it is God who transports the figures of Abraham (Testament of Abraham), the two prophets (Revelation 11), and the risen believers to heaven in a cloud. This is in contrast to Daniel, in which the figure himself appears to be in command of his transport and is said to be coming “with the clouds of heaven” rather than “up to” heaven. (Ibid., p. 31; emphasis mine)

.

Kuhn further speaks of the significance of the titles “Son of the Most High,” and “Son of God” both appearing together only in Luke 1:32, 35 and the Son of God scroll:

Even more noteworthy, it is only in these two texts, 4Q246 and Luke 1:31b-35, that both titles appear together. Although both are present in Mark, they do not occur in close proximity to each other. “Son of God” is found in Mark 1:1; 3:11; and 15:39, and the one instance of the title “Son of the Most High” appears in 5:7, in the slightly different form “Son of the Most High God.” Furthermore, “Son of the Most High” has not been found in any of the canonical, apocryphal, or Jewish intertestamental writings, and virtually the same can be said of the titular use of “Son of God” with reference to an individual prior to the NT and other early Christian writings.37 Although the title “Son of God” occasionally occurs in extant Hellenistic sources, “Son of the Most High” is not found in Greco-Roman literature.38 (Ibid., p. 35; emphasis mine)

37 It is commonly known that the expression “sons of God” occurs in reference to heavenly beings (Gen 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Pss 29:1; 82:6; 89:6), and the Davidic king is three times related to Yhwh as “son” (2 Sam 7:14; Pss 2:7; 89:26-27); likewise, the Israelites are at times referred to collectively as “my son” (e.g., Exod 4:22; Hos 11:1). None of these occurrences, however, indicates the titular use of “Son of God.” The closest parallel is found in Wis 18:13, where the singular θεοῦ υἱόν refers to Israel. Yet it is doubtful that this is a title, since it functions as an allusion to Exod 4:22. Similarly, the expression “sons of the Most High” in Ps 82:6 is a collective designation that appears to be used as a poetic description rather than as a title

(a) Eternal and preexistent. The Logos is co-eternal with God and preexists the created realm. Philo makes this clear with the Logos sharing in the immortality and eternality of God (Conf. 41). John accents preexistence at several points by placing the Logos with God in the beginning (John 1.1-2), with Jesus sharing in God’s own name and self-existence (John 5.26; 8.58), and possessing a glory before the creation of the world (John 17.4 [sic]).

(b) Heightened proximity. The Logos is close to God in a way that no other intermediary figure is ever described. Philo declared the Logos to be the divine image and therefore the nearest one to God with no intervening figure between them (Fug. 101), which corresponds to John’s remark that the Word was with/ towards God with nothing between or beside (John 1.1, 18).

(c) God and with God. The Logos is part of the divine executive yet distinguishable from God. Both Logoi are identified with God and God’s actions, yet they never act independently of God, and they do not compromise God’s unity and oneness. Philo declared there to be “one true God,” and the Logos can appear in his place because the title “God” is given to his “chief Word” (Somn. 1.229-30). Philo contends that the “God” and “Lord” whom Abraham saw at Mamre (Gen 18.1) was none other than the “Holy Logos” (Abr. 70-71; Mut. 16-17). That corresponds with the Johannine Jesus’ remark that Abraham had a vision of his own day and even of him, precisely because Jesus is the “I am” who was before Abraham (John 8.56-58). John thus claims that Abraham encountered a heavenly being, the divine Logos, whom Moses also encountered as a heavenly figure bearing the divine name, and with whom Jesus is identified.127 Philo also says that Moses calls the Logos “God” as the divine Creative power (Fug. 97; QE 2.62,68), and he even labels it a “second God” (QG 2.62). John designates the Logos as “God” in a strong sense and attaches the title to the risen Jesus too (John 1.1; 20.28). In fact, Thomas’ attribution of the titles “Lord” and “God” to the risen Jesus is parallel to Philo dividing the Logos into two parts, the creative (God) and sovereign powers (Lord) within the one true God (Fug. 95; 103; cf. QG 2.16; QE 2.62, 68; Abr. 121; Mos. 2.99-100; Her. 165-66). Justin too identifies the Logos as “another God and Lord under the Creator of all things” (Dial. 56.4), and Origen is also comfortable with describing Jesus as “a second God” even though he qualifies it (Cels. 5.39; 6.61; 7.57). Philo, John, Justin, and Origen all have a strong belief in one God and maintain that the Logos is not an independent deity; nonetheless, they do struggle for conceptual clarity in how to precisely explain that the Logos is intrinsic to God’s being while functionally distinct and derivative.

(d) Demiurge. The Logos is God’s instrument of creation. Philo and John both identify God as the Creator, yet the act of creation is undertaken through the Logos, even though neither of them applies the term demiourgos to the Logos (Sacr. 8; Cher. 127; Fug. 95, 97; Opif. 20; 24; Migr. 6; QE 2.68; Leg. all. 3.96; Her. 119; Spec. leg. 1.81). John is clear that God creates “all things” through the Logos and nothing “apart from him” (John 1.3). This Johannine language meant very different things, as the debates between the proto-orthodox and Gnostics illustrate. For the former, this meant that the Logos was not part of creation and not an ordinary intermediary, for the latter, the Logos was at best the curator of the pleroma.

(e) Light and life. God’s Creative work through the Logos abounds in life and light. Philo says as much in his narration of the creation story (Opif. 24, 30, 33). John’s Logos is the bearer of life and light for ail people (John 1.4) and so John associates the Logos with God’s role as life-giver and revealer in creation.128

(f) Adoption. The Logos makes people children of God. Philo identifies the Logos as the agent of adoption, for while not everyone is learned enough to be considered “sons of God” (Deut 14.1), even so, he contends that everyone willing to put aside polytheism and pleasures can take their place under “God’s firstborn, the Word … For if we have not yet become fit to be thought sons of God yet we may be sons of his invisible image, the most holy Word” (Conf. 146-47). John is analogous in his claim that receiving the Word, believing in him, gives one the power to become children of God, begotten of God and not of human procreative process (John 1.12-13).

(g) The Logos with and in human beings. The Logos comprises the heavenly archetype of human existence. In regard to Gen 1.27, “Let us make man in our image,” Philo discerns in the plural pronoun “us” not an angelic assembly, but God and his Logos. He argues, “nothing mortal can be made in the likeness of the most high One and Father of the universe but only in that of the second God, who is his Logos” (QG 2.62). Humans were created according to an archetypal seal, which corresponds to the divine image, which is the Word of God (Opif. 24-25; Conf. 147; Leg. all. 3.96; QG 1.4). The Logos is, then, the archetype of humanity, with the titles “man according to the image of God” (Conf. 146) and “the true man” (Somn. 1.215). Philo does make the interesting allegorical interpretation of Lev 16.17 with the high priest offering sacrifices as “not a man, but the word of God” (Fug. 108). John’s testimony is far stronger than this with the Word becoming flesh and identifying with the human life of the man Jesus of Nazareth (John 1.14).

(h) Exclusive mediator. Philo believes that the Logos fulfills a role like Moses in Deut 5.5 (LXX): “I stood between the Lord and you.” The Logos is the “chief messenger” who “pleads with the immortal as supplicant for afflicted mortality and acts as ambassador of the ruler to the subjects” (Her. 205-6). In regard to Exod 23.20-21, the angel whom God sends before the Hebrews is the Logos who is “judge and mediator” (QE 2.13) or “mediator and arbitrator” (QE 2.68). The Logos is also the “interpreter and prophet” of the divine will (Deus 138). God’s transcendence is such that none can see God in his essence, but only his Word as he dispatches it, the “angel of his Logos” (Somn. 1.65-69, 239). Matching this is a strong emphasis on the Logos as the exclusive revelation of God (Somn. 1.18; 3.13; 8.19; 14.7-9; 16.3; 17.24) and a special mediator (Somn. 1.51; 14.6; 15.5), which parallels similar Johannine assertions (John 1.18; 3.13; 14.6; 17.3).

To conclude, the Logos Christology of the early church, beginning with the evangelist John, was significant in several respects:

(1) It demonstrates a convergence between Jewish discourses about divine Wisdom and a messiah with a Christian Son of God tradition in a way that resources and resonates with Middle Platonic and Stoic philosophy. John’s Logos has affinities with Heraclitus, Cornutus, Philo, or Plutarch. Yet John’s identification of the Logos as becoming the man Jesus is without parallel, and his Christology is of such a character as to imply that Jesus is one with the God of Israel and he is an “uncreated” deity.139

(2) Logos Christology in ail its varieties, often combined with angelomorphism or pleromatic exegesis, attempted to offer a conceptually coherent account of how God is to be identified with the man Jesus of Nazareth by identifying Jesus with the preexistent Logos.

(3) Notwithstanding the questions that Logos Christology threw up for interpreters, such as whether the Logos was 100 percent divine or only 99.9 percent divine, Logos Christology represented the most serious and sublime effort of the church to know its own mind and to explain its own kerygma to itself. Logos Christology was the attempt to explain what it meant to say that “God sent his Son” (Gal 4.4; Rom 8.3), that “God was in Christ” (2 Cor 5.19), and that the Son is “the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being” (Heb 1.3).140

137 McHugh, John 1-4, 94. Cf. Evans, Word and Glory, 104; and Frey, “Between Jewish Monotheism,” 207. According to Dunn (Christology in the Making, 243 [italics original]), John “has taken language which any thoughtful Jew would recognize to be the language of personification and has identified it with a particular person, as a particular person, that would be so astonishing: the manifestation of God become man! God’s utterance not merely come through a particular individual, but actually become that one person, Jesus of Nazareth!”

Boyarin (“Gospel of the Memra,” 261) notes: “I would like to propose that what marks the Fourth Gospel as a new departure in the history of Judaism is not to be found in its Logos theology at all but in its incarnational Christology, and that that very historical departure, or rather advent, is iconically symbolized in the narrative itself. When the text announces in v. 14 that ‘the Word became flesh,’ that announcement is an iconic representation of the moment that the Christian narrative begins to diverge from the Jewish Koine and form its own nascent Christian kerygma.” (Ibid., p. 169)

“When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God… See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand… Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him, all gods, for he avenges the blood of his children and takes vengeance on his adversaries. He repays those who hate him and cleanses his people’s land.” Deuteronomy 32:8, 39, 43 English Standard Version (ESV)

“When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God… Behold, behold that I am [he] (ego eimi), and there is no god beside me: I kill, and I will make to live: I will smite, and I will heal; and there is none who shall deliver out of my hands… Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him (kai proskynesatosan auto pantes angeloi theou); rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge (ekkathariei) the land of his people.” LXX

“Let all those be ashamed who serve graven images, Who boast of idols; Worship Him, all you gods!… For You are Yahweh Most High over all the earth; You are exalted far above all gods.” Psalm 97:7, 9

“Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his angels (proskynesate auto, pantes hoi angeloi autou)… For thou art Lord most high over all the earth; thou art greatly exalted above all (hyperhypsothes hyper pantas) gods.” Psalm 96:7, 9 LXX

“Who is like Yahweh our God, The One who sits on high,” Psalm 113:5

“Who is as the Lord our God? who dwells in the high places (en hypselois),” Psalm 112:5 LXX

What makes this so remarkable is that the New Testament writings ascribe this very unique status to Jesus, even going as far as to employ the very same language which the Greek versions use in describing YHWH’s exaltation over all creation:

“who is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power; who, having accomplished cleansing (katharismon) for sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (en hypselois)… And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “And let all the angels of God worship Him (kai proskynesatosan auto pantes angeloi theou).’” Hebrews 1:3, 6 

Note here that the inspired author has taken the very terms of the Greek of Deuteronomy 32:43 and Psalm 112:5, and applied them to the risen Christ.

The writer has Jesus making purification for sins and as receiving the worship of all the angels. And yet in Deuteronomy it is YHWH who cleanses all sins and he is the One whom all the angelic gods are supposed to worship.

Hebrews even states that Christ is now seated on high, despite knowing that the verse in the Psalm is clear that YHWH alone sits enthroned on high.

Christ is further portrayed as receiving the name or authority that is above all names and as having been exalted far above all creatures:

 “and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe according to the working of the might of His strength, which He worked in Christ, by raising Him from the dead and seating Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, FAR ABOVE ALL (hyperano pases) rule and authority and power and dominion, and EVERY (pantos) name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put ALL THINGS (panta) in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head OVER ALL THINGS (hyper panta) to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” Ephesians 1:19-23 

“Therefore, God also highly exalted (hyperhypsosen) Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is ABOVE EVERY (hyper pan) name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:9-11

Once again, the aforementioned texts are employing virtually the same words that the LXX uses in respect to YHWH’s exalted status over all creation.

“Yahweh is slow to anger and great in power, And Yahweh will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. In whirlwind and storm is His way, And clouds are the dust beneath His feet.” Nahum 1:3

“Sing to God, sing praises to His name; Lift up a song for Him who rides through the deserts, Whose name is Yah, and exult before Him… To Him who rides upon the highest heavens, which are from ancient times; Behold, He gives forth His voice, a voice that is strong. Ascribe strength to God; His majesty is over Israel And His strength is in the skies.” Psalm 68:4, 33-34

“Bless Yahweh, O my soul! O Yahweh my God, You are very great; You are clothed with splendor and majesty, Wrapping Yourself with light as with a cloak, Stretching out the heavens like a tent curtain. He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters; He sets up the clouds to be His chariot; He walks upon the wings of the wind;” Psalm 104:1-3

The NT identifies this second divine figure as the Lord Jesus Christ:

“But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him and said to Him, ‘Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’ And Jesus said, ‘I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’” Mark 14:61-62

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay each one according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” Matthew 16:27-28 – Cf. 25:31-46; 26:1-2; Luke 17:24-25; 21:29, 36; 22:47-48; Acts 7:55-56; Rev. 1:7-18; 14:14-16

The Word … He is Divine. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.166 (p. 94)

The Father of the Universe has a Son. And He, being the First-Begotten Word of God, IS EVEN GOD. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.184. (Ibid.)

Next to God, we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.193. (Ibid.)

For Christ is King, Priest, GOD, LORD, Angel, and MAN. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.211. (Ibid.)

He deserves to be worshiped AS GOD and as Christ. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.229. (Ibid.)

David predicted that He would be born from the womb before the sun and moon, according to the Father’s will. He made Him known, being Christ, AS GOD, and to be worshiped. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.237. (Ibid.)

The Son ministered to the will of the Father. Yet, nevertheless HE IS GOD, in that He is the First-Begotten of all creatures. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.262. (Ibid.)

If you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that HE WAS GOD, Son of the Only, Unbegotten, Unutterable God. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.263. (Ibid.)

We assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1170. (p. 101)

His Son … also was with Him and was begotten BEFORE the works, when at first He created ALL THINGS BY HIM. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.190. (Ibid.) (p. 104)

And Trypho [a Jew] said, “For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For example, you say that this Christ EXISTS AS GOD BEFORE THE AGES.” Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.219. (Ibid.)

This is He WHO EXISTED BEFORE ALL, who is the eternal Priest of God, and King, and Christ. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.247. (Ibid.)

We know Him to be the First-Begotten of God, AND TO BE BEFORE ALL CREATURES … Since we call Him the Son, we have understood that, BEFORE ALL CREATURES, He proceeded from the Father by His power and will. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.249. (Ibid.)

I will give you another testimony … from Scriptures, that God begat BEFORE ALL CREATURES A BEGINNING, a certain Power … who is called by the Holy Spirit, sometimes the Glory of the Lord, sometimes the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then GOD, then LORD, and Logos. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.227. (p. 107)

God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: “Let us make man in our image and likeness,” … From this, we can indisputably learn that God conversed with someone numerically distinct from Himself, and was also a rational Being … For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy which is said to be among you Jews is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that God spoke to angels, or that the human frame was the workmanship of angels. But this Offspring who was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father BEFORE ALL CREATURES. And the Father communed with Him. It is even clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom was begotten as a Beginning BEFORE ALL HIS CREATURES. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.228. (pp. 109-110)

Although He endured the cross, yet AS GOD He returned to life, having trampled upon death. For His God and Father addresses Him and says, “Sit at my right hand.” Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.166, 167. (p. 96)

By the Ancient of Days, he means, none other than the Lord God, and Ruler of all – even of Christ Himself, who makes the days old and yet does not become old Himself by times and days. “His dominion is an everlasting dominion.” The Father, having put all things in subjection to His own Son – both things in heaven and things on earth – presented Him as the First-Begotten of God. He did this in order that, along with the Father, He might be approved before angels as the Son of God and be manifested as also the Lord of angels. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.189. (Ibid.)

Christ’s body lay in the tomb, not emptied of divinity. Rather, while in Hades, He was in essential being with His Father. Yet, He was also in the body and in Hades. For the Son of God IS NOT CONTAINED IN SPACE, JUST AS THE FATHER IS NOT. And he comprehends ALL THINGS IN HIMSELF. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.194. (pp. 96-97)

Who, then, was in heaven but the Word unincarnate – who was sent to show that He was upon the earth and WAS ALSO IN HEAVEN? Hippolytus (c. 205, W) 5.225. (p. 97)

Having been made man, HE IS STILL GOD FOREVER. For to this effect, John also said, “Who is, and who was, and who is come- THE ALMIGHTY.” And He was appropriately called Christ “the Almighty”. For in this, he has said only WHAT CHRIST TESITIFIES ABOUT HIMSELF. For Christ gave this testimony about and said, “All things are delivered unto me by my Father.” Hippolytus (c 205, W) 5.225. (Ibid.)

Interestingly, i had quoted this reference in our first rebuttal. This should have signified to the authors that for Hippolytus to call Jesus Christ the Almighty of Revelation 1:8 implies that the latter clearly believed in Christ’s eternal Deity and essential unity with the Father. This should have then further indicated that Hippolytus’ statement regarding God being alone wasn’t referring to the Son or the Holy Spirit, but to all created things. Hippolytus clearly believed that both the Son and the Spirit existed eternally within the very being of the Father, as the following passages demonstrate.

“God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world… Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, YET EXISTED IN PLURALITY… Thus, then, these too, though they wish it not, fall in with the truth, and admit that one God made all things… For Christ is THE GOD ABOVE ALL… He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, ‘All things are delivered unto me of my Father.’ He who is over all, God blessed, has been born…” The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pp. 227, 153, 225

The Father begat the Word as the Author, Fellow-Counselor, and Framer of the things that have been created. He uttered the first Voice, begetting Him as Light of Light. And He sent forth to the world as its Lord. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5:227. (p. 101)

You will say to me, “How is He begotten?” … You cannot explain with accuracy the economy in His case. For you do not have it in your power to acquaint yourself with the skilful and indescribable are of the Maker, but only to see, understand, and believe that man is God’s work. Moreover, you are asking an account of the generation of the Word, whom God the Father begat as He willed, in His good pleasure … Is it enough for you to learn that the Son of God has been manifested to you for salvation (if you believe) – but do you also inquire curiously how He was begotten after the spirit [i.e., His heavenly birth]? … Are you then so bold as to seek the account after the spirit, which the Father keeps with Himself, intending to reveal it then to the holy ones and those worthy of seeing His face? … For He speaks in this manner: “From the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten you.” Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5:229. (p. 102)

This solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first … Him alone did [the Father] produce from existing things. For the Father constituted existence, and the Being born from Him was the cause of ALL THINGS that are produced. The Logos was IN [the Father] HIMSELF, bearing the will of His Begetter and not being unacquainted with the mind of the Father. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.150, 151. (Ibid.)

Hippolytus claims that Christ existed within the Father and was begotten from him. He goes on to say that Christ is the cause of all things. That Christ is the cause of all creation means that Christ is before creation, and therefore eternal. That is why Hippolytus insists that Christ was begotten from existing things, i.e. from the Father who is existence, and was not made from nothing.

He who was CO-EXISTENT WITH HIS FATHER BEFORE ALL TIME, and before the foundation of the world, always had the glory proper to Divinity. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.167. (p. 105)

He was born the Word, of the heart of the Father, BEFORE ALL. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.189. (Ibid.)

They killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is CO-ETERNAL with the Father. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.220. (Ibid.)

Thus there appeared another One beside Himself. But when I say “another,” I do not mean that there are two Gods, but that is only as light of light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. For there is but one Power which is from the All. And the Father is the All, from whom comes this Power, the Word. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.227. (p. 108)

In his A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, David W. Bercot comments on Origen’s Christology:

V. Origen’s understanding of the Son

It has become quite commonplace today for Origen to be singled out among pre-Nicene writers as holding heterodox views of the Son. This is quite unjust, as Origen’s teachings on the Son are essentially the same as the rest of the early church. This can clearly be seen from the many preceding quotations from Origen, which show that he held to a Nicene understanding of the deity of the Son. Of course, like the rest of the early Christians, Origen can be SELECTIVELY quoted to make him appear either Arian, Monarchian, or anything else that is desired. One of the quotations that has often been misunderstood and misquoted is the following passage:

We next notice that John’s use of the article in these sentences [John 1:1]. He does not write without care in this respect. Nor is he unfamiliar with the subtleties of the Greek language. In some cases, he omits it. He adds the article before the word “Logos.” But to the name, “God,” he adds it only sometimes. That is, he uses the article when the word, “God,” refers to the uncreated cause of all things [i.e., the Father]. But he omits it when the Logos is called “God.” Origen (c. 228, E), 9.323.

There are many persons who are sincerely concerned about religion and who here fall into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods. As a result, their fear drives them into doctrines that are false and wicked. They sometimes deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own, besides that of the Father. They thereby make Him whom they call the Son to be the God, all but in name. Or else, they deny the divinity of the Son – giving Him a separate existence of His own and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that the God on the one hand is Autotheos [God of Himself]. For that reason, the Savior says in his prayer to the Father, “That they may know you, the only true God.” But all other Persons beyond this Autotheos are made Divine [Gr. theos] by participation in His divinity. They are not to be simply called “the God” [Gr. ho theos], but rather, “God” [or “Divine” [Gr. theos]. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.323.

Furthermore, preceding the first passage quoted above, Origen had already stated:

The Word was always with the Father. And so it is said, “And the Word was with God.” … He was in the beginning at the same time when He was with God – neither being separated from the beginning, nor bereft of His Father. And again, neither did He come to be in the beginning after He had not been in it. Nor did He come to be with God after not having been with him. For BEFORE ALL TIME AND THE REMOTEST AGE, the Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.322.

So in no sense can Origen be accused of holding to an Arian understanding of the Son. The passage that follows is sometimes also misunderstood in an Arian sense:

The Son of God, “the First-Born of all creation,” although He seemed recently to have become incarnate, is not by any means recent on account of that. For the Holy Scriptures know Him to be the most ancient of all the works of creation. For it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Origen (c. 248, E), 4.560.

Again, we must remember (as discussed above under 11.E. “Begotten, not made”) that most of the pre-Nicene writers used “begotten” [Gr. gennetos] and “created” [Gr. ktizein] interchangeably as synonyms. When Origen refers to the Son as a “work of creation,” he does not mean it in the sense of the Son’s being created out of nothing. He means in the sense of begetting. As quoted above, Origen distinctly says that “the Word was always with the Father.” The following passage shows that Origen was not including the Son among those things that were created out of nothing:

The Word of God, knowing the Father, reveals the Father whom He knows. And NO CREATED BEING can approach the Father without a guide. For no one knows the Father except the Son and he to whomever the Son reveals Him. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.320. (Ibid., pp. 127-128)

The following quotations confirm the author’s assessment of Origen’s Christology:

The Canaanite woman came and worshiped Him as God, saying, “Lord help me.” Origen (c. 245, E), 9.446. (p. 98)

He is perceived as being the Word, for He was GOD in the beginning with God. He reveals the Father. Origen (c. 245, E), 9.452. (Ibid.)

Every prayer, supplication, intercession, and thanksgiving is to be sent up to the Supreme God through the High Priest-the living Word and God, who is above all angels. And to the Word himself will we also pray, make intercessions, and offer thanksgiving. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.544. (Ibid.)

Let him, then, who assigns a beginning to the Word or Wisdom of God take care that he is not guilty of impiety against the unbegotten Father himself. For he denies that He had always been a Father, or had always generated the Word, or had possessed Wisdom in all preceding periods, whether they be called times or ages. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.246, 247. (p. 105)

The Father generates an UNCREATED SON and brings forth a Holy Spirit – NOT AS IF HE HAD NO PREVIOUS EXISTENCE, but because the Father is the origin and source of the Son or the Holy Spirit. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.270. (Ibid.)

The Word was not made in the beginning. There was NO TIME when the beginning was devoid of the Word. For that reason it is said, “In the beginning was the Word.” Origen (c. 228, E), 9.334. (p. 106)

The Word that was in the beginning with God (WHO IS ALSO VERY GOD) may come to us. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.499. (p. 108)

According to John, “God is light.” The Only-Begotten Son, therefore, is the glory of this light. He proceeds INSEPARABLY from the [God] Himself, as brightness proceeds from light, illuminating the whole creation. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.248. (p. 109)

The Savior is here called simply “Light.” But in the catholic Epistle of this same John, we read that God is Light. This, it has been maintained, furnishes further proof that the Son is not different from the Father IN SUBSTANCE. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.336. (Ibid.)

Whatever is a property of physical bodies cannot be attributed to either the Father or the Son. What belongs to the nature of deity is common to the Father and Son. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.245. (p. 112)

It is an attribute of the divine nature ALONE – of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – to exist without any material substance, and without partaking in any way with an adjoining body … Origen (c. 225, E), 4.262. (Ibid.)

Christ is, in a manner, THE CREATOR, to whom the Father says, “Let there be light.” Origen (c. 228, E), 9.307. (p. 113)

Do we not have one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? Clement of Rome (c. 96, W), 1.17.

The most true God, is the Father of righteousness. . . . We worship and adore Him, the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, along with the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like Him), and the prophetic Spirit. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.164.

Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men called atheists who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order? Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.133.

Christians know God and His Logos. They also know what type of oneness the Son has with the Father and what type of communion the Father has with the Son. Furthermore, they know what the Spirit is and what the unity is of these three: the Spirit, the Son, and the Father. They also know what their distinction is in unity. Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.134.

We acknowledge a God, and a Son (His Logos), and a Holy Spirit. These are united in essence—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Now, the Son is the Intelligence, Reason, and Wisdom of the Father. And the Spirit is an emanation, as light from fire. Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.141.

The three days which were before the luminaries are types of the Triad of God, His Word, and His Wisdom. Theophilus (c. 180, E), 2.101.

It is the Father who anoints, and it is the Son who is anointed by the Spirit. The Spirit is the unction. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.446.

I have also largely demonstrated that the Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father. Now, that Wisdom also, who is the Spirit, was present with Him before all creation, He declares by Solomon: “God by Wisdom founded the earth, and by understanding He has established the heaven. By His knowledge, the depths burst forth, and the clouds dropped down the dew.” And again: “The Lord created me the beginning of His ways in His work. He set me up from everlasting, in the beginning, before He made the earth.” . . . There is therefore one God, who by His Word and Wisdom created and arranged all things. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.488.

God is powerful in all things. At that time, He was seen prophetically through the Spirit and adoptively through the Son. However, he will be seen paternally in the kingdom of heaven. The Spirit truly prepares a man in the Son of God, and the Son leads him to the Father. Finally, the Father confers upon him incorruption for eternal life. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.489.

It is after the image and likeness of the uncreated God: the Father planning everything well and giving His commands, the Son carrying these into execution and performing the work of creating, and the Spirit nourishing and increasing. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.521, 522.

One God the Father is declared, who is above all, through all, and in all. The Father is indeed above all, and He is the Head of Christ. But the Word is through all things and is Himself the Head of the church. While the Spirit is in us all, and He is the living water. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.546.

They ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father. And in due time, the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.567.

The universal Father is one. The universal Word is one. And the Holy Spirit is one. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.220.

Thank the one only Father and Son, Son and Father. The Son is the Instructor and Teacher, along with the Holy Spirit. They are all in One, in whom is all, for whom all is One, for whom is eternity. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.295.

It is protected by the power of God the Father, and the blood of God the Son, and the dew of the Holy Spirit. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.601.

We pray at a minimum not less than three times in the day. For we are debtors to Three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Tertullian (c. 198, W), 3.690.

For the very church itself is—properly and principally—the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Tertullian (c. 212, W), 4.99.

We . . . believe that there is only one God, but under the following dispensation or “economy” [Gr. oikonomia], as it is called. We believe that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the virgin, and to have been born of her—being both man and God, the Son of man and the Son of God. . . . And the Son also sent from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.598.

This heresy [Monarchianism] supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in only one God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also One were not All, in that All are of One, by unity of substance. In this manner, the mystery of the “economy” is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, this is not in condition, but in degree. It is not in substance; but in form. It is not in power, but in aspect. Yet, they are of one substance, one condition, and one power—for as He is one God from whom these degrees, forms, and aspects are reckoned under the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. How they are susceptible of number without division will be shown. . . . The simple, . . . who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the “economy,” on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the only true God. They do not understand that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own “economy.”

. . . How does it come to pass that God is thought to suffer division and severance in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, who have the second and the third places assigned to them, and who are so closely joined with the Father in His substance? . . . Do you really suppose that those, who are naturally members of the Father’s own substance, pledges of His love, instruments of His might, . . . are the overthrow and destruction thereof? You are not right in thinking so. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.598, 3.599.

As for me, I derive the Son from no other source than from the substance of the Father. And I believe He does nothing without the Father’s will and that He received all power from the Father. So how can I possibly be destroying the Monarchy from the faith, when I preserve it in the Son just as it was committed to Him by the Father? . . . Likewise with the Third Degree, for I believe the Spirit is from no other source than from the Father through the Son. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.599.

For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares. This is just as the root puts forth the tree, the fountain the river, and the sun the ray. For these are emanations of the substances from which they proceed. I should not hesitate, indeed, to call the tree the son or offspring of the root; or the river, that of the fountain; or the ray, that of the sun. . . .

Now, the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son. Just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source from which it derives its own properties. In like manner, the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb the “Monarchy,” while it at the same time guards the state of the “Economy.” Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.603.

1276 I testify that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other. . . . My assertion is that the Father is one, the Son is one, and the Spirit is one—and that they are all distinct from each other. . . . The Father is not the same as the Son, for they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.603, 604.

However, that there are two Gods or two Lords, is a statement that at no time proceeds out of our mouths. Not as if it were untrue that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and each is God. . . . Now, if there were found in the Scriptures but one Personality of Him who is God and Lord, Christ would justly enough be inadmissible to the title of God and Lord. For there was declared to be none other than one God and one Lord. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.608.

In the “Economy” itself, the Father willed that the Son should be regarded as being on earth, and the Father Himself as being in heaven. Actually, however, He is everywhere present. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.619.

Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, distinct one from another. These Three are one in essence—not one in Person. For it is said, “I and my Father are One,” in respect of unity of substance, not singularity of number. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.621.

He commands them to baptize into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spiritnot into a unipersonal God. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.623.

The earth is moved by three things: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.174.

Who will not say that there is one God? Yet, he will not on that account deny the Economy. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.224.

Therefore, a man . . . is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God—who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject (Himself excepted)—and the Holy Spirit; and that these are three [Persons]. However, if he desires to know how it is shown that there is still one God, let him know that His power is one. As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the Economy, there is a threefold manifestation. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.226.

We accordingly see the incarnate Word. And we know the Father through Him. We also believe in the Son, and we worship the Holy Spirit. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.228.

If, then, the Word was with God and was also God, what follows? Would one say that I speak of two Gods? I will not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one. I speak of two Persons, however, and of a third Economy—the grace of the Holy Spirit. For the Father indeed is one, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son. And then there is the third, the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the Word executes, and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The Economy of harmony is led back to one God. For God is one. It is the Father who commands, and the Son who obeys, and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding. The Father is above all, the Son is through all, and the Holy Spirit is in all. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.228.

“Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” By this, He showed that whoever omits any one of these three, fails in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, and the Spirit manifested. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.228.

However, many of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other not only on small and trifling matters but also on subjects of the highest importance. I mean, for example, the things concerning God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit. . . . For that reason, therefore, it seems necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these [Persons]. . . . The particular points that are clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follows: First, that there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being. . . .

Secondly, that Jesus Christ Himself, who came, was born of the Father before all creatures and that—after He had been the minister of the Father in the creation of all things (“for by Him all things were made”), He in the last times divested Himself and became a man. He was incarnate although still God. . . .

And thirdly, the apostles related that the Holy Spirit was associated in honor and dignity with the Father and the Son. But in His case it is not clearly distinguished whether He is to be regarded as born or unborn—or also as a Son of God nor not. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.240.

The Savior Himself rightly says in the Gospel: “There is no one good but only one, God the Father.” By such an expression, it should be understood that the Son is not of a different goodness, but of that one goodness that exists in the Father, of whom He is rightly called the Image. For He proceeds from no other source than from that primal goodness. Otherwise, there might appear to be in the Son a different goodness than that which is in the Father. . . . Therefore it is not to be imagined that there is a kind of blasphemy, as it were, in the words, “There is no one good except one only, God the Father.” For it is not as if thereby it might be supposed to be denying that either Christ or the Holy Spirit are good. Rather, as we have already said, the primal goodness is to be understood as residing in God the Father, from whom both the Son is born and the Holy Spirit proceeds. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.251.

Saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all. That is, it is made complete by naming the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In this, we join the name of the Holy Spirit to the Unbegotten God (the Father) and to His Only-Begotten Son. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.252.

Having made these declarations regarding the Unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, let us return to the order in which we began the discussion. God the Father bestows existence upon all. Participation in Christ, in respect of His being the Word of reason, renders them rational beings. . . . To begin with, they derive their existence from God the Father. Secondly, they derive their rational nature from the Word. Thirdly, they derive their holiness from the Holy Spirit. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.255.

There is no nature, then, that may not admit of good or evil—except the nature of God, the Fountain of all good things, and of Christ. . . . In like manner also, the nature of the Holy Spirit—being holy—does not allow pollution. For it is holy by nature, or essential being. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.266.

The Father generates an uncreated Son and brings forth a Holy Spirit—not as if He had no previous existence, but because the Father is the origin and source of the Son or Holy Spirit. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.270.

As to what movements of their will leads God so to arrange all these things, this is known to God alone, and to His Only-Begotten Son (through whom all things were created and restored), and to the Holy Spirit (through whom all things are sanctified). He proceeds from the Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.344.

Isaiah, too, knowing that the beginnings of things could not be discovered by a mortal nature—not even by those natures which are more divine than human, yet were nevertheless created or formed themselves. . . . For my Hebrew teacher also used to teach in this same manner. [He said] that the beginning or end of all things could be comprehended by no one, except only our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.375, 376.

Let everyone, then, who cares for truth not be concerned about words and language. For in every nation there prevails a different usage of speech. Rather, let him direct his attention to the meaning conveyed by the words (rather than to the nature of the words that convey the meaning), especially in matters of such importance and difficulty. . . . The “substance” of the Trinity that is the beginning and cause of all things . . . is altogether incorporeal. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.376.

All things that exist were made by God and there was nothing that was not made—except for the nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. . . . For the Father alone knows the Son. And the Son alone knows the Father. And the Holy Spirit alone searches even the deep things of God. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.380.

The Savior and the Holy Spirit were sent by the Father for the salvation of men. Origen (c. 245, E), 9.486.

We are not ignorant that there is one God; and one Christ, the Lord (whom we have confessed); and one Holy Spirit. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.323.

“Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” He suggests the Trinity, in whose sacrament the nations were to be baptized. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.380.

If a person baptized by heretics were sanctified, he would also be made the temple of God. I ask, “of what God?” If of the Creator, he could not be. For he has not believed in Him. If of Christ, he could not become His temple, since he denies that Christ is God. If of the Holy Spirit, how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy either of the Son or of the Father? For the three are one. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.382.

The Lord says, “I and the Father are one.” And, again, it is written of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: “And these three are one.” Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.423.

The three children, along with Daniel, . . . observed the third, sixth, and ninth hours (as it were) for a sacrament of the Trinity, which was to be manifested in the last times. For the first hour in its progress to the third declares the completed number of the Trinity. Cyprian (c. 250, W), 5.456.

. . . baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The very same Trinity who operated figuratively through the dove in Noah’s days, now operates spiritually in the church through the disciples. Treatise against Novatian (c. 255, W), 5.658.

The false and wicked baptism of heretics . . . is a blasphemy of the Trinity. Seventh Council of Carthage (c. 256, W), 5.568.

. . . the invocation of the Trinity—of the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Firmilian (c. 256, E), 5.392.

The individual names uttered by me can neither be separated from one another, nor parted. . . . They are ignorant that the Father, in that He is a father, cannot be separated from the Son. For that name is the obvious grounds of bonding. . . . Nor can the Son be separated from the Father, for the word “father” indicates an association between them. Furthermore, there is obviously a Spirit who can not be disjoined from the One who sends. . . . Thus, indeed, we expand the indivisible Unity into a Trinity. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.93, as quoted by Athanasius.

As the next two quotations illustrate, eastern pre-Nicene writers often used the Greek word hypostasis to mean “person,” while western writers often used it to mean “substance.” This caused much confusion between east and west.

If there are three Persons [Gr. hypostases], this does not mean that they are divided. There are three whether they like it or not. Otherwise, let them get rid of the divine Trinity altogether. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.94, as quoted by Athanasius.

It would be just to dispute against those who destroy the Monarchy by dividing and rending it . . . into three powers and distinct substances [Gr. hypostases] and deities. . . . In a certain manner, these men declare three Gods, in that they divide the Holy Unity into three different substances, absolutely separated from one another. For it is essential that the Divine Word should be united to the God of all, and that the Holy Spirit should abide and dwell in God. Therefore, the Divine Trinity should be reduced and gathered into one, into a certain Head—that is, into the Omnipotent God of all. For the doctrine of the foolish Marcion, which cuts and divides the Monarchy into three elements, is certainly of the devil. It is not of Christ’s true disciples, . . . for these indeed correctly know that the Trinity is declared in the divine Scripture. However, the doctrine that there are three Gods I find neither taught in the Old nor in the New Testament. Dionysius of Rome (c. 265, W), 7.365, as quoted by Athanasius.

That admirable and divine unity, therefore, must not be separated into three divinities. Nor must the dignity and eminent greatness of the Lord be diminished by the name of creation. Rather, we must believe on God the Father omnipotent, and on Christ Jesus His Son, and on the Holy Spirit. Dionysius of Rome (c. 265, W), 7.365, 366, as quoted by Athanasius.

The thousand two hundred and sixty days [Rev. 12:6] . . . is the accurate and complete understanding concerning the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. . . . A thousand embraces a full and perfect number and is a symbol of the Father Himself. He made the universe by Himself and rules all things for Himself. Two hundred embraces two perfect numbers united together, and it is the symbol of the Holy Spirit. For He is the Author of our knowledge of the Son and the Father. Sixty is composed of the number six multiplied by ten, and it is a symbol of Christ. . . . He came from the fullness of Godhood into a human life. For having emptied Himself and taken upon Him the form of a slave, He was restored again to his former perfection and dignity. Methodius (c. 290, E), 6.339.

Methodius thinks that the following are types of the holy and consubstantial Trinity: the innocent and unbegotten Adam is a type and resemblance of God the Father Almighty, who is uncaused and is the cause of all. Adam’s begotten son [Abel or Seth] pictures the image of the begotten Son and Word of God. And Eve, who proceeded forth from Adam, signifies the person and procession of the Holy Spirit. Reference to Methodius (c. 290, E), 6.402, from a post-Nicene writer.

The Father is the God over all. Christ is the Only-Begotten God—the beloved Son, the Lord of glory. The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, who is sent by Christ, taught by Him, and proclaimed by Him. Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.431.

Now, God, who alone is Unbegotten, and the Maker of the whole world . . . grants to you eternal life with us, through the mediation of His beloved Son, Jesus Christ, our God and Savior. With whom glory be to You, the God over all and the Father, in the Holy Spirit, the Comforter. Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.505; extended discussion: 3.597–3.627.

To sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father. Matt. 20:23.

When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. John 8:28, 29.

I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. John 12:49, 50.

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus. Acts 3:13.

For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together. Acts 4:27.

I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 1 Cor. 11:3.

When all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all. 1 Cor. 15:25–28.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants. Rev. 1:1.

The Lord did nothing without the Father, for He was united to Him. . . . [There is] one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father. He is with one Father, and He has gone to one Father.

Ignatius (c. 105, E), 1.62.

Be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father.

Ignatius (c. 105, E), 1.84.

He is the Lord of the people, having received all authority from His Father.

Hermas (c. 150, W), 2.35.

They proclaim our madness to consist in this: that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all. For they do not discern the mystery that is herein.

Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.167.

He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from the One who made all things. I mean, he is numerically distinct; He is not distinct in will. For I assert that He has never at anytime done anything that the One who made the world (above whom there is no other God) has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with.

justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.224.

I will repeat the whole Psalm, in order that you may hear His reverence for the Father. Listen to how He refers all things to Him, and prays to be delivered by Him from this death. . . . “O God, my God, attend to me: why have You forsaken me? . . . O my God, I will cry to you in the daytime.”

Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.248.

The Son performs the good pleasure of the Father. For the Father sends, and the Son is sent, and comes.

Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.468.

For His Offspring and His Image do minister to Him in every respect. That is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom—whom all the angels serve and to whom they are subject.

Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.470.

The Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man in God. The Mediator executes the Father’s will. For the Mediator is the Word, who is common to both man and God. He is the Son of God, but the Savior of men. He is God’s Servant, but our Teacher.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.271.

We have heard it said, “The Head of Christ is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” . . . The Son sees the goodness of the Father. God the Savior works, for He is called the First Principle of all things. He first imaged forth from the invisible God, before the ages. He fashioned all things that came into being after Himself.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.453.

Xenocrates the Chalcedonian mentions the supreme Zeus and the subordinate Zeus. In doing so, he leaves an indication of the Father and the Son.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.471.

Jesus is the Lord of all and serves above all the will of the Good and Almighty Father.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.524.

He Himself proclaimed that He did not do His own will, but that of the Father.

Tertullian (c. 198, W), 3.682.

However, with regard to the Father, the very gospel which is common to us will testify that He was never visible, according to the word of Christ. . . . He means that the Father is invisible, in whose authority and in whose name was He God who appeared as the Son of God.

Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.319.

In addition to the title of Son, He was the Sent One. The authority, therefore, of the Sender must necessarily have first appeared in a testimony of the Sent. That is because no one who comes in the authority of another declares things for himself, that is, on his own assertion.

Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.321, 322.

He Himself received from the Father the ability of uttering words in season: “The Lord has given to me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season.” However, Marcion introduces to us a Christ who is not subject to the Father.

Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.415.

No directive about the salvation of angels did Christ ever receive from the Father. And that which the Father neither promised nor commanded, Christ could not have undertaken.

Tertullian (c. 210, W), 3.533.

The Son of God has faith’s protection absolutely committed to Him. He beseeches it of the Father—from whom He receives all power in heaven and on earth.

Tertullian (c. 212, W), 4.117.

No one, therefore, will impair [the monarchy of God] on account of admitting the Son. For it is certain that it has been committed to Him by the Father. Eventually, it has to be delivered up again by Him to the Father.

Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.600.

With us, however, the Son alone knows the Father, and has Himself unfolded the Father’s bosom. He has also heard and seen all things with the Father. And what He has been commanded by the Father, that also is what He speaks. And it is not His own will, but the Father’s that He has accomplished. He had known this fact most intimately, even from the beginning. . . . The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father (as He says, “I am in the Father”) and is always with God (according to what is written, “And the Word was with God”). He is never separated from the Father, or different from the Father, since “I and the Father are one.”

Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.603.

Consider whether the Son also is not indicated by these designations, who in His own right is God Almighty, in that He is the Word of Almighty God and has received power over all. He is the Most High, in that He is exalted at the right hand of God, as Peter declares in the Acts. He is the Lord of hosts, because all things are made subject to Him by the Father.

Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.613.

He accordingly says Unum, a neuter term, which does not imply singularity of number, but unity of essence, likeness, and conjunction. It implies affection on the Father’s part, who loves the Son. And it implies submission on the Son’s part, who obeys the Father’s will.

Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.618.

It is the Father who commands, and the Son who obeys, and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding. The Father is above all, the Son is through all, and the Holy Spirit is in all.

Origen (c. 225, E), 4.281.

He became obedient to the Father—not only by the death of the cross—but also in the end of the world. For He embraces in Himself all whom He subjects to the Father, and who by Him come to salvation. For He Himself (along with them, and in them) is said to also be subject to the Father. . . . Consequently, this is what the apostle says of Him: “And when all things will be subjected to Him, then will the Son also Himself be subject to Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” Indeed, I do not know how the heretics—not understanding the meaning of the apostle in these words consider the term “subjection” to be degrading when applied to the Son. . . . Now, according to their view, the language of the apostle means . . . that He who is not now in subjection to the Father will become subject to Him when the Father will have first subdued all things unto Him. However, I am astonished how it can be conceived that the meaning is that He who is not Himself in subjection at the present (when all things have not been subjected to Him) will later be made subject once all things have been subjected to Him.

Origen (c. 225, E), 4.343.

Nor must we forget to mention the Word, who is God after the Father of all.

Origen (c. 228, E), 9.303.

He will be at no loss to account for the Father’s saying to Him, “You are My Servant,” and a little further on, “It is a great thing that you should be called My Servant.” For we do not hesitate to say that the goodness of Christ appears in a greater and more divine light . . . because “He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” than if He had judged it a thing to be grasped to be equal with God, and had shrunk from becoming a servant for the salvation of the world. He desires to teach us that in accepting this state of servitude, He had received a great gift from His Father. Hence, He says, “And My God will be My strength.”

Who does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father?

Origen (c. 228, E), 9.316.

Just as Christ is our head, so God is His head.

Origen (c. 228, E), 9.318.

The Word of God, who is called Faithful, is also called True. In righteousness, He judges and makes war. For He has received from God the faculty of judging.

Origen (c. 228, E), 9.326.

The Unbegotten God commanded the First-Born of all creation, and they were created.

Origen (c. 228, E), 9.331.

First, then, stands the Father, being without any turning or change. And then stands also His Word, always carrying on His work of salvation.

Origen (c. 228, E), 9.369.

We say that the visible world is under the government of Him who created all things. We do thereby declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father—but subordinate to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus himself, “The Father who sent me is greater than I.” And none of us is so insane as to declare that the Son of man is Lord over God. But we regard the Savior as God the Word, and Wisdom, Righteousness, and Truth. And we certainly do say that He has dominion over all things that have been subjected to Him in this capacity. But we do not say that His domain extends over the God and Father who is Ruler over all.

Origen (c. 248, E), 4.645.

The Son of Man

The “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7 represents the “people of the holy ones,” and receives the kingdom on their behalf. The Son of God text should be read in a similar way. The figure who is called the Son of God is the representative, or agent, of the people of God. That is why he is not mentioned again after the rise of the people of God in column 2. His career and the rise of the people of God are simply two aspects of the same event…

It may be well at this point to pause for a moment to comment on the word “messiah.” As is well known, the Hebrew word for messiah, mashiach, means simply “anointed.” Kings were anointed in ancient Israel, and so were some other figures, notably high priests. Originally, the word had no special reference to the future. When the Psalmist wrote in Psalm 2:2 that the kings of the earth take counsel “against the Lord and his anointed,” he was speaking of the king of the day, not of someone who was expected in the future. In later times, however, when there was no longer a Davidic king in Jerusalem and when the Jewish people looked increasingly to the future, the word “messiah” took on a new meaning. It now referred to the one who would restore the kingdom of Israel, and who was often conceived in a highly idealized way. The Dead Sea Scrolls do not restrict the word “messiah” to the one who would restore the Davidic kingship; they also speak of a priestly “messiah of Aaron” and use the word “messiahs” with reference to prophets. But they also attest the use of “messiah” with reference to the “branch of David.” Eventually the word “messiah” came to mean primarily the Davidic messiah in both Jewish and Christian traditions: Passages in the Psalms and in the Prophets that spoke of a messiah or of a Davidic king were commonly interpreted as referring to this figure who would come in the future. At the turn of the era, an heir to the Davidic throne, in an apocalyptic context, cannot be distinguished from the Davidic messiah, and we are fully justified in speaking of a messiah here, even though the word does not appear in the text.

the blank space in the second column of the Son of God text marks the transition to the final stage of the drama, the rise of the people of God. It does not follow, however, that everything before this is negative. This text belongs to the category of apocalyptic literature, broadly defined; that is, literature that reports visions about the end of days. It is very closely related to the Book of Daniel, which is itself a classic apocalyptic text. It is typical of apocalyptic literature that it does not tell its story in simple sequential order, but often goes over the same ground again and again to make its point. For example, Daniel 7 recounts a famous vision in which “one like a son of man” comes on the clouds of heaven (verse 13) and is given a kingdom. An interpretation follows, which says that “the holy ones of the Most High” receive the kingdom (verse 18). Finally, there is an elaboration of this interpretation, according to which the kingdom is given to “the people of the holy ones of the Most High” (verse 27). The giving of the kingdom, then, is narrated three times, but these are not three separate events

The Hebrew Bible provides a clear basis for referring to the Davidic messiah as Son of God. Psalm 2, which uses the word “messiah,” or “anointed,” with reference to the king, goes on to say “I will tell of the decree of the Lord: he said to me, ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you’” (Psalm 2:7). In Psalm 89:27, God says of the king “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” In 2 Samuel 7:14, the Lord promises that he will establish the kingdom of David’s offspring: “I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me.” This latter passage is cited in the document known as 4Q174, or the Florilegium, from Qumran (this document consists of biblical citations followed by explanations; the citation commented on is from 2 Samuel 7:11–14):

“‘The Lord declares to you that He will build you a house. I will raise up your seed after you. I will establish the throne of his kingdom (for ever). I (will be) his father and he shall be my son.’ He is the branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law (to rule) in Zion (at the end) of time.”

This passage from the Florilegium is a good illustration of how Scripture was read at Qumran. A text that originally referred to Solomon and the historical Davidic line now refers to the end of days. The son in question is now the branch of David who will appear in the future, or, in common parlance, the Davidic messiah.

In view of this background, it is not surprising that the Davidic messiah should be called “Son of God” or “Son of the Most High.” Indeed the Davidic association of these phrases is explicit in the verses previously quoted from the Gospel of Luke: “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David.” Our scroll text from Qumran (4Q246) is probably the oldest extant text that explicitly uses the title “Son of God” with reference to a future messianic king. (John J. Collins, A Pre-Christian “Son of God” Among the Dead Sea Scrolls; emphasis mine)

Anti-Trinitarians who affirm something akin to the ancient heresy of tritheism or modalism generally affirm all but proposition #6 (though they actually have difficulty affirming #3 in a consistent manner). Anti-Trinitarians who affirm something akin to the ancient heresy of Arianism agree that Yahweh or Jehovah is a single divine being (cf. proposition #2) and affirm proposition #3; they also agree that the Father and Son are personally distinct but take a somewhat different view of the Holy Spirit (cf. proposition #6). There are still other variations.

Each of these anti-Trinitarian groups considers its position obviously biblical. Thus, there is no need to appeal to extra-biblical considerations to settle the question, as all of the essential elements of the doctrine are addressed one way or another in the Bible.

The following outline study presents an overview of the biblical basis of the above six propositions, and therefore of the doctrine of the Trinity. Comments on the texts have been kept to a bare minimum; the emphasis is on the many biblical texts themselves. Roughly 1,000 references drawn from well over 300 different chapters of the Bible are listed, including references from all 27 books of the New Testament. The study makes no direct references to any specific non-Trinitarian religious groups but focuses solely on presenting the positive biblical evidence for the Trinity and responding succinctly to common objections to this evidence. No secondary sources are cited in the outline itself, though of course I have consulted numerous such sources.

Brief expositions of many of the texts discussed here can be found in the author’s book Why You Should Believe in the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989). Unfortunately, that book is out of print, but you can order a copy here. The material on the deity of Christ (point VI of the outline) is discussed in even greater depth in my more recent book Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ, co-authored with J. Ed Komoszewski (Kregel, 2007).

Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.404.

Let the deacon minister to the bishop as Christ does to His Father. And let him serve him unblamably in all things. For Christ does nothing of Himself, but always does those things that please His Father.

Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.410.

Christ does nothing without his Father. . . . And as the Son is nothing without His Father, so is the deacon nothing without his bishop. And as the Son is subject to His Father, so is every deacon subject to his bishop.

Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.411.

He . . . blesses and glorifies the Lord God Almighty, the Father of the Only-Begotten God.

Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c. 390, E), 7.477; see also 2.227, 3.438.

The numerous quotations above make it clear that the early church believed the Logos of God to be eternal. The statements of some of the writers, however—when taken out of context or read carelessly—make it sound as though they thought the Son came into existence from nothing.

They sometimes speak of God the Father having originally been alone. They sometimes also speak of the Father as begetting the Word or the Son at some time or interval.

Yet those same writers state that the Father has always had his Logos or Wisdom with him. Upon more careful examination, one finds that those writers are distinguishing between the internal Logos and the external Word (who are one and the same person).

They are saying that, technically speaking, the title of “Word” (and perhaps “Son”) do not apply to the Logos until he went forth from the Father to create the universe. They will sometimes speak of this going forth from the Father as the begetting of the Son, distinguishing it from the eternal generation of the Logos from the Father.

God was possessed of the greatest foresight for planning. . . . So before He commenced this business of the world, . . . He produced a Spirit like Himself, who could be endowed with the perfection of God the Father. God did this in order that goodness might spring as a stream from Him and might flow forth afar. Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.52.

In the thirty-second Psalm: “By the word of God were the heavens made firm. And all their power by the breath of His mouth.” And also again in the forty-fourth Psalm: “My heart has given utterance to a good word.” . . . Solomon also shows that it is the Word of God, and no other, by whose hands these works of the world were made. He says, “I came forth out of the mouth of the Most High before all creatures. I caused the light that does not fail to arise in the heavens” [Sir. 24:3]. John also taught in this manner: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.107.

In the 109th Psalm, David teaches the same, saying, “Before the morning star, I begot you.” Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.113.

Out of you shall come forth to me the One to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Mic. 5:2.

Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” John 8:58.

Jesus Christ was with the Father before the ages, and in the end, He was revealed. Ignatius (c. 105, E), 1.61.

The Son of God is older than all His creatures, so that He was a Fellow-Counselor with the Father in His work of creation. Hermas (c. 150, W), 2.47.

His Son . . . also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.190.

And Trypho [a Jew] said, “For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For example, you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages.” Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.219.

This is He who existed before all, who is the eternal Priest of God, and King, and Christ. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.247.

We know Him to be the First-Begotten of God, and to be before all creatures. . . . Since we call Him the Son, we have understood that, before all creatures, He proceeded from the Father by His power and will. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.249.

“The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He formed the earth.” . . . You perceive . . . that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created. Now, everyone will admit that He who is begotten is numerically distinct from Him who begets. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.264.

Moreover, we are worshippers of His Christ, who is truly God the Word, existing before all time. Melito (c. 170, E), 8.759.

Being at once both God and perfect man, He gave us sure indications of His two natures. . . . He concealed the signs of His Deity, although he was the true God existing before all ages. Melito (c. 170, E), 8.760.

What is meant by the Son? I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father. I do not mean that He was brought into existence. For, from the beginning, God, who is the eternal Mind, had the Logos in Himself. From eternity, He is instinct with Logos. However, [the Son is begotten] inasmuch as He came forth to be the Idea and energizing Power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes. . . . The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. “The Lord,” it says, “made me the beginning of His ways to His works.” Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.133.

Each of those things to which divinity is ascribed is conceived of as having existed from the first. Athenagoras (c. 175, E), 2.137.

But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse, but as truth expounds, the Word who always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being, He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. Theophilus (c. 180, E), 2.103.

But the Son has been eternally co-existing with the Father. From of old, yes, from the beginning, He always reveals the Father. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/ W), 1.406.

For not only before Adam, but also before all creation, the Word glorified His Father, remaining in Him. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.478.

For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things. He speaks to this one, saying, “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness.” . . . I have also largely demonstrated that the Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.487, 488.

He was with the Father from the beginning. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.489.

He is prior to all creation. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/ W), 1.526.

Solomon also says that before heaven, earth, and all existences, Wisdom had arisen in the Almighty. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.512.

Since He was begotten of the Father, He is always in the Father. In saying “always,” I do not mean Him to be unborn, but born. Yet, He who is before all time must be said to have been always in the Father. For no time can be assigned to Him who is before all time. He is always in the Father, unless the Father is not always the Father. Yet, the Father also precedes him in a certain sense. For it is necessary, in some degree, that He should be before He is Father. For it is essential that He who knows no beginning must go before Him who has a beginning. Just as the Son is the less, as knowing that He is in the Father, having an origin because He is born. And He is of like nature with the Father in some measure because of His nativity. He has a beginning in that He is born, inasmuch as He is born of that Father who alone has no beginning. He, then, when the Father willed it, proceeded from the Father. He who was in the Father came forth from the Father. And He who was in the Father because He was of the Father, was subsequently with the Father, because He came forth from the Father. I am speaking of the Divine substance whose name is the Word. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.643.

There certainly was not a time when God was not the Father. . . . Because the Son has existence from the Father, not from Himself, it does not mean that God afterwards begot the Son. . . . Being the brightness of the eternal Light, He Himself also is absolutely eternal. If the light is always in existence, it is manifest that its brightness also exists. . . . God is the eternal Light, which has neither had a beginning, nor will it ever fail. Therefore, the eternal brightness shines forth before Him and coexists with Him. Existing without a beginning, and always begotten, He always shines before Him. He is that Wisdom that says, “I was that in which He delighted, and I was daily his delight before his face at all times.” Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.92, as quoted by Athanasius.

Now, this word, “I am,” expresses His eternal subsistence. For if he is the reflection of the eternal light, he must also be eternal Himself. For if the light subsists forever, it is evident that the reflection also subsists forever. Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E), 6.120.

Neither are they less to be blamed who think that the Son was a creation, determining that the Lord was made—just as one of those things that really were made. For the divine declarations testify that He was begotten (as is fitting and proper), but not that He was created or made. It is therefore not a trifling thing—but a very great impiety—to say that the Lord was in any way made with hands. For if the Son was made, there was a time when He was not. However, He always was, if (as He Himself declares) He is undoubtedly in the Father. And if Christ is the Word, the Wisdom, and the Power (for the divine writings tell us that Christ is these, as you yourselves know), assuredly these are powers of God. Wherefore, if the Son was made, there was a time when these were not in existence. And thus there was a time when God was without these things, which is utterly absurd. Dionysius of Rome (c. 265, W), 7.365, as quoted by Athanasius.

THE TRIUNE CREATOR AND LIFE-GIVER

1:1 God the Father made heaven and earth. “I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth” (Creed).

1:2 The Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit (BasilG; EphS). He proceeds from the Father, and is “the Lord and Giver of Life” (Creed). Since He is Lord, He is coequal with the Father, and is His Coworker in making heaven and earth.

1:3 God the Father spoke to His Word and Only-begotten Son, through whom He made the light (AthanG). Since the Son, too, is Lord, He is coequal with the Father, and is His Coworker in making heaven and earth.

The Holy Fathers teach that the Father made heaven and earth through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Holy Trinity made heaven and earth, and the Church sings, “We glorify the Father, we exalt the Son, and we worship the Holy Spirit—the indivisible Trinity who exists as One—the Light and Lights, the Life and Lives, who grants light and life to the ends of the world” (CanonAnd).

1:4–25 Since the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit made heaven and earth, They also made everything mentioned in these verses.

1:26–30 The Holy Trinity also made man. God the Father is speaking to God the Son (JohnChr), and He uses the personal pronouns Us and Our. These pronouns indicate three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as noted in 1:1–3.

The word image is in the singular, and shows the three distinct Persons of the Holy Trinity are one in nature and undivided. For it does not say, “Our images” (HilryP). Therefore, the Holy Trinity is one undivided nature in three distinct Persons.

Man is not one in nature with the Holy Trinity. But He was made in the image and likeness of the Holy Trinity; and he was made male and female. Therefore, the dignity of each man and each woman is this image and likeness.

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.

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.

The New Testament Affirms the Holy Trinity 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 3:1–5).

Hebrews 1:8–10—This Scripture affirms the Father is speaking to the Son in Psalms 44:7 and 101:26–28, 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.

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.” (P. 4)

[Exodus] 31:3 The divine Spirit is the Holy Spirit (BasilG; GrgTheo; CyrJer).

31:18 The finger of God is the Holy Spirit (Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20). (Pp. 105-106)

THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IS THE PREHUMAN JESUS

16:7 The Lord is the Father, and the Angel is His Son (HilryP). And the prophet Isaiah calls Him “the Angel of Great Counsel” (Is 9:5). “The Son is called Angel because He alone reveals the Father” (AthanG).

16:8 The Lord asked Hagar questions, not because He was ignorant, but for Hagar’s sake and for ours. After He became Man, He also asked questions in the four Gospels, not because He was ignorant, but for the sake of the immediate listeners and of the faithful. For He is God in the flesh, and therefore, never ignorant of anything (JohnDm).

16:9 Since He is God, the Angel commanded Hagar. She obeyed (v. 15). This Angel is the Word of God.

16:10 This statement by the Angel COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE BY A CREATED ANGEL, for only God can say, “I will surely multiply your seed exceedingly, that it may not be counted because of its multitude.” NO CREATED ANGEL CAN DO THIS. THE ANGEL IS GOD THE SON.

16:11 The Angel then spoke to Hagar concerning the Father and said, “The Lord has taken notice of your humiliation.”

16:13 Hagar called the Angel who appeared to her both Lord and God. The Church knows Him as the Only-begotten of the Father (Jn 1). As the Father’s Only-begotten, He is “true God of true God” (Creed).

One meaning of the name God is, You are the God who sees me. The Only-begotten sees everything. So do God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

17:1 Thirteen years after the birth of Ishmael (16:16), the Lord appeared to Abram again and identified Himself as God, for He said to him, “I am your God.” This appearance is another of the personal appearances of the Son of God to Abraham.

17:2–4 The covenant is that established “in Christ” (Gal 3:17). God established it before the Mosaic covenant. Therefore, the Law of Moses, which came later, could not cancel it. Abraham’s faith is multiplied exceedingly in the Church. For he is the father of many nations (see also Rom 4:16, 17).

17:5 Abram’s name (meaning “exalted father”) was changed to Abraham (“father of many”). This very name change proves the gospel of salvation is for many nations, the Gentiles as well as the Jews.

17:7 The God of the everlasting covenant is the Holy Trinity, for the Son is God of God, the Only-begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit is also God of God, for He “proceeds from the Father” (Creed).

17:10–14 The rite of circumcision was not the covenant itself. It was a sign of the covenant (v. 11). It was a temporary sign, because it applied only to Abraham’s genealogy (v. 12), that is, to Abraham’s physical lineage, and also to those born in his house or bought with his money. Thus, the rite did not apply to the “many nations,” or Gentiles, to be made righteous by faith in the gospel (v. 3; see also Rom 4:9–17). Christ Himself fulfilled this rite and brought it to an end when He was circumcised on the eighth day after His birth from the Virgin (Lk 2:21). (Pp. 21-22)

18:1–3 The Holy Spirit says through the prophet Moses that God appeared to Abraham. This is another personal appearance of the Son of God to him. He saw three men standing before him, but he worshiped only one of them as Lord, for He is Lord and God. The other two are called “angels” (19:1). The Son of God is the Lord of all the angels.

18:4–8 The hospitality of Abraham was a virtue that should be shared by his spiritual children.

18:9 The Lord was not ignorant of Sarah’s location. He asked the question for Abraham’s sake and for that of those who read the Scriptures. He also asked questions for the same reason after He became incarnate, for example, concerning the location of Lazarus’s grave (Jn 11:34).

18:14 The Lord speaks of God the Father, who does not will everything He can do, but He can do everything He wills. For nothing is impossible with Him. Likewise, nothing is impossible with His Son, for the Father works all things through the Son. As St. Athanasius the Great said, “He is the Will of the Father.” Therefore, the Son would strengthen Abraham and Sarah, and Sarah would conceive to bear Isaac, the child of promise.

19:1 The Holy Spirit through the prophet Moses calls two of the three men angels. When they arrived in Sodom, they met Lot at the city gate.

19:2 Lot paid the angels due respect by calling them lords, but he did not worship them, for they were created beings.

19:13 The third man was the Lord, the Son of God, and he sent the other two to Sodom to destroy it.

19:18 Lot spoke to all three men, but prayed to the Lord in particular.

19:21 The Lord granted his request (I have acquiesced to you) to escape to a small city, called Zoar. The Son is the Will of the Father; thus He said, “I will not overthrow this city.” The Son is also the Word, Wisdom, and Power of the Father (Jn 1:1–3 and 1Co 1:24).

19:22 The Lord can do anything He wills to do. But He would not will to destroy Sodom before Lot arrived in Zoar.

19:24 The Lord rained brimstone and fire . . . from the Lord out of heaven, that is, the Son rained brimstone and fire from the Father (AthanG, BasilG, AmbM, and HilryP). Both have the name “Lord” because of Their equality and oneness of lordship. For in Their essence, the Two are One and undivided (Creed). The Holy Spirit, who spoke this Scripture through the prophet Moses, is also one in lordship with the Father and the Son, for as the Creed says, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord . . . who proceeds from the Father.”

The destruction of Sodom and the adjoining city of Gomorrah is a warning to the ungodly concerning the Day of Judgment (2Pt 2:6, 9; Jude 7). (Pp. 23-25)

21:1 The Son of God visited Sarah and fulfilled the promise He had given in 18:10 (HilryP). Abraham and Sarah would have a son in their old age.

21:2 Thus, Sarah conceived, based on the word of promise. She did not conceive based on the power of the flesh, for both she and Abraham were past the time of childbearing. Therefore, it is not the children of the flesh—that is, Abraham’s offspring through procreation—who are the children of God. Rather, the children of this promise are counted as Abraham’s seed (Rom 9:8). These children are those who embrace Abraham’s faith through the Lord Jesus Christ (Gal 3:16).

21:17 The Angel of God IS THE SON OF GOD. He told Hagar that God, that is, God the Father, had heard Ishmael’s crying. “The Son is called Angel because He alone reveals the Father” (AthanG).

21:18 The Angel told Hagar He Himself (I will make) would make a great nation of Ishmael. Therefore, this Angel is God (see also vv. 19, 20), for God alone could do such a thing. This Angel IS NOT A CREATED ANGEL, BUT THE SON OF GOD HIMSELF. And why would He make a great nation of Ishmael? Because after His Incarnation, Ishmael’s descendants would embrace Abraham’s faith based on the word of promise. (P. 27)

22:1 God the Word tested Abraham (AthanG).

22:2 The Word is the Son of God, and by calling Isaac Abraham’s beloved son, He is teaching Abraham concerning HIS ETERNAL BIRTH FROM GOD THE FATHER (AthanG). For He is “the Only-begotten from the Father” (Creed). He is also teaching Abraham that He Himself would be offered up as a whole burnt offering for the world’s salvation, and be raised from the dead.

22:3 Abraham’s faith was tested, and he obeyed the Son of God. Such faith and obedience made Abraham righteous and a friend of God (Jam 2:22–23).

22:12 Abraham received Isaac back alive. This prefigured the Resurrection of Christ and the future resurrection from the dead, in which Abraham believed (Heb 11:19)

22:14, 15 The Angel of the Lord is the Son of God, and He appeared to Abraham. The Lord is God the Father.

22:16 Abraham and Abimelech counseled together and swore by the greater, namely, by the name of God (21:23, 24). The seven ewe lambs confirmed the oath, and Abraham named the place the Well of Oath. So they were reconciled. However, God cannot swear by anyone greater; therefore, He swore by Himself. He confirmed the oath by His Lamb, the Son of God, through whom God’s eternal covenant is established (Heb 6:13–20). The Well of Oath foreshadows the reconciliation of man to God through Jesus Christ.

22:17 Abraham’s seed would be as the stars of heaven and as the sand on the seashore. These are Abraham’s seed based on the word of promise. This seed is Christ and His Church begotten from Him (Gal 3:16). It does not refer to Israel according to the flesh. It refers to both Jews and Gentiles who are the children of the promise. (Pp. 28-29)

24:7 The Lord’s Angel IS THE SON OF GOD. The word angel also means messenger. In this meaning it is also akin to the term word. The Son of God is called both Angel and Word, for “He alone reveals the Father” (AthanG). Both names emphasize that the Son is the Will of God the Father. Thus, God spoke to Abraham through His Will, and told him to leave his father’s house for the land of promise. The words He will send His Angel before you were prophesied by Abraham to his servant. He spoke these words by the Holy Spirit, as the Creed says: “I believe in the Holy Spirit . . . who spoke by the prophets.” (P. 30)

24:62, 63 At the Well of the Vision, the Son of God appeared to Hagar (16:7–14). Isaac was meditating on this vision. (P. 32)

25:11 Isaac dwelt at the Well of the Vision, where the Son of God appeared to Hagar (16:7–14). He knew the Son of God. (P. 33)

26:2 The Word, who is the Son of God, appeared to Isaac and told him not to go down to Egypt, but to live in the land promised to Abraham. For Egypt was a type of the fallen world, whereas the land promised to Abraham was a type of the world to come. It reminded Isaac to keep his focus on Abraham’s faith.

26:3 The Word also told Isaac to sojourn in this land. A sojourner is one who sees the world to come as the land of promise (Creed). The land of Canaan was only a land in which to sojourn. Like his father, Abraham, he saw the world to come as his true inheritance. “By faith he [Abraham] dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God” (Heb 11:9, 10).

26:4 The phrase your seed includes both Jews and Gentiles (all the nations) who embrace the promise given to Abraham. The phrase “in your seed” is a reference to Christ (Gal 3:16). For both Jews and Gentiles who believe are joined together as one body in Christ, that is, in Christ and His Church.

26:5 All who believe are blessed with Abraham, because he obeyed the voice of God the Son and kept what He commanded him to do. The faithful are those who obey the voice of the Son of God (Jn 10). (P. 34)

26:24 God the Son appeared to Isaac at the Well of Oath and swore to him concerning the promise made to Abraham. This swearing emphasized the unchangeableness of the Lord’s will and purpose (Heb 6:17, 18). The Lord will fulfill His purpose in the world to come and give it to the heirs of promise. Isaac laid hold of this oath and the hope it gave him (Heb 6:19, 20).

26:25 Isaac worshiped the Son of God at the altar he built. At the altar, the Church worships the Son, and together with Him, the Father and the Spirit.

26:34, 35 The wives of Esau represent those who contend with Christ and His Church. (P. 35)

31:3 The Lord is the Word and Son of God. He told Jacob to return to the land of his father, for this land was a type of the world to come. Laban’s country was not Jacob’s permanent residence (Heb 11:14–16, 21). 31:3–16 This passage is read during Tuesday Vespers in the sixth week of Great Lent.

Most English versions reflect the traditional interpretation of John 1:3, whether they say that all things “came into being” (CEB, LEB, NASB, NJB, NRSV), “were made” (ESV, NIV, NKJV), or “were created” (CSB, NET). Nearly all commentators and other scholars agree with this interpretation. The most notable exception is John Ashton, a Johannine scholar who argues that the Greek verb egeneto does not mean “were made” or “were created” and should be translated “happened” or “came to pass.” Ashton also points out that John uses the word panta without the article, rather than ta panta, the usual wording when referring to creation as “all things.” He acknowledges that the opening words of John 1:1, “In the beginning” (en archē), allude to Genesis 1:1, but he maintains this is the only allusion to Genesis 1, and therefore an insufficient basis for reading John 1:3 as referring to creation. Combining this exegesis with an impersonal interpretation of the Logos, Ashton paraphrases John 1:3–4 as follows:

From the very beginning God held his thought (the Logos) close to him, and his thought was a facet of his divinity. All human history, every single thing that has ever happened, took place through the mediation of the Logos, but what has come about in the Logos (that is, the special events of God’s intervention on behalf of his people), this was life, a life that it was God’s prerogative to bestow, a life that was also light—illumination and revelation.42

Ashton’s arguments may offer some valid qualifications to the standard interpretation of John 1:3, but they do not overturn it. As Ashton himself acknowledges,43 the statement just a few verses later that “the world came into being [egeneto] through Him” (1:10 NASB) must refer to or at least include the original creation. Moreover, contrary to Ashton’s claim, there are multiple allusions in John 1:1–5 to Genesis 1:1–5:

• The opening words of the two books are the same, “In the beginning” (en archē, Gen. 1:1 LXX; John 1:1).

• Both texts repeatedly use the same common divine title “God” (theos, six times in Gen. 1:1–5; three times in John 1:1–2).

• The term “Word” (ho logos, John 1:1, 14) alludes to God speaking to perform his creative acts (Gen. 1:3, etc.), an allusion made explicit in later texts, e.g., “By the word [tō logō] of the Lord the heavens were made firm. . . . Because it was he that spoke, and they came to be [egenēthēsan]” (Ps. 32:6a, 9a NETS [33:6a, 9a]; see also 2 Peter 3:5).

• The verb egeneto occurs repeatedly in Genesis 1, including in the first of those creative acts: “And God said, ‘Let light come into being [genēthētō].’44 And light came into being [egeneto]” (Gen. 1:3 LES). Although the other occurrences of egeneto in Genesis 1 LXX have a different sense (especially in the refrain “and there was [egeneto] evening and there was [egeneto] morning”), in Genesis 1:3 the verb clearly denotes creation. Moreover, the passage ends (or the next major unit begins) with the word again denoting creation: “This is the book of the origin of the heavens and the earth, when they came into being [egeneto], on the day when the Lord God made the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 2:4 LES; cf. Ps. 32:9a quoted above).

• Both passages draw a sharp contrast between “the light,” to phōs, and “the darkness,” to skotos (Gen. 1:3–5; John 1:4–5).

END OF THIS SECTION

Branching off into a bit of philosophy, history, and Lexicon
note; this part will be a little less but is more advanced in concept

what is philosophy?

Philosophy is the rational, systematic, and critical study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Originating from the ancient Greek word philosophia—literally meaning "love of wisdom"—it is a disciplined inquiry that seeks to understand reality, human experience, and our place in the world

Philosophy tackles its broad ambitions by dividing into several specific, specialized disciplines: [1, 2]

Epistemology: The study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. It asks fundamental questions like, "What is truth?" and "How can we truly know anything?"

Metaphysics: The study of the fundamental nature of reality, existence, time, and the universe. It explores questions such as, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and "Do we have free will?"

Ethics: The study of moral principles and values. It evaluates human conduct, asking, "What makes an action right or wrong?" and "How should we live?"

Logic: The study of the principles of correct reasoning and argumentation. It examines the structure of valid thoughts and how to avoid fallacious thinking.

Aesthetics: The study of beauty, art, and the nature of sensory-emotional values.

Rather than relying on empirical experimentation like traditional sciences, philosophy relies on rigorous critical reflection, rational argument, and the clarification of concepts. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Conceptual Clarity: It seeks to understand the basic frameworks and meanings of ideas we take for granted (e.g., "What is justice?" or "What defines a scientific fact?").

Critical Evaluation: It continually reflects on its own methods and assumptions, challenging dogmas, biases, and uncritical beliefs.

Comprehensive Synthesis: As the philosopher Wilfrid Sellars famously summarized, its aim is to understand "how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term"

lexicon

A lexicon is the complete vocabulary of a language, an individual, or a specific subject. It serves as a comprehensive inventory of all words, phrases, and morphemes used within a particular context. [1, 2]

Core Dimensions of a Lexicon

A lexicon functions in several distinct ways:

In Linguistics: It is viewed as a "mental dictionary"—the abstract inventory of words and expressions a speaker inherently knows and uses, paired with a set of rules (grammar) to create sentences.

In Subjects/Professions: It refers to the specialized jargon or terminology specific to a field. For example, a doctor's lexicon (medical terminology) differs significantly from a lawyer's lexicon (legal terms).

As a Book: Historically, it specifically refers to a dictionary, particularly one for ancient languages like Greek, Hebrew, or Arabic.

Sense i had just gotten past the church fathers, and huge commentary/explanation and quotation of scripture(which we will see more of further on)

a good place to start on is self (not me)

Self

A self is a being who is in principle capable of knowledge, intentional action, and interpersonal relationships. A deity is commonly understood to be a sort of extraordinary self. In the Bible, the deity Yahweh (a.k.a. “the LORD”) commands, forgives, controls history, predicts the future, occasionally appears in humanoid form, enters into covenants with human beings, and sends prophets, whom he even allows to argue with him. More than a common deity in a pantheon of deities, he is portrayed as being the one creator of the cosmos, and as having uniquely great power, knowledge, and goodness.

Monotheism

A lot of people like to mischaracterize Christianity calling it “Polytheistic” because they don’t understand how the trinity works

Except if you know how God works, i’m sorry to tell you... that’s not God. 

To start off, Christianity has never claimed 3 Gods, that’s Tritheism a Heresy. Christianity claims one God, three persons distinct but unified in Essence.  There’s no analogy to explain it because God is unlike anything in our world.

The persons are abstract in personhood but Concrete in Being, one in compound unity such as Deut. 6:4 states

“Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one” 

The Hebrew phrase says “Yahweh, Elohinu, Yahweh, Echad (one)

Echad is also used in Gen. 2;11, to refer to compound unity NOT in a literal sense.

The word that we rendered as Unity is Echad. Echad functions precisely like our English word one, and can refer to either a solitary unity or to a compound one. Places where Echad is used as a uni-plural, a compound unity, include:

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (basar echad)." Genesis 2:24

Two distinct persons of flesh come together to form a unity.

"Then we will give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters to ourselves, and we will dwell with you and become one people (‘am echad)… Only on this condition will the men agree to dwell with us to become one people (‘am echad)--when every male among us is circumcised as they are circumcised." Genesis 34:16, 22

Two groups of people, the Israelites and the Shechemites, come together to form one people.

"Then Joseph said to Pharaoh, ‘The dreams of Pharaoh are one (echad); God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do. The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years; the dreams are one (echad).’" Genesis 41:25-26

Meaning and Topical Usage of

Explaining the difference between Echad (unified) vs

Yachid; (Numerical one)

Strong H259(E)

Meaning and Range of Usage

אֶחָד functions as the ordinary Hebrew word for “one,” but its reach is far wider than simple arithmetic. It can mark singularity (“one lampstand,” Exodus 25:31), priority (“first day,” Genesis 1:5), individuality (“each man,” Exodus 16:16), a particular but unnamed item or person (“a certain man,” 1 Samuel 1:1), or collective unity (“one people,” Genesis 11:6). Used about 967 times, the term weaves through historical narrative, legal material, poetry, prophecy, and wisdom literature, providing a foundational thread of unity, identity, and exclusivity.

Divine Unity and the Shema

The most celebrated appearance is Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is One!”. Here אֶחָד proclaims the exclusive, indivisible sovereignty of the covenant God over against polytheism. The Shema became Israel’s daily confession, recited morning and evening, shaping worship, ethics, and national identity. Jesus affirms the same declaration in Mark 12:29, linking אֶחָד to the core of faithful obedience.

Creation and Cosmic Order

Genesis opens by counting creative days, but the first is uniquely labelled “one day” (Genesis 1:5), not “first” in a sequence. The wording highlights completeness and sets the pattern that each successive day will mirror. אֶחָד thus establishes order from the start, grounding time, rhythm, and Sabbath theology.

Covenant Community and Corporate Identity

Israel is repeatedly called to be “one congregation” (Numbers 15:15) under one law. The phrase underlines corporate responsibility—whether in worship assemblies (Leviticus 24:22) or military censuses (Numbers 1:44)—and counters tribal or class fragmentation. Even when the monarchy divided, prophets looked forward to reunification as “one nation in the land” (Ezekiel 37:22).

Sacrifice, Worship, and Ritual Precision

In the tabernacle ordinances, אֶחָד specifies singular animals or objects to ensure exact compliance: “one male lamb a year old without blemish” (Leviticus 14:10) or the “one golden plate” for the high priest’s turban (Exodus 39:30). Such precision protects the holiness of worship and the purity of Israel’s offerings.

Social and Judicial Applications

Legal passages deploy אֶחָד to insist on impartiality: “You shall have one statute for the foreigner and the native-born” (Numbers 15:16). Deuteronomy 17:6 tempers capital cases by requiring “two or three witnesses,” implying that the testimony of a single (אֶחָד) witness is insufficient. Justice in Israel must resist the danger of a lone, uncorroborated claim.

Marriage and Family

Genesis 2:24 anticipates the unifying power of covenant marriage: “and they shall become one flesh.” In Malachi 2:15 the prophet asks, “Has not the one God made you? You belong to Him in body and spirit.” The singularity of God grounds the singular devotion expected within marriage, foreshadowing New Testament teaching that husband and wife symbolize Christ and His church.

Prophetic Vision of Restored Oneness

Ezekiel 37, Zechariah 14:9, and Isaiah 11:13 project a future when divided kingdoms, scattered peoples, and rival loyalties will be gathered under “one King,” “one Shepherd,” and “one Name.” אֶחָד is the hallmark of eschatological harmony when the nations will stream to Zion and the earth will acknowledge the singular lordship of God.

Messianic Overtones and Christological Fulfillment

Zechariah 11:12–13 speaks of “thirty pieces of silver,” but verse 8 quietly introduces “one month” in which three shepherds are dismissed—compressing judgment into a single span. The evangelists trace the fulfillment in the Passion narrative, where the Shepherd binds scattered sheep into one flock (John 10:16). In New Testament perspective, the unity foretold by אֶחָד blossoms in the church, where Jew and Gentile are “one new man” (Ephesians 2:15).

Literary Function and Narrative Flow

Hebrew prose often opens a scene with אֶחָד to introduce a key character or focus attention: “Now there was a certain (אֶחָד) man of Zorah” (Judges 13:2). Poetry uses it for contrast and climax: “For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me” (Psalm 32:4, lit. “in day and night”), intensifying the psalmist’s experience by merging temporal extremes into one continuous pressure.

Intertestamental and New Testament Resonance

Second Temple liturgy continued the Shema, and the synagogue’s singular confession laid groundwork for apostolic preaching. Paul cites it directly: “There is one God” (1 Timothy 2:5). James urges consistent allegiance: “You believe that God is one. Good!” (James 2:19). The early church proclaimed unity of essence within the Godhead while maintaining monotheism, a tension traceable to אֶחָד.

H3173(Y)

Meaning and Nuances

יָחִיד conveys the idea of absolute uniqueness—an “only one” whose value is heightened by being without equal or substitute. The noun may describe an only child (Genesis 22:2), a solitary soul in danger (Psalm 35:17), or a lone figure left in grief (Jeremiah 6:26). It therefore carries emotional weight: preciousness, vulnerability, and irreplaceability.

Occurrences and Contexts

• Genesis 22:2, 12, 16 – Isaac is repeatedly called Abraham’s יָחִיד, underscoring the costliness of the commanded sacrifice and the faith required to entrust an irreplaceable son to God.

• Judges 11:34 – Jephthah’s daughter, his “only child,” highlights the tragic consequences of rash vows and intensifies the pathos of the narrative.

• Psalm 22:20; 35:17 – David pleads, “Deliver my soul from the sword, my precious life (יָחִיד) from the power of the dog” (Psalm 22:20). The psalmist equates his lone life with something uniquely treasured, foreshadowing the Messiah’s suffering.

• Psalm 68:6 – God “settles the lonely in families,” showing His compassion toward the יָחִיד by giving covenant community.

• Proverbs 4:3 – Solomon remembers being “the only son in the sight of my mother,” framing parental instruction as a treasure entrusted to a single heir.

• Jeremiah 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zechariah 12:10 – Prophetic laments compare national grief to mourning for an only son, signaling the depth of sorrow tied to the loss of an irreplaceable life.

Theological Significance

1. Covenant Fulfillment. Isaac, the יָחִיד of Abraham, is the child through whom covenant promises flow (Genesis 17:19). His near-sacrifice foreshadows God’s provision of substitutionary atonement (Genesis 22:13-14).

2. Divine Ownership. By calling for Abraham’s יָחִיד, God asserts ultimate ownership over what humans deem most precious, teaching that covenant loyalty surpasses familial bonds.

3. Redemptive Pattern. The repeated plea for the protection of the יָחִיד (Psalms) anticipates the Father’s preservation of His Beloved until the appointed hour (John 10:17-18).

Messianic Foreshadowing

Zechariah 12:10 looks ahead: “They will look on Me, the One they have pierced, and they will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only son,” blending Yahweh’s voice with the image of a pierced יָחִיד. The verse prepares the way for the New Testament revelation of Jesus Christ as the μονογενής, “only begotten” (John 3:16), the ultimate fulfillment of the יָחִיד motif.

Pastoral and Devotional Applications

• Assurance of God’s Care. Psalm 68:6 comforts those who feel isolated; God places the יָחִיד into family, offering church fellowship to spiritual orphans.

• Costly Obedience. Genesis 22 challenges believers to surrender their “Isaacs”—whatever is most treasured—trusting that God provides.

• Hope in Grief. Prophetic laments validate profound mourning while pointing to the resurrection hope found in the One who conquered death on behalf of every יָחִיד who trusts Him.

Connections in the New Testament

The semantic bridge from יָחִיד to Greek μονογενής highlights continuity between Old and New Covenants. Jesus is the Father’s unique, beloved Son, the irreplaceable sacrifice anticipated in Isaac, lamented in the Psalms, and pierced in Zechariah. Believers, united to Christ, become “beloved children” (Ephesians 5:1), no longer solitary but incorporated into the household of God.

Thus the thread of יָחִיד weaves through Scripture, from the lonely patriarchal heights of Moriah to the communal joy of redeemed saints, displaying the unwavering faithfulness of the God who gives, spares, and restores the “only one.”

Why The Muslim Polemic falls

Historically the word Monotheist itself came from 17th century historian - Henry More whom split the worship of God/ A God into whether it was focused a Single Supreme Ruler, not to call Christianity Pagan if anything Henry More Considered Christianity a “Good Religion” separating it from polytheism and paganism.

“Let Us make man in Our image” (Gen. 1:26)

“And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us.” (Gen 3:22)

This is God speaking, and when referring to Us, he refers to multiple persons, and not Angels.

Why? because Isaiah 44:24, denies that any Angel took part in Creation

"Actually, ’echad simply means ‘one,’ exactly like our English word ‘one.’ While it can refer to compound unity (just as our English word can, as in one team, one couple, etc.), it does not specifically refer to compound unity. On the other hand, ‘echad certainly does not refer to the concept of absolute unity, an idea expressed most clearly in the twelfth century by Moses Maimonides, who asserted that the Jewish people must believe that God is yachid, an ‘only’ one. There is no doubt that this reaction was due to exaggerated, unbiblical, ‘Christian’ beliefs that gave Jews the impression Christians worshiped three gods. Unfortunately, the view of Maimonides is reactionary and also goes beyond what is stated in the Scriptures. In fact, there is not a single verse anywhere in the Bible that clearly or directly states that God is an absolute unity." (Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Theological Objections [Baker Books, Grand Rapids MI, 2000], Volume Two, p. 4)

The Shema is not the only place where the plural is used for God. There are other references which refer to Yahweh as being Gods or Lords such as:

"For the LORD your God is Gods (Eloheh) of gods and Lords (Adoneh) of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe." Deuteronomy 10:17

Yahweh is the Gods and Lords of all the other gods and lords!

One of the most frequent names for God is El, i.e. El Shaddai, and often forms part of a person’s name such as Immanu-El, Isra-El etc. In at least two places the plural form is used in reference to God:

"Ascribe to the LORD, O sons of Gods (Elim), Ascribe to the LORD glory and strength." Psalm 29:1

"For who in the skies is comparable to the LORD? Who among the sons of Gods (Elim) is like the LORD," Psalm 89:6

Elim is the plural of El and literally means Gods or the Mighty Ones.

How do we therefore account for the use of all these plural nouns for the one true God? There are basically two explanations which can be proffered, two explanations why plural nouns are used for Yahweh, as well as for other persons or entities.

Plural words such as Elohim can function either as a numerical plural, referring to more than one God or god as in the following texts:

"Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods (ha elohim), because in this affair they dealt arrogantly with the people." Exodus 18:11

"You shall have no other gods (elohim) before me." Exodus 20:3

Genesis 20:13; "And when God (Elohim) caused me to wander (hit’uw) from my father's house, I said to her, ‘This is the kindness you must do me: at every place to which we come, say of me, He is my brother.’, The verb hit`uw, translated "cause to wander", is the plural of ta`u. The text can therefore be translated, "When they, Gods (Elohim), caused me to wander from my father’s house."

Genesis 35:7; "and there he built an altar and called the place El-bethel, because there God (Elohim) had revealed himself (nigluw) to him when he fled from his brother." The verb which modifies God (Elohim) is nigluw (revealed) and is the plural of gla, which means that the verse is more literally rendered as, "Gods, They revealed themselves to him."

"In the breeding season of the flock I lifted up my eyes and saw in a dream that the goats that mated with the flock were striped, spotted, and mottled. Then the angel of God said to me in the dream, ‘Jacob,’ and I said, ‘Here I am!’ And he said, ‘Lift up your eyes and see, all the goats that mate with the flock are striped, spotted, and mottled, for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you. I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and made a vow to me. Now arise, go out from this land and return to the land of your kindred.’" Genesis 31:10-13

"And he blessed Joseph and said, ‘The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day, THE ANGEL who has redeemed me from all evil, BLESS the boys; and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.’" Genesis 48:15-16

Exodus 33:14-15, "And he said, "My Face they will go with you, and I will give you rest.’ And he said to him, ‘If your Faces, they will go not with me, do not bring us up from here.’" Exodus 33:14-15. The words, yeeleekuw and holªkiym, are plural of yalak, and literally say "they will go."

One may take the plural as a reference to Yahweh, the Angel and the Holy Spirit who all went ahead of Israel to prepare their way: "Behold, I send AN ANGEL before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him. But if you carefully obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. When my angel goes before you and brings you to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, and I blot them out," Exodus 23:20-23

"And when we cried to the LORD, he heard our voice and sent an angel and brought us out of Egypt. And here we are in Kadesh, a city on the edge of your territory." Numbers 20:16

"But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit; therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them. Then he remembered the days of old, of Moses and his people. Where is he who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock? Where is he who put in the midst of them his Holy Spirit, who caused his glorious arm to go at the right hand of Moses, who divided the waters before them to make for himself an everlasting name, who led them through the depths? Like a horse in the desert, they did not stumble. Like livestock that go down into the valley, the Spirit of the LORD gave them rest. So you led your people, to make for yourself a glorious name." Isaiah 63:10-14

Joshua 24:19, "But Joshua said to the people, ‘You are not able to serve the LORD, for he is a holy God (Elohim Qadoshim hu). He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions or your sins.’" Holy is the plural adjective Qadoshim ("Holy Ones") and can be translated as, "Gods, the Holy Ones is he."

2 Samuel 7:23 "And who is like your people Israel, the one nation on earth whom God went (haalªkuw Elohim) to redeem to be his people, making himself a name and doing for them great and awesome things by driving out before your people, whom you redeemed for yourself from Egypt, a nation and its gods?" The words "God went" is plural and literally says, "Gods, they went to redeem."

Psalm 42:5-6, 11. "Why are you cast down, O my soul, and why are you in turmoil within me? Hope in God; for I shall again praise him, my salvation and my God. My soul is cast down within me; therefore I remember you from the land of Jordan and of Hermon, from Mount Mizar… Why are you cast down, O my soul, and why are you in turmoil within me? Hope in God; for I shall again praise him, my salvation and my God."

Psalm 43:4-5, "Then I will go to the altar of God, to God my exceeding joy, and I will praise you with the lyre, O God, my God. Why are you cast down, O my soul, and why are you in turmoil within me? Hope in God; for I shall again praise him, my salvation and my God." In the above passages, "my salvation" (yeshu‘ohth), "my God" (Elohai), "O God, my God" (Elohim Elohai)" are plural and literally read, "my salvations and my Gods," and "O Gods, my Gods."

Psalm 58:11. "Mankind will say, ‘Surely there is a reward for the righteous; surely there is a God (Elohim) who judges (shophetim) on earth.’", David uses the plural verb shophetim, implying that the passage should read, "Gods, They judge the earth."

Job 35:10, "But none says, ‘Where is God my Maker (`osaay), who gives songs in the night,’"

The word ‘osaay is the plural participle of asa’ and refers to "my Makers." The author of Job clearly knew of more than one Person who was the Maker of all things: "Your hands fashioned and made me, and now you have destroyed me altogether. Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust? Did you not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese? You clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews. You have granted me life and steadfast love, and your care has preserved my spirit." Job 10:8-12

“The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life." Job 33:4

, Yahweh and his Spirit made man, and yet Yahweh alone is the Creator according to Job: "who commands the sun, and it does not rise; who seals up the stars; who ALONE stretched out the heavens and trampled the waves of the sea; who made the Bear and Orion, the Pleiades and the chambers of the south;" Job 9:7-9. "Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not ONE fashion us in the womb?" Job 31:15

Psalm 149:2, "Let Israel be glad in his Maker (bª`osaayw ); let the children of Zion rejoice in their King!" The text literally says "his Makers" because it is a plural participle.

The Psalms, much like the book of Job, identify more than one Person or Entity as the Cause of all creation: "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the Breath/Spirit (ruach) of his mouth all their host." Psalm 33:6. God, His Word, and His Spirit created the constellations. "When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground." Psalm 104:30

God sends forth his Spirit to create and renew the earth.

Isaiah 54:5, "For your Maker (`Osayik) is your Husband (bo`ªlayik), the LORD of hosts is his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called." The word `Osayik is the plural participle of asa’ and bo`ªlayik is the plural noun form of baal, and should therefore read, "For your Makers are your Husbands."

The prophet Isaiah agrees with the other inspired writers that Yahweh alone created and, since Yahweh is a multiplicity-within-unity, he was also aware of more than one Divine Person as being responsible for creation:, "For the palace is forsaken, the populous city deserted; the hill and the watchtower will become dens forever, a joy of wild donkeys, a pasture of flocks; until the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is deemed a forest." Isaiah 32:14-15, "Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: ‘I am the LORD, who made all things, who ALONE stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth BY MYSELF,’" Isaiah 44:24. "Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last. My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together." Isaiah 48:12-13

Ecclesiastes 12:1, "Remember also your Creator (bowrª'eykaa) in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near of which you will say, ‘I have no pleasure in them’;" Ecclesiastes 12:1. Bowrª'eykaa is a plural participle and is literally "your Creators."

"To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God (Elohim); there is no other besides him… know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD is God (Elohim) in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other." Deuteronomy 4:35, 39

"‘You are my witnesses,’ declares the LORD, ‘and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior. I declared and saved and proclaimed, when there was no strange god among you; and you are my witnesses,’ declares the LORD, ‘and I am God. Also henceforth I am he; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can turn it back?’" Isaiah 43:10-13

"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen. Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.’" Isaiah 44:6-8

"I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other… Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me." Isaiah 45:5-6, 21

74 AD Epistle of Barnabas: "For the Scripture says concerning us, while He speaks to the Son, "Let Us make man after Our image, and after Our likeness" (Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter VI.—The Sufferings of Christ, and the New Covenant, Were Announced by the Prophets.)

150 AD Justin Martyr: Speaking of Jewish theologians Justin calls the Jewish teaching that God spoke to angels a hersey: "In saying, therefore, 'as one of us, '[Moses] has declared that [there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two. For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy which is said to be among you (The Jews had their own heresies which supplied many things to the Christian heresies) is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that [God] spoke to angels, or that the human frame was the workmanship of angels. But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures." (Dialogue of Justin Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew: Chapter LXII.—The Words "Let Us Make Man")

180 AD Irenaeus "It was not angels, therefore, who made us, nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor any one else, except the Word of the Lord, nor any Power remotely distant from the Father of all things. For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, "Let Us make man after Our image and likeness; " [Gen. 1:26]" (Against Heresies 4:20:1).

200 AD Tertullian: "If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, "Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness; " whereas He ought to have said, "Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness," as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, "Behold the man is become as one of us," He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, "Let us make; "and, "in our image; "and, "become as one of us." (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter XII. Other Quotations from Holy Scripture Adduced in Proof of the Plurality of Persons in the Godhead.)

200 AD Tertullian: Tertullian rejects the idea that God was speaking to Angels because our head is the creator, not a creature: "Since then he is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who was to become man, said, "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness"), how can I possibly have another head but Him whose image I am? For if I am the image of the Creator there is no room in me for another head" (Tertullian, Book V, Elucidations, Chapter VIII.—Man the Image of the Creator, and Christ the Head of the Man.)

200 AD Tertullian: "In the first place, because all things were made by the Word of God, and without Him was nothing made. Now the flesh, too, had its existence from the Word of God, because of the principle, that here should be nothing without that Word. "Let us make man," said He, before He created him, and added, "with our hand," for the sake of his pre-eminence, that so he might not be compared with the rest of creation." (Tertullian: On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Elucidations, Chapter V.—Some Considerations in Reply Eulogistic of the Flesh. It Was Created by God.)

Origen: "it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness." (Origen Against Celsus, Book V, Chapter XXXVII)

Novatian: "For who does not acknowledge that the person of the Son is second after the Father, when he reads that it was said by the Father, consequently to the Son, "Let us make man in our image and our likeness; " and that after this it was related, "And God made man, in the image of God made He him? "Or when he holds in his hands: "The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord from heaven? " (A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, Chapter XXVI. Argument.—Moreover, Against the Sabellians He Proves that the Father is One, the Son Another.)

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles: "the divine Scripture testifies that God said to Christ, His only-begotten, "Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness. And God made man: after the image of God made He him; male and female made He them."(Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book V., VII)

"So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD." Genesis 18:22

The text says that as the men headed towards Sodom Abraham stood before Yahweh, meaning that Yahweh remained behind. If Yahweh was indeed one of the three men and yet remained with Abraham then we would expect to find that only two men showed up at Sodom. Lo and behold, this is precisely what we find:

"The TWO ANGELS came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth and said, ‘My lords, please turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way.’ They said, ‘No; we will spend the night in the town square.’ But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate." Genesis 19:1-3

Instead of three men showing up we find that only two of the three arrived at Sodom, which the verses identify as angels. The reason why only two showed up is because the third man had remained behind to talk to Abraham. And yet Genesis 18 states that the One who remained with Abraham was none other than Yahweh God, affirming that he was one of the three men!

Furthermore, Genesis 18 says that Yahweh intended to go down to Sodom in order to verify for himself that the city was as wicked as he had been told:

"Then the LORD said, ‘Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I WILL GO DOWN TO SEE whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.’" Genesis 18:20-21

What this implies is that after Yahweh finished conversing with Abraham (cf. Gen. 18:33) he went to Sodom to join the other two men in order to bring destruction upon Sodom.

There are other references affirming that Yahweh did indeed appear personally to Abraham:

"When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD APPEARED to Abram and said to him, ‘I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, …’ When he had finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham." Genesis 17:1, 22

"God spoke to Moses and said to him, ‘I am the LORD. I APPEARED to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.’" Exodus 6:2-3

"And Stephen said: ‘Brothers and fathers, hear me. The God of glory APPEARED to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran,’" Acts 7:2

A person should therefore have no problem accepting the Bible’s clear teaching that on at least one occasion Yahweh appeared to Abraham as a man who then left him to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.

As it stands, Genesis 19:24 is an explicit witness that there are two different Persons identified as Yahweh God.

Here is another:

"And I will be to her a wall of fire all around, declares the LORD, and I will be the glory in her midst. Up! Up! Flee from the land of the north, declares the LORD. For I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heavens, declares the LORD. Up! Escape to Zion, you who dwell with the daughter of Babylon. For thus said the LORD of hosts, after HIS glory sent ME to the nations who plundered you, for he who touches you touches the apple of HIS eye: Behold, I will shake MY hand over them, and they shall become plunder for those who served them. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent ME. Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion, for behold, I come and I will dwell in your midst, declares the LORD. And many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day, and shall be MY people. And I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that the LORD of hosts has sent ME to you. And the LORD will inherit Judah as his portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem. Be silent, all flesh, before the LORD, for he has roused himself from his holy dwelling." Zechariah 2:5-13

The Logos is not created. He is eternally God, The logos itself is the Eternal Agent of God. according to almost every Church father that is read with Context

“In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God” (John 1:1)

The distinction is already there. With God, and is God, Now some Unitarians might point out that the word can just mean speech and is an Attribute of God, only problem is that this is understood even in Anti-Trinitarian scholarship as a Person to Person Relationship

Even in John 17:1-5, Jesus says: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

now mind you, the word for World here is also “Kosmos” which can stand for the Universe, The son is not the First creation nor is he created because he shares Glory with the father that is unique, because the Father says he won’t share his Glory. Now this glory is obviously different than the Glory Jesus promises in John 17:22

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

THE NEW TESTAMENT AFFIRMS THE HOLY TRINITY

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 fromthe Father before all time and ages. He appeared to Moses in the burning bush and

proclaimed Himself as “I Am” (Ex 3:1).

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 101:26–28, 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.

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.”

Conclusion wiith a Few Tables 

	FATHER	SON	HOLY SPIRT
GOD	John 17:3; 20:17; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3, 17; 4:6; 1 Thess. 1:9; 1 Tim. 2:5; 2 Pet. 1:3, 17; 2 John 1:3	Matt. 1:23; Luke 8:39; John 1:1; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8-9; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 John 5:20	2 Sam. 23:2-3
YHWH	Exod. 4:22-23; Deut. 14:1; Ps. 2:7; 110:1; Isa. 63:16; 64:8	Matt. 1:21 (cf. Ps. 130:8); Matt. 16:27 (cf. Ps. 62:12; Prov. 24:12; Isa. 40:10; 62:11); Mark 1:3 (cf. Isa. 40:3); Matt. 21:15-16 (cf. Ps. 8:1-2); John 12:39-41 (cf. Isa. 6:1-10); Acts 7:59-60 (cf. Ps. 31:5; Eccl. 12:7); Rom. 10:9-13 (cf. Joel 2:32); 1 Cor. 1:2 (cf. Gen. 21:33; Ps. 99:6-7; 116:2,4, 13, 17); Rev. 1:17-18, 2:8 (Cf. Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12); Rev. 2:18-23 (Cf. Jer. 17:10; 11:20; 29:23); Rev. 17:14; 19:16 (cf. Deut. 10:17; Psalm 136:3; Dan. 2:47); Rev. 22:12-13, 16, 20 (Cf. Isa. 40:10; 62:11)	Acts 28:25-27 (cf. Isa. 6:1-10); 2 Cor. 3:17-18; Heb. 3:7-11 (cf. Ps. 96:7-11); Heb. 10:15-17 (cf. Jer. 31:33-34)
CREATOR AND SUSTAINER	Acts 17:24-31; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 3:9; Rev. 4:11	John 1:1-4, 10, 14; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:2-3, 10-12; Rev. 3:14	Gen. 1:2; Job 26:13; 33:4; Ps. 33:6; 104:30; Matt. 1:18, 20
LIFE	John 5:21, 26; Acts 17:24-28; 1 Tim. 6:13	John 5:21, 26; 11:25; 14:6	John 6:63; 2 Cor. 3:6
RESURRECTOR	John 5:21; 1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14	John 5:25, 28-29; 6:39-44, 54; 11:25-26	Ezek. 37:12-14; Rom. 8:11-13; 1 Pet. 3:18-19

OMNISCIENT	Acts 15:8; Romans 8:27; 1 John 3:20	Mark 2:6-8; John 2:23-25; 16:29-31; 21:17; 1 Cor. 4:3-5; Rev. 2:18, 23	Isa. 40:13-14; Rom. 8:26-27; 1 Cor. 2:10-12; 12:3-4, 7-14
OMNIPRESENT	Acts 17:24-29; 2 Cor. 6:16-18; Eph. 3:19; 4:6	Matt. 18:20; 28:20; 2 Cor. 13:5; Eph. 1:23; 4:7-10 (cf. Ps. 68:18; Jer. 23:23-24); Col. 1:17, 27; 3:11; Heb. 1:3	Ps. 139:7-12; John 14:16-17; Rom. 8:9-17, 26-27; 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 12:3-4, 7-14; Gal. 4:6
OMNIPOTENT	Mark 14:36; Luke 1:37; 18:27; John 10:29; Eph. 3:9	John 1:3-4, 10; John 10:27-28; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:3, 10-12	Ps. 104:30; Ezek. 36:25-27; 37:12-14; 39:29; Rom. 15:18-19; 1 Cor. 12:3-4, 7-14
SAVIOR/FORGIVER	Matt. 6:14-15; 18:35; Eph. 4:32; Tit. 1:3; 2:10; 3:4	Mark 2:5, 10; Matt. 1:21; Luke 2:11; 7:48-49; John 3:17; 4:42; 12:47; Acts 13:23; Eph. 5:23; Tit. 1:4; 2:13; 3:6; 2 Pet. 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; 1 John 2:1-2, 12; 4:14	Isa. 63:11, 14; Heb. 10:15-17

OMNISCIENT	Acts 15:8; Romans 8:27; 1 John 3:20	Mark 2:6-8; John 2:23-25; 16:29-31; 21:17; 1 Cor. 4:3-5; Rev. 2:18, 23	Isa. 40:13-14; Rom. 8:26-27; 1 Cor. 2:10-12; 12:3-4, 7-14
OMNIPRESENT	Acts 17:24-29; 2 Cor. 6:16-18; Eph. 3:19; 4:6	Matt. 18:20; 28:20; 2 Cor. 13:5; Eph. 1:23; 4:7-10 (cf. Ps. 68:18; Jer. 23:23-24); Col. 1:17, 27; 3:11; Heb. 1:3	Ps. 139:7-12; John 14:16-17; Rom. 8:9-17, 26-27; 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 12:3-4, 7-14; Gal. 4:6
OMNIPOTENT	Mark 14:36; Luke 1:37; 18:27; John 10:29; Eph. 3:9	John 1:3-4, 10; John 10:27-28; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:3, 10-12	Ps. 104:30; Ezek. 36:25-27; 37:12-14; 39:29; Rom. 15:18-19; 1 Cor. 12:3-4, 7-14
SAVIOR/FORGIVER	Matt. 6:14-15; 18:35; Eph. 4:32; Tit. 1:3; 2:10; 3:4	Mark 2:5, 10; Matt. 1:21; Luke 2:11; 7:48-49; John 3:17; 4:42; 12:47; Acts 13:23; Eph. 5:23; Tit. 1:4; 2:13; 3:6; 2 Pet. 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; 1 John 2:1-2, 12; 4:14	Isa. 63:11, 14; Heb. 10:15-17

PRAYING TO/SERVING	Matt. 6:8-9; John 15:16; 16:23; Rev. 1:4; 4:1-11; 7:11-12	John 14:13-14; Acts 1:2, 6, 21, 24-25; 7:59-60; 9:13-14, 21; 1 Cor. 1:2-3; 16:22-23; 2 John 1:3; Rev. 1:5-6; 5:8-14; 22:21	2 Cor. 13:14; Phil. 3:3
ETERNAL	Dan. 7:9-10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 3:9; Heb. 1:2; 3:5-6; 11:3; Rev. 21:6-7	Mic. 5:2; John 1:1-2; 8:56-59; 17:5; 1 John 1:2; 5:20; Rev. 1:12-18; 2:8; 22:13	Gen. 1:1-2; Heb.9:14

(Genesis, translated by Robert J. V. Hiebert, found in A New English Translation of the Septuagint [NETS], published by Oxford University Press in 2009, including corrections and emendations made in the second printing (2009) and corrections and emendations made in June 2014, p. 7)

And the Lord God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone, let US make for him a help suitable to him. (GENESIS, in Brenton’s LXX)

Poiesomen is the first person plural active verbal form of poieo.

This same rendering of Genesis 2:18 is found in the Deuter-canonical writing (labeled “Apocrypha” by Protestants) called Tobit:

And Tobias began to say, “Blessed are you, O God of our ancestors, and blessed be your holy and glorious name for the ages. Let the heavens and all your creatures bless you. You made Adam and gave him a helper, Heua, a support–his wife. From them the human race has come. You said, ‘It is not good for the mane to be alone; let US make (poiesomen) for him a helper like himself.’” Tobit 8:5-6 Gr I

So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that safety be theirs. And he began to say, “Blessed are you, O God of our ancestors, and blessed be your name for all the ages forever. Let the heavens and all your creation bless you for all the ages. You made Adam and made him a helper, a support–his wife Heua. And from the two of them the human race has come. And you said, ‘It is not good for the mane to be alone; let US make (poiesomen) for him a helper like himself.’” Gr II

(Tobit, translated by Alexander A. Di Lella, in NETS, p. 469)

Then began Tobias to say, Blessed art thou, O God of our fathers, and blessed is thy holy and glorious name for ever; let the heavens bless thee, and all thy creatures. Thou madest Adam, and gavest him Eve his wife for an helper and stay: of them came mankind: thou hast said, It is not good that man should be alone; let US make unto him an aid like unto himself. (TOBIT, in Brenton’s LXX)

The variant may have been motivated by the way Genesis 1:26 describes God creating mankind, since both the Hebrew and the Greek have God speaking in the plural:

“Then God said, ‘Let US make (na’aseh) man in Our image (salmenu), according to Our likeness (demutenu), so that they will have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’” Genesis 1:26 LSB

Then God said, let US make (poiesomen) humankind according to OUR image (eikona hemeteran) and according to likeness and let them rule the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky and the cattle and all the earth and all the creeping things that creep upon the earth.” (Hiebert, Genesis, in NETS, p. 6)

And God said, Let US make man according to our image and likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the flying creatures of heaven, and over the cattle and all the earth, and over all the reptiles that creep on the earth. (Brenton’s LXX)

THE TRIUNE CREATOR

The reason why God is described as a plural Creator and Maker is because the inspired Scriptures teach that God created all things by and through his uncreated begotten Word/Wisdom, and his Holy Spirit:

“O God of my ancestors and Lord of mercy, who have made all things by your word (ho poiesas ta panta en logo sou) andby your wisdom (te Sophia sou) have formed humankind to have dominion over the creatures you have made and rule the world in holiness and righteousness and pronounce judgment in uprightness of soul… Who has learned your counsel unless you have given wisdom and sent your holy spirit from on high?”

Wisdom of Solomon 9:1-3, 17 New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVUE)

“By the word of the Lord (to logo tou Kyriou) the heavens were established; and all the host of them by the breath (to pneumatic [Spirit]) of his [mouth].” Psalm 32

(“Psalms (and Prayer of Manasses),”, translated by Albert Pietersma, A New English Translation of the Septuagint, published by Oxford University Press in 2009, including corrections and emendations made in the second printing (2009) and corrections and emendations made in June 2014, p. 569)

It is interesting to point out that the Hebrew term used here is employed only one other time, and in reference to YHWH himself!

 “Thus says your Lord (Adonayik), Yahweh, even your God (Elohayik) Who contends for His people, ‘Behold, I have taken out of your hand the cup of reeling, The chalice of My wrath; You will never drink it again’.” Isaiah 51:22

Moreover, the King’s reign is described similarly to that of YHWH’s rule:

“You, O Yahweh, sit enthroned forever; Your throne is from generation to generation.” Lamentations 5:19 

A further indication of how glorious this figure is, proving he isn’t merely human, comes from his being eternally praised by all the nations.

“I will perpetuate your memory through all generations; therefore the nations will praise you for ever and ever.” Psalm 45:17 New International Version (NIV)

Here’s another rendering of the passage:

“ I will make your name known through all generations; thus the peoples will praise you forever and ever.” Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

Remarkably, the King receives the same worship that YHWH receives, and for the same duration!

“In God we make our boast all day long, and we will praise your name forever.” Psalm 44:8 NIV

“All the kings of the earth, O Yahweh, will give You thanks, When they hear the words of Your mouth. And they will sing of the ways of Yahweh, For great is the glory of Yahweh.” Psalm 138:4-5

Seeing that Jesus is identified as the Divine King spoken of in this Psalm, it should therefore come as no surprise that the NT writings ascribe to him eternal praise and glory:

“whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.” Romans 9:5

CONCLUSION

You either accept the Trinity or you reject the God Scripture reveals. This is not a later addition. It is the only framework that holds every text together without contradiction.

Section 3. Using Monarchal Trinity to Debunk Unitarianism

Monarchal trinity is essentially the Orthodox belief that the Trinity is a “Monarchy” it emphazies The Monarchy of the Father, and as the Source where the Son and Spirit are Begotten from. 

While the Father is the Only true God, Jesus and the Holy spirit are also God in an Ontological sense

STRONGEST OBJECTIONS TO TRINITARIANISM

1) Wonky metaphysics (or problematic equivocations)

2) Doesn’t do justice to the Biblical presentation of God:

A) “God” and “the Father” seem to name the same person (in NT).

B) God seems to be a person (not a “tri-personal being”) (OT & NT).

Defended by Dale Tuggy, author of the SEP entry on the Trinity.

Biblical Unitarianism (BU) says that:

God just is the Father (as the Bible seems to say).

The “Son of God” is Jesus Christ, a man, but not any sort of divine being.

He came into existence sometime around 5 BC – 1 AD.

For most BU’s, talk about the Holy Spirit is something like talk about “God in action.”

Cons: Clearly not traditional (or popular).

Pros:

(1) Straight-forward; no wonky metaphysics; no equivocating on key terms.

(2) Does justice to Biblical revelation of God as The Father and as uni-personal.

I’ll focus on two sets of definitions we might use for “trinitarianism” and “unitarianism.”

My own

Dale Tuggy’s

The doctrine of the Monarchy shows how these definitions come apart.

Changes the landscape of the debate dramatically.

MY DEFINITIONS

(TB) A Trinitarian Theology says that:

(1) There are exactly three divine “persons” or individuals. Nevertheless,

(2) There is exactly one God.

(So, the persons can’t all = the One God).

(Presumably each one bears some important relation to the one God or has a “claim” to being called “God,” but our definition won’t settle how that works.)

(UB) A Unitarian Theology says that:

(1) There is exactly one divine “person” or individual, and

(2) There is exactly one God.

(Presumably these will just be identical, or at least “numerically one,” but again we won’t rule on that point in our definition.)

TUGGY’S DEFINITIONS

(TT) “A trinitarian Christian theology says that

(1) there is one God,

(2) which or who in some sense contains or consists of three “persons,” namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,

(3) who are equally divine, and

(4) (1)-(3) are eternally the case.”

(UT) “A unitarian Christian theology asserts that

(1) there is one God,

(2) who is numerically identical to the one Jesus called “Father,”

(3) and is not numerically identical to anyone else

(4) and (1)-(3) are eternally the case.”

“GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK?”

Equivalent within the scope of some reasonable assumptions?

Absolutely not. Starkly different when we consider things historically.

Mine might be improved. Tuggy’s are just inadequate.

When we look at the debate through a more historical lens:

 1) Arguments in favor of BU lose their force against certain models of the Trinity.

[ 2) BU ends up in a very tight spot:

A) It may just end up being incoherent, or

B) It faces a trilemma that may result in

(i) collapsing into Trinitarianism or

(ii) losing its dialectical advantage against (all or) almost all models of the Trinity. ]

THE MONARCHY (ΜΟΝΑΡΧΊΑ)

μοναρχία = μόνος + ἀρχή

“One source”

A single “First Principle” of everything

The Father is the “One Source” or “First Principle” – not only of creation, but within the Trinity itself.

This in turn can be disambiguated in a number of ways…

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

(1) the Father is the sole source / cause of the Son and Spirit.

(2) The Father is (also) somehow the source of the divine nature itself.

(3) The Father is “the union” or “the principle of unity” within the Trinity (not, say, the divine nature, or the “community” of persons)

(Probably, at a minimum, what the Greek Fathers mean.)

(Something like, end of explanation for unity.)

(4) Strictly speaking, the Father just is “the One God.”

(The Son and Spirit share the same nature, but are not identical to Him.)

SOME DEFINITIONS

“Strong monarchy view”: The proposition that The One God = the Father.

“Monarchical model”: Model of the Trinity with a strong monarchy view.

“Egalitarian” or “symmetrical” model:

Model in which the persons have an “equal claim” to being called “God” (in any sense).

Any quality or relation that would be relevant to whether that person can be called “God” (in any sense) is shared by the other two persons equally.

Monarchical models are all non-symmetrical, but there could be non-symmetrical models that are not monarchical.

OUR DEFINITIONS ARE NOT EQUIVALENT

In monarchical models, there are exactly three divine persons, and exactly one God, because the one God is just one of the divine persons.

These count as Trinitarian on TB, and not as Unitarian on UB.      (Because there are exactly three divine persons; not exactly one).

But they count as Unitarian on UT.      (Because the relation between the one God and the Father is identity.) 

Question: Do some monarchical models also count as Trinitarian on TT?

(We’ll return to this when we discuss consistency with mainstream analytic models.)

TWO “MILLION DOLLAR QUESTIONS”

1. Is this really Trinitarian? (Maybe it’s “Subordinationism!” 😱 )

2. Wouldn’t this rule out almost every analytic model of the Trinity?     (which are all symmetrical).

No way to fully do justice to (1) in a short time, but I’ll give reasons to say yes (in any sense important to actual Trinitarians.)

Then I’ll explain how a strong monarchy view is consistent with a much wider range of analytic models than one might expect.

JOHN ZIZIOULAS (METROPOLITAN OF PERGAMUM)

Among the Greek Fathers the unity of God, the one God, and the ontological ‘principle’ or ‘cause’ of the being and life of God does not consist in the one substance of God but in the hypostasis, that is, the person of the Father. The one God is not the one substance but the Father… (Being as Communion, pp. 40–1)

The one God is the Father. Substance is something common to all three persons of the Trinity, but it is not ontologically primary until Augustine makes it so. (‘On Being Persons: Towards an Ontology of Personhood’, in Persons Divine and Human, ed. Christoph Schwo ̈bel and Colin Gunton, p. 40.)

FR. JOHN BEHR

(DEAN, ST. VLADIMIR’S SEMINARY)

The one God confessed by Christians in the first article of the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople is unambiguously the Father.

“Calling upon God as Father: Augustine and the Legacy of Nicaea,” in Orthodox Readings of Augustine, p. 162

FR. JOHN BEHR

(DEAN, ST. VLADIMIR’S SEMINARY)

So how can Christians believe in and worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and yet claim that there is only one God, not three? How can one reconcile monotheism with trinitarian faith? … The Father alone is the one true God. This keeps to the structure of the New Testament language about God, where with only a few exceptions, the world “God” (theos) with an article (and so being used, in Greek, as a proper noun) is only applied to the one whom Jesus calls Father, the God spoken of in the scriptures … This same fact is preserved in all ancient creeds, which begin: “I believe in one God, the Father …”

Such, then, is how the Greek Fathers, following Scripture, maintained that there is but one God, whose Son and Spirit are equally God, in a unity of essence and of existence, without compromising the uniqueness of the one true God…

The Living Pulpit (April-June, 1999), pp. 22-23

For the Christian faith there is, unequivocally, but one God, and that is the Father: “There is one God and Father.” For Basil, the one God is not the one divine substance, or a notion of “divinity” which is ascribed to each person of the Trinity, nor is it some kind of unity or communion in which they all exist; the one God is the Father. But this “monarchy” of the Father does not undermine the confession of the true divinity of the Son and the Spirit. Jesus Christ is certainly “true God of true God,” as the Nicene Creed puts it, but he is such as the Son of God, the God who is thus the Father. If the term “God” (theos) is used of Jesus Christ, not only as a predicate, but also as a proper noun with an article, this is only done on the prior confession of him as “Son of God,” and so as other than “the one God” of whom he is the Son; it is necessary to bear in mind this order of Christian theology, lest it collapse in confusion.

The Nicene Faith II: pp. 307-308

FR. JOHN BEHR

(DEAN, ST. VLADIMIR’S SEMINARY)

Now in the Bible, in the creeds, and in the liturgy, it’s very important, really critically important, to note, and to affirm, and to remember, that the one God, in Whom we believe, strictly speaking, is not the Holy Trinity. The One God is God the Father. That in the Bible, the One God is the Father of Jesus Christ. He is God Who sends His only-begotten Son into the world. And Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And then, of course, in a parallel manner, the Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. 

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_holy_trinity (12:37 to 13:25)

FR. THOMAS HOPKO

(FORMER DEAN, ST. VLADIMIR’S SEMINARY)

On the other hand, there is another terrible error, and the other terrible error, usually called Modalism in technical theological terminology, is where people say there is one God Who is the Holy Trinity, There is “He Who Is the Trinity.” And we Orthodox Christians, following scripture, and the creedal statements, and the liturgical prayers, can never say there is one God who is the Trinity. There is one God who is the Father. And this one God who is the Father has with Him eternally, Whom He begets timelessly before all ages, His only-begotten Son — who is also His Logos, his Word, and also his Chokhmah, His Sophia, His Wisdom, also His Eikona, His Ikon, His Image —but this Wisdom and Word and Image and Ikon, is divine with the same divinity as God, the One True and Living God… 

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_holy_trinity (15:41 to 16:37)

FR. THOMAS HOPKO

(FORMER DEAN, ST. VLADIMIR’S SEMINARY)

VLADIMIR LOSSKY ON THE FILIOQUE

The Greek Fathers always maintained that the principle of unity in the Trinity is the person of the Father… This is why the East has always opposed the formula of filioque which seems to impair the monarchy of the Father: either one is forced to destroy the unity by acknowledging two principles of Godhead, or one must ground the unity primarily on the common nature…

The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 58

ST. PHOTIOS THE GREAT,

ON THE MYSTAGOGY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

“11. Leaving aside the aforementioned, if one admits of two causes in the thearchic and superessential Triad, where then is the much hymned and God-befitting majesty of the monarchy? Will not the godlessness of polytheism be riotously introduced? Under the guise of Christianity, will not the superstition of Greek error reassert itself among those who dare to say such things?

ιαʹ. Χωρὶς δὲ τῶν εἰρημένων, εἰ δύο αἴτια ἐν τῇ θεαρχικῇ καὶ ὑπερουσίῳ Τριάδι καθορᾶται, ποῦ τὸ τῆς μοναρχίας πολυΰμνητον καὶ θεοπρεπὲς κράτος; Πῶς οὐχὶ τὸ τῆς πολυθεΐας ἄθεοννῦν ἐπικωμάσει; Πῶς δ’ οὐκ ἐν προσχήματι Χριστιανισμοῦ ἡδεισιδαιμονία τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς πλάνης τοῖς ταῦτα λέγειν τολμῶσιν οὐ συνεισελάσει;

ST. PHOTIOS THE GREAT,

ON THE MYSTAGOGY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

12. Again, if two causes are imposed upon the monarchic Triad, then according to the same reasoning, why should not a third one emerge? For once the principle without principle and above principle, is cast down from its throne by these impious ones and is cleaved into a duality, the principle will proceed more vehemently to be severed into a trinity, since in the supersubstantial inseparable, and simple nature of the divinity, the triad is more manifest than the dyad, and indeed also harmonizes with the idiomata.

ιβʹ. Πάλιν εἰ δύο αἴτια τῆς μοναρχικῆς Τριάδος ἐπαναβέβηκε, πῶς οὐχὶ καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῆς αὐτῆς συνανακύψει γνώμης προερχόμενον; Ἅπαξ γὰρ τῆς ἀνάρχου καὶ ὑπεραρχίου ἀρχῆς τῆς οἰκείας ἕδρας τοῖς δυσσεβέσι περιτραπείσης καὶ εἰς δυάδα διατμηθείσης, νεανικώτερον καὶ πρὸςτὴν Τριάδα ἡ κατανομὴ τῆς ἀρχῆς προελεύσεται, ἐπεὶ κἀν τῇ ὑπερφυεῖ καὶ ἀμερεῖκαὶ ἑνιαίᾳ τῆς Θεότητος φύσει τὸ τριαδικὸν μᾶλλον ἢ τὸ δυαδικὸν ἀναφαίνεται, οἷα δὴ καὶ τοῖς ἰδιώμασιν ἁρμοζόμενον.

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR

PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY

The Greek Fathers and the whole Christian Orient speak… of the “Father's Monarchy,” and the Western tradition, following St. Augustine, also confesses that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father principaliter, that is, as principle (De Trinitate XV, 25, 47, P.L. 42, 1094-1095). In this sense, therefore, the two traditions recognize that the “monarchy of the Father” implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (Aitia) or Principle (Principium) of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

… the term ekporeusis as distinct from the term "proceed" (proienai), can only characterize a relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Trinity: the Father.

That is why the Orthodox Orient has always refused the formula to ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon… and the Catholic Church has refused the addition kai tou Uiou [and the Son] to the formula ek to [sic] Patros ekporeumenon in the Greek text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, even in its liturgical use by Latins.

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR

PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY

The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arche, aitia) of the ekporeusis of the Spirit… its purpose was to stress the fact that the Holy Spirit is of the same divine nature as the Son, without calling in question the one Monarchy of the Father.

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176

PATRISTICS SCHOLARS ON “SUBORDINATIONISM”

MICHEL RENE BARNES

…“subordinationism” has become a scare word like “Nestorian” or “Neoplatonist” (or “Papist”), and considerable nuance has to be used — making it, for those of us “in the business” a word we have been trying to avoid and replace. In any case, orthodox Trinitarian theology, pre and post Nicene, has always had some kind of “subordinationism” — whatever that word means — to it. Read Augustine, de Trinitate I-IV (or at least I&IV) and the discussion of “missio”.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/patristics-scholar-michel-r-barnes-weighs-in-on-the-intra-complementarian-debate-on-the-trinity/#BGXyF5pLCs0IMyRm.99

LEWIS AYRES

… there are not only two alternatives: The Trinitarian persons are equal or eternal subordination. It is much more interesting than that.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/patristics-scholar-lewis-ayres-weighs-in-on-the-intra-complementarian-debate/#JKTWZPcOO54xKMrd.99

Patristic Sources on the Monarchy

GREGORY OF NYSSA, AD PETRUM

… the Holy Spirit… has this note of His  peculiarity according to hypostasis, being known after the Son and together with the Son, and having subsistence from the Father. 

The Son, who through Himself and with Himself reveals the Spirit proceeding from the Father, who alone shines forth only-begotten-ly from the unbegotten light… is known by these mentioned signs. 

And God over all alone has a certain singular mark of His own hypostasis: being the Father, and hypostasizing from no cause, and by this sign again He is also individually recognized.

τὸ ῎Αγιον Πνεῦμα… τοῦτο γνωριστικὸν ῆς  κατὰ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἰδιότητος σημεῖον ἔχει, τὸ μετὰ τὸν Υἱὸν καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ γνωρίζεσθαι   καὶ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑφεστάναι. 

̔ Ο δὲ Υἱὸς ὁ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον Πνεῦμα δι’ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ μεθ’ ἑαυτοῦ γνωρίζων, μόνος μονογενῶς ἐκ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου φωτὸς ἐκλάμψας…  ἀλλὰ τοῖς εἰρημένοις σημείοις μόνος γνωρίζεται.

̔ Ο δὲ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς ἐξαίρετόν τι γνώρισμα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ὑποστάσεως τὸ Πατὴρ εἶναι καὶ ἐκ  μηδεμιᾶς αἰτίας ὑποσ τῆναι μόνος ἔχει, καὶ διὰ τούτου πάλιν τοῦ σημείου καὶ αὐτὸς ἰδιαζόντως ἐπιγινώσκεται.

… Gregory does not identify “God” as that which is common, a genus to which various particular beings belong.  Rather, Gregory stands clearly within the monarchical approach of Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory of Nazianzus. It is “the God overall” who is known specifically as “Father”… 

The Nicene Faith II: p. 420

FR. JOHN BEHR

(DEAN, ST. VLADIMIR’S SEMINARY)

GREGORY OF NYSSA, CONTRA EUNOMIUS II.5

But let us examine the words that follow [in the creed composed by Eunomius]:

“He is always and absolutely one, remaining uniformly and unchangeably the only God.”

If he is speaking about the Father, we agree with him, for the Father is most truly one, alone and always absolutely uniform and unchangeable, never at any time present or future ceasing to be what He is. If then such an assertion as this has regard to the Father, let him not contend with the doctrine of godliness, inasmuch as on this point he is in harmony with the Church. 

For he who confesses that the Father is always and unchangeably the same, being the one and only God, holds fast the word of godliness, if in the Father he sees the Son, without Whom the Father neither is nor is named.

But if he is inventing some other God, besides the Father, let him argue alongside the Jews, or alongside those who are called ‘Hypsistians,’ [‘Most-High-ists’] between whom and the Christians there is this difference: That they acknowledge that there is a God (Whom they term ‘the Most High’ or ‘the Almighty.’) But they do not admit that He is a Father. While a Christian — if he believe not in the Father — is no Christian at all.

THE DEPOSITION OF ARIUS, SECTION 2

(Alexander, Pope of Alexandria, Egypt, in a council of presbyters, including 17 priests and 24 deacons of Alexandria; and 19 priests and 20 deacons of the Mareotis. So, 80 total.)

[Arius and 5 other priests, their 6 deacons, and 2 bishops are named, then…]

[T]he novelties they have invented and put forth contrary to the Scriptures are these following:

That God was not always a Father, but there was a time when God was not a Father.

WHAT’S THE LOGIC HERE?

1. God is a necessary ( / eternal) being (exists at all times in all possible worlds).

2. It’s analytic (thus, necessarily / eternally true) that: If any X counts as a Father,     then there is a (distinct) Y such that Y is the Son (Offspring) of X.

3. So, if Father-hood is essential to God, then it’s necessarily ( / eternally) true that there is a Son.

4. Fatherhood is essential to God. (Though Eunomius wants to deny this!) So…

5. The Son is also a necessary ( / eternal) being (exists at all times & all worlds.)

WHAT’S THE LOGIC HERE?

6. Add: Creatures are (all) contingent and non-eternal. (So if X is a creature, there are worlds and times where X does not exist.)

7. So, the Son of God is not a creature.

8. Add: if X is not divine, X is created.

9. So (by modus Tollens), the Son of God is divine.

Difficult to deny auxiliary premises.

Looks like the only way to consistently maintain Arianism (OR BU!) is actually to deny that God is essentially – or even just eternally, a Father.

TUGGY’S DEFINITIONS

(TT) “A trinitarian Christian theology says that

(1) there is one God,

(2) which or who in some sense contains or consists of three “persons,” namely, the    Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,

(3) who are equally divine, and

(4) (1)-(3) are eternally the case.”

(UT) “A unitarian Christian theology asserts that

(1) there is one God,

(2) who is numerically identical to the one Jesus called “Father,”

(3) and is not numerically identical to anyone else

(4) and (1)-(3) are eternally the case.”

Arguably, this actually requires Monarchical Trinitarianism

ST. HILLARY OF POITIER, DE TRINITATE 12.32

For either He was not always a Father (unless there was always also a Son); or if He was always a Father, there was always also a Son; since whatever period of time is denied to the Son, to make His sonship non-eternal, just so much the Father lacks of having been always a Father: so that although He was always God, nevertheless He cannot have been also a Father for the same infinity during which He is God.

ST. GREGORY NAZIANZEN (ORATION 25)

Define our piety, by teaching the knowledge of:

One God, unbegotten, the Father; 

and One begotten Lord, his Son, 

referred to as “God” when he is mentioned separately, 

but as “Lord” when he is named together with the Father —

the first on account of the [divine] nature,

the second on account of the monarchy.

ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS,

EXACT EXPOSITION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH

We believe, then, in One God, one beginning, having no beginning, uncreate, unbegotten, imperishable and immortal, everlasting, infinite, uncircumscribed, boundless, of infinite power, simple, uncompound, incorporeal, without flux, passionless, unchangeable, unalterable, unseen, the fountain of goodness and justice, the light of the mind, inaccessible; a power known by no measure, measurable only by His own will alone (for all things that He wills He can ), creator of all created things, seen or unseen, of all the maintainer and preserver, for all the provider, master and lord and king over all, with an endless and immortal kingdom: having no contrary, filling all, by nothing encompassed, but rather Himself the encompasser and maintainer and original possessor of the universe, occupying all essences intact and extending beyond all things, and being separate from all essence as being super-essential and above all things and absolute God, absolute goodness, and absolute fullness : determining all sovereignties and ranks, being placed above all sovereignty and rank, above essence and life and word and thought: being Himself very light and goodness and life and essence, inasmuch as He does not derive His being from another, that is to say, of those things that exist: but being Himself the fountain of being to all that is, of life to the living, of reason to those that have reason; to all the cause of all good: perceiving all things even before they have become: one essence, one divinity, one power, one will, one energy, one beginning, one authority, one dominion, one sovereignty, made known in three perfect subsistences and adored with one adoration, believed in and ministered to by all rational creation, united without confusion and divided without separation (which indeed transcends thought). (We believe) in Father and Son and Holy Spirit whereinto also we have been baptized. For so our Lord commanded the Apostles to baptize, saying, Baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Matthew 18:19

ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS, EXACT EXPOSITION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH

And again we speak of the three subsistences as being in each other, that we may not introduce a crowd and multitude of Gods. Owing to the three subsistences, there is no compoundness or confusion: while, owing to their having the same essence and dwelling in one another, and being the same in will, and energy, and power, and authority, and movement, so to speak, we recognise the indivisibility and the unity of God.

For verily there is one God,

and His word

and Spirit.

“TOY” SOCIAL TRINITAIRANISM (TST)

REA/BROWER CONSTITUTION MODEL

“Impure” Relative Identity models.

Allow for the existence of classical identity, but says that isn’t the relation we count by.

Can say f ≠ s ≠ h, but that all are relatively identical to divine nature d, so count as one God.

On R/B’s specific account, the persons are constituted by the divine nature.

Can we say f = d? (And the Son and Spirit are constituted by the Father / Divine Nature?)

All three would count as “God” or “divine” in the sense that they are constituted by the Divine Nature / Father (Rea allows for a thing to count as constituting itself)

The Father would be “God” or “divine” in an even more basic way, which could license referring to Him as “the one God” or “the only true God.”

(In fact, a lot of language in Athanasius and others looks like this.)

KEY FACTORS

Compatibility will likely come down to:

(1) whether key predications are true of both the Father and the One God, and

(2) whether the relation between the Father and the One God is irreflexive.

But many models will pass both tests, and many that don’t may do so for reasons that seem inessential.

This also answers our earlier question whether Tuggy’s definitions are mutually exclusive (they’re not).

BU OBJECTIONS & MONARCHICAL MODELS

Do monarchical models… 

1) Necessarily rely on wonky metaphysics (or problematic equivocations)?

2) Do justice to the Biblical presentation of God?

A) Do “God” and “the Father” name the same person?

B) Is God a person (not a “tri-personal being”)?

Arguments BU presents against “Trinitarianism” are really just arguments for a strong monarchy view.

Then Tuggy’s definitions count all monarchical models as “Unitarian” – even when they include three fully and equally divine persons.

CONSEQUENCES OF

MISLEADING DEFINITIONS

Makes it look as though a strong monarchy view just isn’t an option for Trinitarians, when it fact it’s:

(1) strongly supported in the patristic sources we think of as being definitive of the doctrine of the Trinity – the church fathers who authored the Nicene and Constantinopolitan creeds, who presided at the first two ecumenical councils, etc.,

(2) very much a main-stream Eastern Orthodox view, and

(3) is even compatible with a fairly wide range of analytic models of the Trinity (even when they are intended to be symmetrical).

ARIUS’S CREED (LETTER TO ALEXANDER)

Historically, Arians cleverly avoided defining God as “Father,”            (to avoid collapsing into Monarchical Trinitarianism). 

“We acknowledge One God, alone unbegotten, alone everlasting, alone without beginning, alone true, alone having immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone sovereign, judge, governor, and provider of all, unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament; who begat an only-begotten Son before time and the ages, through whom he made both the ages and all that was made; who begot Him not in appearance, but in reality; and that he made him [the Son] subsist at his [the Father’s] own will, unalterable and unchangeable, the perfect creature of God…”

Says God “begat.” And now even adds “before the ages.”

But still does not define God as “Father.” Leaves the Son’s existence contingent.

THE “TRINITARIAN SANDWICH” (YUM!)

BU gets “sandwiched” between Monarchical and Egalitarian Trinitarinism.

Identify God and the Father too strongly, and you’re a Monarchical Trinitarian.

Identify God and the Father not strongly enough – why not be an Egalitarian?

But BU wants to:

1) Maintain the biblical identification of God and Father, but

2) Not collapse into Monarchical Trinitarianism, thus

Maintain that not all the same predications are true of God and the Father. BUT…

3) Unclear why an Egalitarian Trinitarianism couldn’t take that treatment onboard, then extend the same treatment to the Son and Spirit.

CONCLUSION

Without keeping “one eye” on history, Tuggy’s definitions may seem reasonable.

Results in a bleak picture for “Trinitarianism.”

But when we get the neglected doctrine of the Monarchy back into view:

(1) the strongest objections to Trinitarianism lose their force entirely.

[ (2) BU requires modifications that may be fatal; at best put it in a much weaker position. ]

The landscape of this debate in philosophical theology changes drastically.

(History really does make a difference!)

SECTION 3B, Trinitarian Thought, and Philosophy

Ignatius a.d. 30–107

Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism;

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter IV

But the Holy Spirit does not speak His own things, but those of Christ, and that not from himself, but from the Lord; even as the Lord also announced to us the things that He received from the Father. For, says He, “the word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father’s, who sent Me.” And says He of the Holy Spirit, “He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever things He shall hear from Me.” And He says of Himself to the Father, “I have,” says He, “glorified Thee upon the earth; I have finished the work which, Thou gavest Me; I have manifested Thy name to men.” And of the Holy Ghost, “He shall glorify Me, for He receives of Mine.”

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians Chapter IX

For if there is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, “of whom are all things;” and one Lord Jesus Christ, our [Lord], “by whom are all things;” and also one Holy Spirit, who wrought in Moses, and in the prophets and apostles;

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians Chapter I

Justin Martyr a.d. 110–165

For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.

The First Apology Chapter LXI

Ireneaus a.d. 120–202

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” . . .

Against Heresies Book I Chapter X

The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist. Thus saith the Scripture, to that effect “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them, by the spirit of His mouth.” And again, “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” There is no exception or deduction stated; but the Father made all things by Him, whether visible or invisible, objects of sense or of intelligence, temporal, on account of a certain character given them, or eternal; and these eternal things He did not make by angels, or by any powers separated from His Ennœa.

For God needs none of all these things, but is He who, by His Word and Spirit, makes, and disposes, and governs all things, and commands all things into existence,—He who formed the world (for the world is of all),—He who fashioned man,—He [who] is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, above whom there is no other God, nor initial principle, nor power, nor pleroma,—He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we shall prove.

Book I Chapter XXII

Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the title of Lord.

Against Heresies Book III Chapter VI

For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, “Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;” He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world.

Against Heresies Book IV Chapter XX

Clement of Alexandria a.d. 153–217

O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, . . .

The Instructor. Book I Chapter VI

Origen a.d. 185–254

From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit.

. . .

Nevertheless it seems proper to inquire what is the reason why he who is regenerated by God unto salvation has to do both with Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and does not obtain salvation unless with the co-operation of the entire Trinity; and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit.

Origen De Principiis. Book I Chapter III

Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria a.d. 200–265

The individual names uttered by me can neither be separated from one another, nor parted. I spoke of the Father, and before I made mention of the Son I already signified Him in the Father. I added the Son; and the Father, even although I had not previously named Him, had already been absolutely comprehended in the Son. I added the Holy Spirit; but, at the same time, I conveyed under the name whence and by whom He proceeded. But they are ignorant that neither the Father, in that He is Father, can be separated from the Son, for that name is the evident ground of coherence and conjunction; nor can the Son be separated from the Father, for this word Father indicates association between them. And there is, moreover, evident a Spirit who can neither be disjoined from Him who sends, nor from Him who brings Him. How, then, should I who use such names think that these are absolutely divided and separated the one from the other?

(After a few words he adds:—)

Thus, indeed, we expand the indivisible Unity into a Trinity; and again we contract the Trinity, which cannot be diminished, into a Unity.

(From the Same Second Book.)

In the beginning was the Word. But that was not the Word which produced the Word. For “the Word was with God.” The Lord is Wisdom; it was not therefore Wisdom that produced Wisdom; for “I was that” says He, “wherein He delighted.” Christ is truth; but “blessed,” says He, “is the God of truth.”

(The Conclusion of the Entire Treatise.)

In accordance with all these things, the form, moreover, and rule being received from the elders who have lived before us, we also, with a voice in accordance with them, will both acquit ourselves of thanks to you, and of the letter which we are now writing. And to God the Father, and His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

The Works of Dionysius. Extant Fragments. Part I Chapter IV

Cyprian a.d. 200–258

Finally, when, after the resurrection, the apostles are sent by the Lord to the heathens, they are bidden to baptize the Gentiles “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” How, then, do some say, that a Gentile baptized without, outside the Church, yea, and in opposition to the Church, so that it be only in the name of Jesus Christ, everywhere, and in whatever manner, can obtain remission of sin, when Christ Himself commands the heathen to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?

Epistle LXXII.5.18

Novatian a.d. 210–280

And now, indeed, concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, let it be sufficient to have briefly said thus much, and to have laid down these points concisely, without carrying them out in a lengthened argument. For they could be presented more diffusely and continued in a more expanded disputation, since the whole of the Old and New Testaments might be adduced in testimony that thus the true faith stands. But because heretics, ever struggling against the truth, are accustomed to prolong the controversy of pure tradition and Catholic faith, being offended against Christ; because He is, moreover, asserted to be God by the Scriptures also, and this is believed to be so by us; we must rightly—that every heretical calumny may be removed from our faith—contend, concerning the fact that Christ is God also, in such a way as that it may not militate against the truth of Scripture; nor yet against our faith, how there is declared to be one God by the Scriptures, and how it is held and believed by us.

A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity. Chapter XXX.

Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria a.d. 273–326

Therefore, when the holy prophets, and all, as I have said, who righteously and justly walked in the law of the Lord, together with the entire people, celebrated a typical and shadowy Passover, the Creator and Lord of every visible and invisible creature, the only-begotten Son, and the Word co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and of the same substance with them, according to His divine nature, our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, . .

Epistles on the Arian Heresy And the Deposition of Arius. Chapter I.7

Therefore to the unbegotten Father, indeed, we ought to preserve His proper dignity, in confessing that no one is the cause of His being; but to the Son must be allotted His fitting honour, in assigning to Him, as we have said, a generation from the Father without beginning, and allotting adoration to Him, so as only piously and properly to use the words, “He was,” and “always,” and “before all worlds,” with respect to Him; by no means rejecting His Godhead, but ascribing to Him a similitude which exactly answers in every respect to the Image and Exemplar of the Father. But we must say that to the Father alone belongs the property of being unbegotten, for the Saviour Himself said, “My Father is greater than I.” And besides the pious opinion concerning the Father and the Son, we confess to one Holy Spirit, as the divine Scriptures teach us; who hath inaugurated both the holy men of the Old Testament, and the divine teachers of that which is called the New.

Epistles on the Arian Heresy And the Deposition of Arius. Chapter I.12

Didache (c. 65-120 AD)

But with respect to baptism, baptize as follows. Having said all things in advance, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. But if you do not have running water, baptize in some other water. And if you cannot baptize in cold water, use warm. But if you have neither, pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. 7:1-3

And do not keep your fasts with the hypocrites. For they fast on the second and fifth days of the week, but you should fast on the fourth and sixth days. Nor should you pray like the hypocrites, but as the Lord hath commanded in his gospel, you should pray as follows: “Our Father in heaven, may your name be holy. Your kingdom come. Your will be done as in heaven so on earth. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debt, as we also forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil. For the power and the glory are yours for ever.” Pray like this three times a day. 8:1-3

But concerning the Eucharist, you shall give thanks as follows. First, with respect to the cup: “We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your child, which you have made known unto us through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever.” And concerning the broken bread: “We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have made known unto us through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever. As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. For the glory and the power is yours through Jesus Christ forever.” And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord. For also the Lord has said about this, “Do not give what is holy to the dogs.” 9:1-5

And when you have had enough to eat, you should give thanks as follows: “We thank you, Holy Father, for your holy name, which you have made reside in our hearts, and for the knowledge, faith, and immortality which you have made known to us through Jesus your child. To you be the glory forever. You, Almighty Master, created all things for the sake of your name, and gave both food and drink to men for their enjoyment, that they might give thanks to you. And you graciously provided us with spiritual food and drink, and eternal life through your child. Above all we thank you because you are powerful. To you be the glory forever. Remember your Church, Lord, to save it from every evil, and to perfect it in your love. And gather it together from the four winds into your kingdom which you prepared for it. For yours is the power and the glory for ever. May grace come and this world pass away. Hosanna to the Son of David. If any one is holy let him come; if any one is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.” 10:1-6

Be watchful for your life. Do not let your lamps be extinguished or your robes be loosed; but be prepared. For you do not know the hour when our Lord is coming. Gathered together frequently, seeking what is suitable for your souls; for the whole time of your faith shall profit you not, unless you be found perfect in the last time. For in the last days false prophets and seducers shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate; and because iniquity abound they shall hate each other, and persecute each other, and deliver each other up; and then shall the Deceiver of the world appear as the Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands; and he shall do unlawful things, such as have never happened since the beginning of the world. Then shall the creation of man come to the fiery trial of proof, and many shall be offended and shall perish; but they who remain in their faith shall be saved by the rock of offence itself. And then shall appear the signs of the truth; first the sign of the appearance in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet, and thirdly the resurrection of the dead. But not all of dead, for as it has been said, “The Lord shall come and all his saints with him.” Then shall the world behold the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven.” 16:1-8 (Italic emphasis ours)

Polycarp (69-155 AD)

Chapter 1. Praise of the Philippians

I have greatly rejoiced with you in our Lord Jesus Christ, because you have followed the example of true love [as displayed by God], and have accompanied, as became you, those who were bound in chains, the fitting ornaments of saints, and which are indeed the diadems of the true elect of God and our Lord; and because the strong root of your faith, spoken of in days long gone by, endures even until now, and brings forth fruit to our Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death, [but] whom God raised from the dead, having loosed the bands of the grave. In whom, though now you see Him not, you believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that by grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.

Chapter 6. The duties of presbyters and others

And let the presbyters be compassionate and merciful to all, bringing back those that wander, visiting all the sick, and not neglecting the widow, the orphan, or the poor, but always providing for that which is becoming in the sight of God and man; abstaining from all wrath, respect of persons, and unjust judgment; keeping far off from all covetousness, not quickly crediting [an evil report] against any one, not severe in judgment, as knowing that we are all under a debt of sin. If then we entreat the Lord to forgive us, we ought also ourselves to forgive; for we are before the eyes of OUR LORD AND GOD (tou kyriou kai theou), and we must all appear at the judgment-seat OF CHRIST, and must every one give an account of himself. Let us then serve Him in fear, and with all reverence, even as He Himself has commanded us, and as the apostles who preached the Gospel unto us, and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand the coming of the Lord [have alike taught us]. Let us be zealous in the pursuit of that which is good, keeping ourselves from causes of offense, from false brethren, and from those who in hypocrisy bear the name of the Lord, and draw away vain men into error. (Epistle to the Philippians; italic emphasis ours)

“Therefore prepare for action and serve (douleusate) God in fear” and truth, leaving behind the empty and meaningless talk and the error of the crowd, and “believing in him who raised” our Lord Jesus Christ “from the dead and gave him glory” and a throne at his right hand; to whom all things in heaven and on earth were subjected, WHOM EVERY BREATHING CREATURE SERVES (latreuei), who is coming as “Judge of the living and the dead,” for whose blood God will hold responsible those who disobey him. (The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter 2, The Apostolic Fathers, Greek Texts And English Translations, edited and revised by Michael W. Holmes [Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI 1999], pp. 207, 209; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Clement of Rome (d. 100 AD)

Chapter 16. Christ as an Example of Humility.

For Christ is of those who are humble-minded, and not of those who exalt themselves over His flock. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Sceptre of the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of pride or arrogance, although He might have done so, but in a lowly condition, as the Holy Spirit had declared regarding Him. For He says…

Chapter 21. Let Us Obey God, and Not the Authors of Sedition.

Take heed, beloved, lest His many kindnesses lead to the condemnation of us all. [For thus it must be] unless we walk worthy of Him, and with one mind do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight. For [the Scripture] says in a certain place, “The Spirit of the Lord is a candle searching the secret parts of the belly.” Let us reflect how near He is, and that none of the thoughts or reasonings in which we engage are hid from Him. It is right, therefore, that we should not leave the post which His will has assigned us. Let us rather offend those men who are foolish, and inconsiderate, and lifted up, and who glory in the pride of their speech, than [offend] God. Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us; let us esteem those who have the rule over us; let us honour the aged among us; let us train up the young men in the fear of God; let us direct our wives to that which is good. Let them exhibit the lovely habit of purity [in all their conduct]; let them show forth the sincere disposition of meekness; let them make manifest the command which they have of their tongue, by their manner of speaking; let them display their love, not by preferring one to another, but by showing equal affection to all that piously fear God. Let your children be partakers of true Christian training; let them learn of how great avail humility is with God — how much the spirit of pure affection can prevail with Him — how excellent and great His fear is, and how it saves all those who walk in it with a pure mind. For He is a Searcher of the thoughts and desires [of the heart]: His breath is in us; and when He pleases, He will take it away.

Chapter 23. Be Humble, and Believe that Christ Will Come Again.

The all-merciful and beneficent Father has bowels [of compassion] towards those that fear Him, and kindly and lovingly bestows His favours upon those who come to Him with a simple mind. Wherefore let us not be double-minded; neither let our soul be lifted up on account of His exceedingly great and glorious gifts. Far from us be that which is written, “Wretched are they who are of a double mind, and of a doubting heart; who say, These things we have heard even in the times of our fathers; but, behold, we have grown old, and none of them has happened unto us;” You foolish ones! compare yourselves to a tree; take [for instance] the vine. First of all, it sheds its leaves, then it buds, next it puts forth leaves, and then it flowers; after that comes the sour grape, and then follows the ripened fruit. You perceive how in a little time the fruit of a tree comes to maturity. Of a truth, soon and suddenly shall His will be accomplished, as the Scripture also bears witness, saying, “Speedily will He come, and will not tarry;” and, “THE LORD SHALL SUDDENLY COME TO HIS TEMPLE, EVEN THE HOLY ONE, FOR WHOM YOU LOOK.”

St John of Damascus  (c. 675–749)

“We do not speak of three Gods, but of one God, the Holy Trinity, the Son and Spirit being referred to one cause.” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 1, Chapter 8).

St Photios the Great

“The Father alone is cause.” (Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, Chapter 12).

St Symeon the New Theologian

“God is always one. He is always called the one God. We name him as such in our hymns and doxologies: the eternal Father, the co-eternal Son of the Father, and the all-holy Spirit, co-eternal and co-essential with the Father and the Son.” (Third Theological Discourse). (Максимологија)

Symeon is saying that Christian monotheism is not opposed to the Trinity. The one God is confessed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Son is not a creature beside God, and the Spirit is not a lesser power under God. They are co-eternal and co-essential. That means they share the same divine nature, glory, throne, and worship.

“This is the co-essential Trinity which is one nature, glory, and origin. This is the one principle of all, the one power, royalty, and omnipotent sovereignty which gives existence to all and creates all from the same throne and in the same glory.” (Third Theological Discourse). (Максимологија)

This quote is extremely useful because Symeon ties Trinity directly to creation. The Father does not create apart from the Son and Spirit. The Son does not create as a second god. The Spirit does not create as an external instrument. The Trinity creates with one power and one sovereignty because the divine nature is one.

“When we consider the unity in faith, we worship God as one, and when we profess our faith in the Trinity, we offer praise to the Trinity in the distinct hypostases.” (Third Theological Discourse). (Максимологија)

That is the balance. Unity does not erase personhood, and personhood does not divide essence. Symeon is doing exactly what Gregory Nazianzen does: when he contemplates the One, he is carried to the Three, and when he distinguishes the Three, he returns to the One. This is not contradiction. It is theological precision.

St Nicholas Cabasilas

“Even though it is by one single act of loving-kindness that the Trinity has saved our race, yet each of the blessed Persons is said to have contributed something of His own. It is the Father who is reconciled, the Son who reconciles, while the Holy Spirit is bestowed as a gift on those who have become friends.” (The Life in Christ). (Fraternized)

Cabasilas is not dividing salvation into three separate jobs as if the Trinity were a committee. He is showing the personal order of salvation. The Father is the source, the Son accomplishes reconciliation through His incarnation and passion, and the Spirit is given to unite us to that saving work. The whole Trinity saves, but the persons are not interchangeable.

“But in the dispensation by which He restored our race this novel thing took place. It is the Trinity who jointly willed my salvation and provided how it would take place, yet no longer jointly effects it, for neither the Father nor the Spirit, but the Logos alone Himself achieves it.” (The Life in Christ). (Reddit)

This is one of the cleanest ways to explain incarnation. The Trinity wills salvation together because there is one divine will. Yet only the Son becomes incarnate. The Father is not crucified. The Spirit is not born of Mary. The Logos alone takes flesh, suffers, dies, and rises. That destroys modalism immediately.

“It was the Only-begotten alone who took on Himself flesh and blood and suffered wounds, torments, and death, and who rose again.” (The Life in Christ).

St Augustine

“The Father is good, the Son good, and the Holy Spirit good; yet not three goods, but one good, of whom it is said, ‘None is good, save one, that is, God.’” (On the Trinity, Book V). (New Advent)

Augustine is fighting the same basic confusion people still have today. The persons are distinct, but the divine nature is not divided. The Father is not one goodness, the Son another goodness, and the Spirit another goodness. They are one goodness because they are one God.

“So also the Trinity itself is as great as each several person therein.” (On the Trinity, Book VIII). (New Advent)

That line is important because Augustine is denying the idea that the three persons together are “more God” than one person. The Father is fully God. The Son is fully God. The Spirit is fully God. Yet there are not three gods because the divine essence is numerically one.

St Maximus the Confessor

“The Romans do not make the Son the cause of the Spirit. They know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit.” (Letter to Marinus).

St Cyril of Alexandria

“The Holy Trinity is united in an identity of essence.” (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, Thesis 4).

St Athanasius

“The Father is eternally Father because the Son is eternally Son.” (Against the Arians, 1.14). Arius argued there was “when He was not.”

St Hilary of Poitiers

“The unity is not impaired by the distinction, nor the distinction lost in the unity.” (On the Trinity, Book 7)

Ambrose of Milan

“The Godhead is one and the same in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” (On the Holy Spirit, Book 1).

Ephrem the Syrian

“The Father and Son and Spirit are one essence and one kingdom.” (Hymns on Faith).

“But the Son Whose generation is unsearchable, was born in another generation that may be searched out; that by the one we might learn that His Majesty is without limit, and by the other might be taught that His grace is without measure.” (Homily on Our Lord). (New Advent)

Ephrem is distinguishing the eternal generation of the Son from His birth in time. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father in a mystery beyond human thought. Then the same Son is born of the Virgin in history for our salvation. This destroys Arianism because the Son is not a creature who began to exist. It also destroys modalism because the Son is truly Son before the incarnation.

“Glory to that Hidden One, Whose Son was made manifest! Glory to that Living One, Whose Son was made to die! Glory to that Great One, Whose Son descended and was small!” (Hymns on the Nativity). (New Advent)

Ephrem’s theology is poetic, but it is not vague. The Father is hidden, the Son is manifest. The Son descends without ceasing to be divine. The immortal one enters mortality without losing His majesty. That is the logic of Orthodox Christology and Trinitarian worship.

Athanasian Creed

“That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.” (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

This is the cleanest anti analogy statement. The doctrine is not three modes, not three parts, and not three gods. The persons are not confused, and the essence is not divided. Every bad Trinity analogy usually violates one of these two lines.

“The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.” (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

This is exactly where the Law of Identity helps. The Creed does not say one person is three persons. It says the Father, Son, and Spirit each possess the same uncreated divine nature. They are personally distinct, but not essentially divided.

“So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.” (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

This is why the Trinity is not subordinationism. The Father is monarchy as source, not monarchy as superiority of essence. The Son and Spirit are from the Father, but they are not below the Father in deity. They are coeternal and coequal because they share the one divine essence.

St Mark of Ephesus

“And we, together with the Philosopher and Justin Martyr, affirm: ‘As the Son is from the Father, so is the Spirit from the Father,’ while they say together with the Latins that the Son proceeds from the Father immediately, and the Spirit from the Father mediately.” (Energetic Procession)

Mark is defending the monarchy of the Father. His point is not that the Son is separated from the Spirit, or that the Spirit has no relation to the Son. His point is that the Father alone is the cause within the Trinity. The Son is begotten from the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. If the Son becomes a second cause of the Spirit’s hypostatic existence, then the Father’s monarchy is damaged. For Mark, the Filioque is not a tiny wording issue. It changes how the personal properties of the Trinity are understood.

“If the Spirit is indeed simple but proceeds from the Father and the Son, then those two would certainly be considered one person, and there would be introduced here a Sabellian fusion, or better to say, a semi Sabellian fusion.” (Erick Ybarra)

This is a very sharp argument. Mark is saying that if the Spirit proceeds from two sources as one principle, then Father and Son are blurred into one causal hypostasis. But if they are two separate principles, then the Spirit has two causes. Either way, the doctrine becomes unstable. The Orthodox position avoids this by saying the Father alone is cause, while the Spirit is manifested, given, and sent through the Son in the economy.

“If the Holy Spirit is ascribed to two principles, where will the much hymned monarchy of the Father be?” (Erick Ybarra)

That sentence summarizes the whole Orthodox objection. The Father is not simply the first member of a divine group. He is the unbegotten source of the Son and the Spirit. The Son and Spirit are not inferior, because essence is not caused as a created thing is caused. The Father communicates the whole divine essence eternally and without division.

St leo the Great

“For the Majesty of the Holy Ghost is never separate from the Omnipotence of the Father and the Son, and whatever the Divine government accomplishes in the ordering of all things, proceeds from the Providence of the whole Trinity. Therein exists unity of mercy and loving kindness, unity of judgment and justice: nor is there any division in action where there is no divergence of will.” (New Advent)

Leo is teaching inseparable operations. The Father, Son, and Spirit do not act as three separate gods. Whatever God does outside Himself is the work of the whole Trinity. The persons remain distinct, but the divine will and divine operation are one. That is why creation, providence, judgment, mercy, and salvation belong to the one God, not to three divided agents.

“For in the Divine Trinity nothing is unlike or unequal, and all that can be thought concerning Its substance admits of no diversity either in power or glory or eternity.” (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

This directly destroys subordinationism. The Son is not less eternal than the Father. The Spirit is not less glorious than the Son. The Father is monarchy as source, not monarchy as superiority of essence. The divine substance admits no inequality.

“And while in the property of each Person the Father is one, the Son is another, and the Holy Ghost is another, yet the Godhead is not distinct and different.” (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

Leo gives you the clean logic of the Trinity. The persons are distinct. The Godhead is not divided. This is why the Church can say the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father, while still refusing to say there are three gods.

St Isidore of Seville

“They are one in nature, three in person. One because of their shared majesty, three because of the individuality of the persons. For the Father is one person, the Son another, the Holy Spirit another, but another person, not another thing, because they are equally and jointly a single thing, simple, immutable, good, and coeternal.” (In, With, and Under)

Isidore is explaining the difference between “who” and “what.” The Father, Son, and Spirit are not the same person. But they are not three different divine things. They are one simple, immutable, coeternal God. This is why the Trinity does not violate the Law of Identity. Christianity is not saying one person is three persons. It is saying one divine essence exists in three distinct persons.

“Only the Father is not derived from another; therefore he is called Unbegotten.” (In, With, and Under)

This is monarchy language. The Father is unbegotten. The Son is begotten. The Spirit proceeds. The persons are distinguished by relation of origin, not by having separate divine natures. This keeps the Trinity from collapsing into modalism or tritheism.

St Theophan the Recluse

“And in fact to speak the whole truth, and nothing else, one would not do wrong in saying that all the operations of God the Father toward any, or His Will toward them, are those of the Whole Holy Trinity, similarly also are those of the Son Himself, and those of the Holy Ghost.” (Classical Christianity)

Theophan is saying the same thing Leo said in a more spiritual Orthodox key. The Father does not act apart from the Son and Spirit. The Son does not act apart from the Father and Spirit. The Spirit does not act apart from the Father and Son. The Trinity has one will, one divine life, and one operation.

“For this reason, as I suppose, when God the Father is said to reveal His Own Son, and to call to Him those who are more apt to believe, the Son Himself is found doing this, and no less the Holy Ghost.” (Classical Christianity)

This matters because Scripture often attributes one action to one person. The Father reveals. The Son saves. The Spirit sanctifies. But that does not mean the other persons are absent. The divine action is one, even when Scripture highlights one person according to the economy.

“O Father Almighty, the Word and the Spirit, one Nature in three Hypostases united, transcending essence and supremely Divine! In Thee have we been baptized, and Thee will we bless unto all the ages.” (Imoph)

This is the worship language of Orthodox theology. One nature. Three hypostases. The Trinity is not a classroom formula. It is the God into whose name Christians are baptized and whom the Church blesses forever.

Eusebius of Caesarea

“No language is sufficient to express the origin and the worth, the being and the nature of Christ. Wherefore also the Holy Spirit says in the prophecies, ‘Who shall declare his generation?’ For none knows the Father except the Son, neither can any one know the Son adequately except the Father alone who has begotten him.” (New Advent)

Eusebius is not as precise as later Nicene theology, so he has to be used carefully. But this quote is still useful because it shows the Son’s origin from the Father as something beyond creaturely explanation. The Son is not treated as an ordinary creature. His generation is mysterious, divine, and known perfectly only by the Father.

“The Father alone knows the Son adequately because He alone has begotten Him.” (New Advent)

That line is important for monarchy theology. The Son’s identity is rooted in the Father. The Father is not Father after creation. He is eternally Father because the Son is eternally Son. The Son is from the Father, but not as a creature from nothing. He is begotten from the Father before all ages.

Lactantius

“He became both the Son of God through the Spirit, and the Son of man through the flesh, that is, both God and man.” (New Advent)

Lactantius is not giving later Chalcedonian terminology, but the basic confession is already there. Christ is not merely man. He is God and man. The Son enters flesh without ceasing to be divine. This is why the Trinity is not detached from salvation. The eternal Son becomes incarnate for our immortality.

“But in His second, which was in the flesh, He was born of a virgin’s womb without the office of a father, that, bearing a middle substance between God and man, He might be able, as it were, to take by the hand this frail and weak nature of ours, and raise it to immortality.” (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

The wording “middle substance” is not how later Orthodoxy would phrase it, so do not use Lactantius as your strongest doctrinal witness. But the point he is reaching for is true: the incarnate Son unites God and man in Himself for salvation. Christ does not merely teach immortality. He raises human nature by assuming it.

“Our spirits are liable to dissolution, because we are mortal; but the spirits of God both live, and are lasting, and have perception; because He Himself is immortal, and the Giver both of perception and life.” (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

Lactantius is trying to distinguish created life from divine life. God is immortal by nature. Creatures receive life. This helps the Trinitarian argument because the Son and Spirit cannot be reduced to created instruments if they belong to the divine life that gives life.

Epistle to Diognetus

“As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him.” (Epistle to Diognetus, chapter 7).

The point is clear. The Son is sent by the Father, but His being sent does not make Him a creature. A king can send his royal son without the son ceasing to share royal dignity. In a far higher way, the Father sends the Son, and the Son comes as God, Savior, and Lord.

This is also why “sent” language does not prove inferiority of nature. The Son is sent according to mission, not created according to essence. He comes from the Father, but He comes as the eternal Son who shares the Father’s divine glory.

St Sophronius of Jerusalem

“The Trinity is one Godhead, one nature, one kingdom.” (Synodical Letter).

Tarasius of Constantinople

“The Holy Trinity is worshiped in one essence and glory.” (Acts of Nicaea II).

Chapter 49. The Praise of Love.

Let him who has love in Christ keep the commandments of Christ. Who can describe the [blessed] bond of the love of God? What man is able to tell the excellence of its beauty, as it ought to be told? The height to which love exalts is unspeakable. Love unites us to God. Love covers a multitude of sins. Love bears all things, is long-suffering in all things. There is nothing base, nothing arrogant in love. Love admits of no schisms: love gives rise to no seditions: love does all things in harmony. By love have all the elect of God been made perfect; without love nothing is well-pleasing to God. In love has the Lord taken us to Himself. On account of the love He bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls.

Chapter 58. Submission the Precursor of Salvation.

Let us, therefore, flee from the warning threats pronounced by Wisdom on the disobedient, and yield submission to His all-holy and glorious name, that we may stay our trust upon the most hallowed name of His majesty. Receive our counsel, and you shall be without repentance. For, as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit live—both the faith and hope of the elect, he who in lowliness of mind, with instant gentleness, and without repentance has observed the ordinances and appointments given by God— the same shall obtain a place and name in the number of those who are being saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is glory to Him for ever and ever. Amen.

Chapter 64. Blessings Sought for All that Call Upon God.

May God, who sees all things, and who is the Ruler of all spirits and the Lord of all flesh — who chose our Lord Jesus Christ and us through Him to be a peculiar people — grant to every soul that calls upon His glorious and holy name, faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering, self-control, purity, and sobriety, to the well-pleasing of His name, through our High Priest and Protector, Jesus Christ, by whom be to Him glory, and majesty, and power, and honour, both now and for evermore. Amen. (Epistle to the Corinthians; capital and italic emphasis ours)

Origen on the Trinity

Origen begins his treatise On First Principles by establishing, in typical Platonic fashion, a divine hierarchical triad; but instead of calling these principles by typical Platonic terms like monad, dyad, and world-soul, he calls them “Father,” “Christ,” and “Holy Spirit,” though he does describe these principles using Platonic language. The first of these principles, the Father, is a perfect unity, complete unto Himself, and without body – a purely spiritual mind. Since God the Father is, for Origen, “personal and active,” it follows that there existed with Him, always, an entity upon which to exercise His intellectual activity. This entity is Christ the Son, the Logos, or Wisdom (Sophia), of God, the first emanation of the Father, corresponding to Numenius’ “second god,” as we have seen above (section 2). The third and last principle of the divine triad is the Holy Spirit, who “proceeds from the Son and is related to Him as the Son is related to the Father” (A. Tripolitis 1978, p. 94). Here is Origen explaining the status of the Holy Spirit, in a passage preserved in the original Greek:

The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit, and in turn the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds that of every other holy being (Fragment 9 [Koetschau] tr. Butterworth 1966, pp. 33-34, and footnote).

This graded hierarchy reveals an allotment of power to the second and third members of the Trinity: the Father’s power is universal, but the Son’s corresponds only to rational creatures, while the Spirit’s power corresponds strictly to the “saints” or those who have achieved salvation. Such a structure of divine influence on the created realm is found much later in the system of the Neoplatonic philosopher Proclus (see J. Dillon, in G. Vesey, ed. 1989).

How does Aquinas go about defending the traditional doctrine?  The challenge, of course, is to show that the claim

(1) the persons of the God-head are really distinct

is consistent with the claim that

(2) God is one

Thomas Aquinas on the Trinity

In an effort to reconcile (1) and (2), Aquinas argues that there are relations in God.  For example, we find in God the relational notion of paternity (which implies fatherhood) and filiation (which implies sonship) (ST Ia 28.1 sed contra).  Paternity and filiation imply different things.  And while I may be both a father and a son, these terms connote a real relation between distinct  persons (me, my son, and my father).  Thus if there is paternity and filiation in God, then there must be a real distinction of persons that the divine essence comprises (ST Ia 28.3).  We should note here that Aquinas avoids using the terms “diversity” and “difference” in this context because such terms contravene the doctrine of simplicity (ST Ia 31.2).  The notion of distinction, however, does not contravene the doctrine of simplicity because (according to Aquinas) we can have a distinction of persons while maintaining divine unity.

This last claim is obviously the troubling one.  How can we have real distinction within a being that is perfectly one?  The answer to this question requires we look a bit more closely at what Aquinas means by relation. The idea of relation goes back at least as far as Aristotle (for a good survey of medieval analyses of relations, see Brower, 2005).  For Aristotle and his commentators, the term relation refers to a property that allies the thing that has it with something else.  Thus he speaks of a relation as that which makes something of, than, or to some other thing (Aristotle, Categories, Book 7, 6b1).  For example, what is larger is larger than something else;  to have knowledge is to have knowledge of something;  to incline is to incline toward something;  and so forth (Ibid. 6b5).

Aquinas’ attempt to make sense of the Trinity involves use of (or perhaps, as Brower notes, a significant departure from) Aristotle’s idea of relation (Brower, 2005).  On the one hand, Aquinas’ understanding of relation as it applies to creatures mirrors Aristotle’s view:  a relation is an accidental property that signifies a connection to something else (ST Ia 28.1).  On the other hand, the notion of relation need not denote a property that allies different substances.  It can also refer to distinctions that are internal to a substance.  This second construal is the way Aquinas understands the notion of relation as it applies to God.  For there is within God a relation of persons, each of which enjoys a characteristic the others do not have.  As we noted before, God the Father has the characteristic of paternity, God the Son has the characteristic of filiation, and so on.  These characteristics are unique to each person, thus creating a kind of opposition that connotes real distinction (ST Ia 28.3).

Thomas Aquinas on the Trinity Pt2

Care is required before proceeding here.  Each of the aforementioned relations not only inhere in the divine essence, they are identical to it in the sense that each member of the Trinity is identical to God (ST Ia 28.2 and 29.4).  From this abbreviated account we see that relation as it exists in God is not, as it is for creatures, an accidental property.  For the relation, being identical to God, does not add to or modify the divine substance in any way.  Aquinas says:  “whatever has an accidental existence in creatures, when considered as transferred to God, has a substantial existence; for there is no accident in God; since all in Him is His essence. So, in so far as relation has an accidental existence in creatures, relation really existing in God has the existence of the divine essence in no way distinct therefrom” (ST Ia 28.2).  Seen this way, it is somewhat misleading to say that relation is something that “inheres in” God;  for the relation is identical to God himself (Emery, 2007:  94).

This woefully truncated account of Aquinas’ position presents a more detailed articulation of the very claim he needs to explain.  One can still ask:  how can God be a perfect unity and still comprise a plurality of distinct persons?  Aquinas is aware of the worry.  For “if in God there exists a number of persons, then there must be whole and part in God, which is inconsistent with the divine simplicity” (ST Ia 30.1 obj. 4;  cf. ST Ia 39.1 obj. 1).  Aquinas recognizes that most people will find it difficult to imagine how something can have within itself multiple relations and at the same time be an unqualified unity.

In order to show how one might have a plurality while preserving unity, consider the following analogy.  Using Aristotle’s account of material constitution as a point of departure, Jeffery Brower and Michael Rea suggest that a bronze statue is constituted by two discrete substances:  a lump of bronze and a statue.  Although the lump of bronze and the statue are distinct things, “they are numerically one material object.  Likewise, the persons of the Trinity are three distinct persons but numerically one God” (Brower and Rea, 2005: 69).  Although the authors do not have Aquinas’ account of divine relations in mind when using this analogy, we may cautiously avail ourselves of their insights.  If we can think of the lump of bronze and the configuration by which the bronze is a statue as a relation of two things, then we can see that relation does not concern anything that is not identical to the object (the bronze statue).  Such an account is similar to the one Aquinas has in mind when attempting reconcile (1) and (2).  For although each person of the Trinity is distinct from each other, each person is not distinct from God (ST Ia 28.2;  cf. 39.1).

Some readers might object to the use of such analogies.  In the present case, the relations that inhere in God are persons, not formally discrete features of an artifact.  Moreover, the analogy does not adequately capture the precise nature of the relations as they exist in God.  For Aquinas, the divine relations are relations of procession.  Here Aquinas takes himself to be affirming sacred teaching, which tells us that Jesus “proceeded and came forth” from the Father (John 8:42) and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son (according to the Catholic expression of the Nicene Creed).  Aquinas is careful not to suggest that the form of procession mentioned here does not consist in the production of separate beings.  Jesus does not, as Arius taught, proceed from God as a created being.  Nor does the Holy Spirit proceed from Father and Son as a creature of both.  Were this the case, neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit would be truly God (ST Ia 27.1).  Instead, the procession to which Aquinas refers does not denote an outward act at all;  procession is internal to God and not distinct from him.

In order to make sense of this idea, Aquinas employs the analogy of understanding, which consists in an interior process, namely, the conceptualization of an object understood and signified by speech (Ibid.).  He refers to this process as intelligible emanation. Intelligible concepts proceed but are not distinct from the agent who conceives them.  This notion is central to Aquinas’ account of how Father and Son relate to each other.  For the Son does not proceed from the Father as a separate being but as an intelligible conception of God himself.  Thus Aquinas describes the Son as the “supreme perfection of God, the divine Word [who] is of necessity perfectly one with the source from which he proceeds” (ST Ia 27.1 ad 2;  Cf. 27.2).  To put the matter another way, the divine Word is the likeness of God himself—a concept emanating from God’s own self-understanding.  These words may sound cryptic to the casual reader, but Davies helps render them comprehensible.  He suggests that the Son’s relationship to God is not unlike our self-conception’s relationship to ourselves.  For “there is similarity between me and my [self-image] insofar as my concept of myself really corresponds to what I am” (Davies, 196).  Similarly, Aquinas thinks of the Son “as the concept in the mind of the one conceiving of himself.  In God’s case this means that the Father brings forth the Son, who is like him insofar as he is properly understood, and who shares the divine nature since God and his understanding are the same”  (Ibid.).

Aquinas’ attempt to render the doctrine of the Trinity coherent is controversial and involves complexities not addressed here.  Yet I imagine Aquinas himself would not be surprised by the consternation some readers might express in response to his attempts to illuminate and defend this and other sacred teachings.  After all, Aquinas contends that knowledge of the divine nature will, if acquired by our own investigative efforts, be quite feeble (SCG IV.1.4;  ST IIaIIae 2.3).  And this is why God, in his goodness, must reveal to us things that transcend human reason.  But even once these things are revealed, our understanding of them will not be total or immediate.  What is required is a form of intellectual training whereby we gradually come to comprehend that which is difficult to grasp in an untutored state (Jenkins: 219).  And even those who reach a proper state of intellectual maturation will not be able to comprehend these mysteries fully, which may explain why attempts to clarify and defend these doctrines can produce so much debate.  Yet Aquinas expresses the hope that what we cannot understand completely now will be apprehended more perfectly after this life, when, according to Christian doctrine, we will see God face to face (SCG IV.1.4-5).

Debunking Objections (first we have to Understand them)

Claim	Logical Translation	Semi-Logical Translation	Justification
1. The Father is divine.	Df	The Father is divine.	premise
2. The Son is divine.	Ds	The Son is divine.	premise
3. The Father and Son have differed.	ƎP ((Pf ^ ¬Ps) v (¬Pf ^ Ps))	There’s some feature P such that either the Father has had it while the Son lacked it, or vice versa.	premise
4. Things which have differed are non-identical.	∀x∀y(ƎP ((Px ^ ¬Py) v (¬Px ^ Py)) → ¬(x = y))	For any x and any y, if they’ve differed in some way, then x and y are distinct (non-identical).	premise
5. Therefore, Father and Son are non-identical.	¬ (f = s)	It is not the case that the Father just is the Son.	3, 4
6. For any two (or “two”) things, they are the same god only if each is divine, and they are identical.	∀x∀y (S(x,y) → (Dx ^ Dy ^ x = y))	For any x and any y, if x and y are the same god, then x is divine, y is divine, and x just is y.	premise
7. Therefore, the Father and Son are not the same god.	¬S(f,s)	It’s not the case that Father and Son are the same god.	5, 6
8. Therefore, there are at least two gods.	Ǝx (Dx ^ Ǝy (Dy ^ ¬(y = x)))	There is some x which is divine, and there is some y which is divine, and x and y are not numerically the same.	1, 2, 7
9. There is exactly one god.	Ǝx (Dx ^ ¬Ǝy (Dy ^ ¬(y = x)))	There’s some x which is divine, and there is no y which is divine and distinct from x.	premise
10. But this is contradictory.			8, 9
11. Therefore, one or more of these is false: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9.	¬1 v ¬2 v ¬3 v ¬4 v ¬6 v ¬9		1‒10

Refuting the Premises (6) Orthodox Response

“Two Things are the same God only if they are identical.”

∀x∀y(S(x,y)→(Dx∧Dy∧x=y))

Rejected entirely.

For Orthodoxy:

The one God is the one Divine Essence

fully possessed by the father, son, and holy spirit

The father and son are not

one person

one hypostasis.

Rather they are

• One in power
• essence
• operation
• will
• glory
• eternity

Thus the Claim of The same God  doesn’t need to be X=Y

Premise 7

“Thus the Father and Son are not the Same God.”

S(S,f)

Rejected because P6 (Premise 6) is False

Father and Son are not the same person but are God by essence.

It’s not;

• Moral Unity
• Cooperation
• alliance
• similarity

Premise 8

“Therefore, There are atleast two gods.”

Ǝx (Dx \land Ǝy (Dy \land ¬(y=x)))

Response;

First off the Divine Essence is not Multiplied

There’s also a difference in how we count humans vs God

three humans = three human beings because their Nature is divided among inviduals.

Continuing on Premise 8

God however is different

The divine essence is Indivisible

Simple

Infinite

Wholly possessed by Each Person

Thus the distinction of Hypostasis does not Entail multiplication of Essence

Premise 10

It is not contradiction

p6 is false 

One God     /    One Person

Why Analogies for the Trinity are NOT Good

Christians often time get asked to Explain the Trinity or give an Analogy

Now SOME Fall into heresy because they don’t know how to answer - So they revert to the Real World Comparisons.

Problem is that the TRINITY is UNLIKE anything IN our world.

Analogies for the Trinity usually fail because they either collapse the persons or divide the essence. Water becoming ice, liquid, and vapor becomes modalism because one thing merely changes forms. The sun analogy can imply subordinationism because rays appear secondary to the source. The egg analogy divides God into parts. Human analogies almost always reduce the Trinity into creaturely categories because nothing in creation perfectly reflects uncreated tri personal existence. St Gregory Nazianzen explicitly warns against oversimplifying divine mystery into material comparisons.

Thomas McCall writes, “Many popular analogies unintentionally teach heresy.” (Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism?, p. 17). Fred Sanders similarly argues, “The Trinity is not a puzzle to be solved by analogy but the revealed identity of God.” (The Deep Things of God, p. 21). This is why serious Trinitarian theology depends primarily on revelation and metaphysical precision rather than simplistic illustrations.

More Modern View on The Trinity

In comparison there’s a difference between how the Early church fathers view the Trinity vs how some modern Day Trinitarian Philosophers view the Trinity

My Goal is NOT To Convince you which view is Correct but rather that both are Congrument and Similar in concept and don’t Contradict 

The Trinity as viewed today has been the same since the Start of The N.T’s Writing.

Beau Branson

Branson writes, “The Father alone is the one true God in the sense that He is the sole source within the Trinity, yet the Son and Spirit are fully divine because they possess the same divine nature.” (The Logical Problem of the Trinity, dissertation).

 Elsewhere he states, “The Monarchy of the Father was nearly universal among the pro Nicene theologians.” (Branson, Monarchy of the Father and Latin Trinitarianism). 

Eastern theology instead begins from the Father personally. The Father is not one third of God. The Father is fully God, and from Him the Son and Spirit eternally receive the same divine essence.

Richard Swinburne on the Trinity

I believe that there is overriding reason for a first divine individual to bring about a second divine individual and with him to bring about a third divine individual…[L]ove is a supreme good. Love involves sharing, giving to the other what of one’s own is good for him and receiving from the other what of his is good for one; and love involves co-operating with another to benefit third parties. [Richard Swinburne, The Christian God, p. 177-178]

“Love cannot be exercised by one person alone. If a person existed eternally alone before all ages, then love would not be an essential property of that person. Love requires another to whom love is directed. If God is essentially loving, then there must be within the very being of God an eternal relationship of love.” This line of argument appears throughout the work of Richard Swinburne, especially in The Christian God where he argues that perfect love is necessarily diffusive and self giving. Swinburne writes, “A perfectly good being will share all that he has with another, if he can.” (The Christian God, Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 172).

He continues by arguing that a solitary monad cannot fully express interpersonal love before creation because creation itself would become necessary for God to actualize His own attributes. The Father eternally begets the Son and eternally breathes forth the Spirit, meaning love is not something God began to do. Love is what God eternally is. This is one reason why Trinitarian theology has immense philosophical depth beyond simplistic objections that accuse it of irrationality or contradiction.

St Dumitru Stăniloae

“Love presupposes communion. A single person cannot live in love because love is movement toward another person.” (The Experience of God: Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, p. 269).

. Elsewhere he states, “If God were a single person, love would remain only a potentiality, not an eternal reality.” (Vol. 1, p. 271). 

 The Father is never without His Son and never without His Spirit. Orthodox theology therefore avoids the Islamic conception of absolute solitary monadism while also avoiding tritheism. The Father is the eternal source, the Son is eternally begotten, and the Spirit eternally proceeds. Yet the divine essence remains one, indivisible, simple, and undivided. The Trinity is not three beings cooperating together. The Trinity is one God existing in eternal communion.

“Only through the Trinity is our eternal communion with the infinite love of God assured as such, together with communion among ourselves as those who partake of this infinity and yet remain distinct. The Trinity thereby assures our continuance and perfection as persons to all eternity.” (The Experience of God: Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1). (Robert Dryer)

Stăniloae is saying that the Trinity is not an abstract doctrine Christians invented to solve a math problem. The Trinity is the foundation of communion itself. If God were a single isolated person, then love would either be potential until creation or dependent on creation to become actual. But if God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit eternally, then love is not something God begins doing. Love is eternally alive inside God Himself.

This is why Stăniloae’s theology fits perfectly with Orthodox Trinitarianism. The Father is not lonely divinity. The Son is not a later companion. The Spirit is not a force added into the divine life. The Father eternally loves the Son in the Spirit, and the Son eternally receives and returns that love. Creation is invited into that communion, but creation does not create that communion.

Vladimir Lossky

“The personal existence of God is the monarchy of the Father.” (Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 58).

Lossky rejects impersonal conceptions of essence centered theology because Eastern theology begins from hypostasis.

Lossky’s point is that Orthodox theology does not begin with an abstract divine essence and then add three persons onto it. It begins with the Father as the personal source of the Son and the Spirit. The Father is not “one third” of God. The Father is the source without source, the one from whom the Son is begotten and from whom the Spirit proceeds.

This matters because it protects both unity and distinction. The Trinity is not three separate gods sharing a divine category. The Trinity is also not one person wearing three masks. The Father is truly Father, the Son is truly Son, and the Spirit is truly Spirit. Their unity is not a committee unity. Their unity is the one divine essence eternally communicated from the Father without division.

Christos Yannaras

“God is not first an essence which then possesses personality.” (Elements of Faith, p. 36).

 Personhood is ultimate because the Father eternally exists as Father.

John Zizioulas

“The one God is the Father.” (Being as Communion, p. 40). He immediately clarifies this does not deny the Son or Spirit’s divinity because the divine essence is communicated fully. Zizioulas argues personhood itself becomes ontologically foundational in Christianity because being arises through communion rather than isolated substance.

“When we say that ‘God is love,’ we refer to the Father, that is, to that person which ‘hypostasizes’ God, which makes God to be three persons.” (Being as Communion, p. 46 n. 41). (Zizioulas Foundation)

Zizioulas is saying something very strong. God is not first an impersonal essence. God is personal from all eternity because the Father eternally exists as Father. The Father is Father because He eternally begets the Son and breathes forth the Spirit. So divine personhood is not accidental. Communion is not added later. Communion belongs to God’s eternal identity.

This also gives a strong answer against simplistic anti Trinitarian objections. The Trinity is not irrational because Christianity is not saying one person is three persons. It is saying the one God is not solitary. God’s unity is personal, relational, and ontological. The Father is the fountain of deity, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. One essence. Three hypostases. One God.

Last Section: Monarchial trinity

The most basic affirmation the Scriptures make regarding the nature of God is that He is one. The shema of Deuteronomy 6 reads as follows: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deut. 6:4). These words that preface the great commandment are axiomatic to the biblical understanding of the nature of God. Old and New Testaments together bear witness to the eternal truth that there exists one God—monotheism. Another term for monotheism is the word monarchianism, meaning that the God of the Bible is a monarch. Monarch comes from a Greek word that has a prefix and a root. The prefix mono means “one” or “single.” The root word archē means “beginning, chief, or ruler.” We hear of archbishops, archenemies, archangels, all of which employ the root term archē.
A monarchy is a form of government in which the rule is restricted to one person, a king or a queen, as distinguished from the rule of the few (oligarchy) or the rule of many (plutarchy). The doctrine of the Trinity, central to Christian confession, is not the result of abstract speculation. Rather, it is the result of the church’s reflection on the teaching of the Bible. With respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, or what I call “triune monarchy,” the church was faced with two distinct issues. The first was the responsibility to exercise fidelity to the Bible. The second was to be clear in its rejection of heretical doctrine.
Two virulent monarchian heresies emerged in the first three hundred years of the Christian church. The first was called Modalistic Monarchianism, as expressed in the heretical views of Sabellius. Suffice to say, it was condemned at Antioch in 267 ad. Perhaps even more serious was the “Dynamic Monarchianism” of Arius, which threatened Christian orthodoxy in the beginning of the fourth century. It resulted in the Council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed. The theological struggles of the first three centuries were based upon the church’s desire to be faithful to biblical monotheism (monarchianism) and at the same time to be faithful to the attribute of deity for each of the three persons in the Godhead.
The church looked at the role of Jesus in creation and in redemption as the only begotten Son of the Father who wrought for us our redemption. There are multiple manifestations of biblical claims for Jesus as God, as seen, for example, in the kenotic hymn of Philippians 2:6–11, in the high Christology of the book of Hebrews, in the “I AM” sayings found in the gospel of John, in the worship that is given to Jesus without rebuke (Matt. 14:33), such as in the case of Thomas at Christ’s resurrection appearance (John 20:24–29). But there is no passage of Scripture that more occupied the attention of the theologians of the early church than that found in the prologue to the gospel of John (1:1–18). In this prologue, Jesus is identified as the incarnate Logos, the Word who became flesh. This concept is so profound in the opening verses of John’s gospel that it preoccupied the finest minds of the church for the first three hundred years of the church’s existence.

The first passage I’d like to examine is from Gregory of Nyssa’s Ad Petrum. This of course is 

the locus classicus for the distinction between “person” and “substance” or “hypostasis” and “ousia”. 

Here Gregory is describing the various gnorismata of the divine persons – the individuating qualities 

by which we can recognize one as distinguished from the others. Ordinarily, one would go this text for 

the distinction between ousia and hypostasis, or for the gnorismata (essentially the epistemological 

equivalent of idiomata) themselves. But I will point out something else that is quite striking about the 

text, and that is frequently overlooked 

28 

Since, then, the Holy Spirit, from Whom all the supply of 

good things for creation has its source, is attached to the 

Son, and is inseparably apprehended with Him, and has 

His being attached to the Father as cause, from Whom 

also He proceeds, He has this gnoristikon of peculiarity 

according to hypostasis: being known after the Son and 

together with the Son, and subsisting from the Father. 

The Son, who through Himself and with Himself reveals 

the Spirit proceeding from the Father, who alone shines 

forth only-begottenly from the unbegotten light, has no 

commonality according to the individuating gnorismata, 

either to the Father or to the Holy Spirit, but alone is 

known by these mentioned signs. 

And God over all alone has a certain special gnorisma of 

His own hypostasis: being the Father, and subsisting 

from no cause, and by this sign again He is also 

individually recognized.

This is where people usually misunderstand Orthodox Trinitarianism. The Father being the “source” does not mean the Son and Spirit are created, inferior, or later. The Father is not the cause of the Son the way a builder causes a house. The Son is eternally begotten from the Father, without time, without division, without change, and without inferiority. St John of Damascus says, “The Son alone is generate, for He was begotten of the Father’s essence without beginning and without time. And only the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father’s essence, not being generated but proceeding.” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I). This is the entire point of monarchial Trinitarianism. The Father is unbegotten. The Son is begotten. The Spirit proceeds. The personal properties distinguish the persons, but the one divine essence is not divided.

St Gregory of Nyssa gives the classic answer to the accusation that Christians worship three gods. He writes, “The Father is God: the Son is God: and yet by the same proclamation God is One, because no difference either of nature or of operation is contemplated in the Godhead.” (To Ablabius: On Not Three Gods). Then he explains that if the divine nature were divided or diverse, then plurality of gods would follow. But because there is no difference of nature or operation in the Trinity, the Church does not confess three gods. Gregory is saying that numerical distinction of persons does not automatically mean division of essence. The Father, Son, and Spirit are not three separate beings with three separate divine operations. They are one God because the divine nature and divine action are one.

That is why the monarchy of the Father is not a denial of the Son and Spirit’s deity. It is the way the Fathers preserved biblical monotheism without falling into either Arianism or Sabellianism. Sabellianism says there is one God because Father, Son, and Spirit are just masks or modes. Arianism says there is one God because only the Father is truly God, while the Son is a supreme creature. Orthodoxy says neither. The Father is truly God, the Son is truly God, and the Holy Spirit is truly God, yet there are not three gods because the Son and Spirit are eternally from the Father and possess the same undivided divine essence.

St Basil the Great frames the order of knowledge and worship in a deeply Orthodox way: “The way of the knowledge of God lies from one Spirit through the one Son to the one Father.” (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 18). Basil’s order matters. We are brought by the Spirit, through the Son, to the Father. This is not a ranking of deity. It is the order of revelation and communion. The Spirit reveals the Son. The Son reveals the Father. The Father is the source toward whom all divine revelation leads, yet the Spirit and the Son are not instruments outside God. They are fully divine, sharing one glory with the Father.

St Gregory the Theologian gives the best summary of how the Orthodox mind moves when contemplating the Trinity: “No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Them than I am carried back to the One.” (Oration 40.41). This is not poetic confusion. It is theological discipline. If someone only thinks “one,” he may collapse into modalism. If someone only thinks “three,” he may fall into tritheism. Gregory refuses both. The One is never without the Three, and the Three are never divided from the One.

The monarchy of the Father also explains why the Filioque became such a serious issue in the East. If the Father alone is the cause within the Trinity, then the Spirit’s eternal procession cannot be from the Father and the Son as two causes. Orthodox theology can say the Spirit is sent through the Son in history, manifested through the Son, and given by the Son to the Church. But the eternal hypostatic procession of the Spirit is from the Father alone. This is why St Photios and St Mark of Ephesus fought so strongly against the Filioque. They saw it as confusing the Father’s personal property as sole cause.

The scriptural pattern also supports this order. Christ says, “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me” (John 15:26). The Son sends the Spirit in the economy of salvation, but the Spirit proceeds from the Father. That distinction matters. Sending in time is not the same thing as eternal procession. Mission reveals relation, but it does not erase the Father’s monarchy.

So the Orthodox doctrine can be put simply: the Father is the one God as source, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. The Son and Spirit are not lesser beings because what they receive from the Father is not a created gift, but the whole divine essence. The Father communicates the divine nature eternally, indivisibly, and without loss. The Son is “Light of Light, true God of true God.” The Spirit is worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son. This is monarchial Trinity, not Unitarian monarchy.

This also answers the Law of Identity objection. The Father is not identical to the Son according to person. The Son is not identical to the Spirit according to person. But the Father, Son, and Spirit are identical according to the one divine essence. There is no contradiction because Christianity is not saying “one person is three persons.” It is saying the one divine nature exists in three hypostases. One what. Three whos. One essence. Three persons. One monarchy of the Father. One God forever.

Fast-forwarding now to he conventional end of the patristic era, I’ll only briefly look at a  passage from John of Damascus, who’s a little difficult to grasp on this issue. I’ll admit there are some other passages that are difficult to deal with and that make him look like an Egalitarian instead. But just  as it’s easy to read through Gregory’s Ad Petrum without noticing its Monarchical presuppositions, it’s  easy to read past this excerpt from the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith without noticing a  similar detail. 

“We believe, then, in One God, one beginning, having no beginning, uncreated, unbegotten, imperishable and  immortal, everlasting, infinite, uncircumscribed, boundless, of infinite power, simple, uncompound, incorporeal,  without flux, passionless, unchangeable, unalterable, unseen, the fountain of goodness and justice, the light of the  mind, inaccessible; a power known by no measure, measurable only by His own will alone (for all things that He  wills He can ), creator of all created things, seen or unseen, of all the maintainer and preserver, for all the provider,  master and lord and king over all, with an endless and immortal kingdom: having no contrary, filling all, by nothing  encompassed, but rather Himself the encompasser and maintainer and original possessor of the universe, occupying  all essences intact and extending beyond all things, and being separate from all essence as being super-essential and  above all things and absolute God, absolute goodness, and absolute fullness: determining all sovereignties and  ranks, being placed above all sovereignty and rank, above essence and life and word and thought: being Himself  very light and goodness and life and essence, inasmuch as He does not derive His being from another, that is to say,  of those things that exist: but being Himself the fountain of being to all that is, of life to the living, of reason to  those that have reason; to all the cause of all good: perceiving all things even before they have become: one  essence, one divinity, one power, one will, one energy, one beginning, one authority, one dominion, one  sovereignty, made known in three perfect subsistences and adored with one adoration, believed in and ministered to  by all rational creation, united without confusion and divided without separation  which indeed transcends  thought). (We believe) in Father and Son and Holy Spirit whereinto also we have been baptized. For so our Lord  commanded the Apostles to baptize, saying, Baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit “

(Matthew 18,19)

It’s easy, if we read this through Egalitarian eyes, to focus on the Egalitarian-sounding aspects  of this statement. For example, he begins by saying “We believe, then, in One God...” and after this  one phenomenally long sentence he seems to restate the idea, “We believe in Father and Son and Holy  Spirit...” This might suggest that John equates “God” with the whole collection of “Father and Son and  Holy Spirit”. The language toward the end of the long first sentence, read a certain way, might also  suggest a view on which the one God is perhaps the one essence, “one essence, one divinity, one  power, one will, one energy, one beginning, one authority, one dominion, one sovereignty”, and  especially the immediately following claim that The One God is “made known in three perfect  subsistences”. This Egalitarian sounding language makes it easy to miss the fact that the very first thing  Damascene says about God is that He is <<ἕνα θεόν, μίαν ἀρχὴν ἄναρχον, ἄκτιστον,  ἀγέννητον>>, i.e., “One God, a single arche anarchos...” i.e., “a single source without source”, a  phrase that only applies to the Father, followed not only by “uncreated” (a term that would describe any  of the three persons), but immediately after “uncreated” as “unbegotten”. Again, this is a term that can  only apply to the Father. What’s more, it cannot be that John used <<ἀγέννητον>> or “unbegotten” carelessly to mean <<ἀγένητον>> or “uncreated”, because he himself devotes some space to  explaining the important difference between the two terms just a few paragraphs later in the same chapter, where he says:

“For one must recognise that the word ἀγένητον with only one ‘ν’ signifies uncreate or not having been made,  while ἀγέννητον written with double ‘ν’ means unbegotten. According to the first significance [ousia] differs from  [ousia]: for one [ousia] is uncreate, or ἀγένητον with one ‘ν,’ and another is create or γενητή . But in the second  significance there is no difference between [ousia] and [ousia]. For the first [hypostasis] of all kinds of living  creatures [i.e., Adam] is ἀγέννητος [unbegotten] but not ἀγένητος [uncreated] . For they were created by the  Creator, being brought into being by His Word, but they were not begotten, for there was no pre-existing form like  themselves from which they might have been born.”

Thus, it’s difficult to think that the tension between apparently Egalitarian elements and  obviously Monarchical elements in this (and other) passages in John is just the result, say, of his  copying and pasting from other authors and not noticing the discrepancies. Rather, it’s probably  indicative of some subtlety going on in his thought (for one thing, I think some of what he says gets 

disambiguated in a more Monarchical way elsewhere in his works). But even if it is just a poor job of  copying and pasting, John seems to be cognizant of the Monarchical elements he is repeating, and not  so much of the Egalitarian ones. Certainly this calls for further study. But that is beyond the scope of  the current paper. The point is not to prove that Damascene is thoroughly Monarchical, but to 

problematize the easy reading of him as Egalitarian. Thus, I will leave off my discussion of him with  another passage which looks Egalitarian at first glance... 

“And again we speak of the three hypostases as being in each other, that we may not introduce a crowd and  multitude of Gods. Owing to the three hypostases, there is no compoundness or confusion: while, owing to their having the same essence and dwelling in one another, and being the same in will, and energy, and power, and  authority, and movement, so to speak, we recognise the indivisibility and the unity of God.” ... but then takes a Monarchical twist at the end... 

“For verily there is one God, and His word and Spirit

The first concern I’ll address is this. How can the claim that the Father alone is “the One, True God” be reconciled with the claim that the Son and Spirit are homoousios with the Father, that they share the same divine nature with Him, and are thus equally “divine”? After all, if Monarchical Trinitarianism is in obvious conflict with the homoousion, then perhaps it should be ruled out of court as in no sense Trinitarian after all

Addressing the Issue

the semantic (not metaphysical or theological) claim that the  predicate “is God” means “is a thing with the divine nature”. This semantic view is so dominant in the  West that it normally goes unquestioned. But it’s explicitly denied by about half or so of the early  church fathers, and almost all of the rest, while not denying it, deliberately refrain from affirming it. As  I note in my dissertation, although Gregory of Nyssa gives a defense of Trinitarianism as monotheistic  based on this semantic assumption, both in Ad Graecos and Ad Ablabium, he explicitly and vehemently  rejects its actual veracity. He only offers, in response to certain objections to the Trinity, defeater- defeaters that can operate even granting this assumption, since he thinks it’s a commonly accepted  view (especially among pagans). But he makes clear that it is not his own view,  And in this, he stands in a long line of earlier fathers who also reject it  As far as I can tell, among the church fathers,  Augustine seems to have been the first to actually affirm this claim (unless one counts Marius  Victorinus), from whom it seems to have spread to Boethius and so on, until this originally highly  idiosyncratic idea eventually became dominant in the West, so that most of the strategies for defending  Trinitarianism from the charge of tritheism that were prevalent in the early church became unusable for later Western theology.

By my count, there are a minimum of at least five fairly distinct strategies by which various 

church fathers reconcile Trinitarian theology with monotheism (to rattle them off: single source, single 

essence, single activity, Christ as Ikon (discussed below), and perichoresis, though there may be others 

I’m missing). Western theology in general, and analytic theology in particular, tends to accept the 

semantic presupposition that “god” means “a thing with the divine nature”, without much question, and 

then understandably focuses on just one of those strategies — arguing to the one-ness of God from the 

Unity of the Divine Essence – a strategy which, not surprisingly, few to no church fathers accepted, 

until St. Augustine (who accepted this semantic presupposition and makes use of it in an anti-Arian 

argument in the De Trinitate), and as mentioned Marius Victorinus just before him (who may be the 

source of Augustine’s idea here) and Boethius just afterwards.

But the idea that a god is a thing with a divine nature seems untenable, at least from a scriptural  point of view, as Gregory points out   God gave Moses to be “a god to Pharaoh” (Ex. 7,1). And “the  gods of the gentiles are demons” (Psalm 96,5 / 95,5 LXX, cf. 1 Cor 1:10) (so clearly gods needn’t have the divine nature!) When the witch of Endor brought up Samuel from Sheol, along with him, she “saw  gods” (1 Sam. 28:13). Did she only mistakenly believe she saw gods? Well, “Yahweh executed  judgment on all the gods of Egypt” (Ex. 12,12; Num. 33,4 and cf. 2 Sam. 7:23). Did Yahweh only  mistakenly believe He was executing judgment on the gods of Egypt? How could He actually execute  judgment on them, if they didn’t exist? “God stands in the midst of the gods” (Psalm 82,1). “Let the  gods who have not created the heavens and the earth perish” (Jer. 10,11). “Though I have said ye are  gods, all of you sons of the Most High, yet shall ye die like men” (Psalm 82,6; John 10,34). “Who is  like Thee among the gods, O Lord”? (Ex. 15,11) “There are many gods and many lords, yet for us there  is One God and One Lord” (1 Cor. 8,5). Despite the popularity of an extreme form of literal  monotheism among Jews and Christians today, it’s difficult to reconcile the Bible with the idea. Rather,  the picture that emerges from scripture is that, as St. Paul puts it, there are indeed many gods and many  lords. It is only that there is for us but One God and One Lord. And in any case, whether one admits  their literal existence or not is beside the point. The point is that it’s clear that the vast majority of the  things (whether real or imagined) that the Bible applies the term “god” to cannot have the same nature  as The One God – not even in theory. So at least the Bible doesn’t seem to use the term “god” to mean “a thing with the divine nature”.

Law of Identity
So now we must explain the Law of Identity
How do we identify a person, being, etc 
This will also involve Ontology and Metaphysics

The Law of Identity is one of the foundational laws of logic and metaphysics. Aristotle discusses it implicitly in Metaphysics IV, and every coherent worldview depends on it whether acknowledged or not. The law simply states that a thing is itself. A being possesses its own identity. Something cannot be itself and not itself in the same respect at the same time. Without identity, language collapses, reasoning collapses, distinctions collapse, and truth itself becomes impossible.

The most basic formulation is:

A = A

This means “A is A.” A thing is identical to itself. God is God. Man is man. Truth is truth. If something loses identity absolutely, then it ceases to be intelligible. When Christians say “the Father is God,” they are not violating the Law of Identity because the Father truly possesses the divine essence. Likewise the Son is God and the Spirit is God because each fully possesses the one divine nature.

The second major logical principle connected to identity is the Law of Non Contradiction

\neg (A land neg A)

This symbol means:

“It is not the case that A and not A are both true at the same time and in the same respect.”

The symbol “¬” means “not.”

The symbol “∧” means “and.”

So the formula reads:

“Not both A and not A.”

This matters because critics of the Trinity often falsely assume Christians are saying:

1 = 3

But Christianity never says that. Christianity does not say God is one person and three persons in the same sense. That would indeed violate non contradiction.

Instead Christianity says:

\text{God is one in essence and three in person}

Essence and person are not identical categories. “What” and “who” are not the same question. So there is no contradiction. One divine essence exists in three hypostases.

Now to identity distinctions.

If:

A = A

Then A possesses its own identity.

But if:

A \neq B

This means:

“A is not identical to B.”

The symbol “≠” means “not equal” or “not identical.”

This becomes critical in Trinitarian theology.

The Father ≠ the Son

The Son ≠ the Spirit

The Spirit ≠ the Father

Why?

Because the persons are not identical according to hypostasis.

The Father is unbegotten.

The Son is begotten.

The Spirit proceeds.

These are real distinctions.

Yet Christianity simultaneously says:

F = G

Where:

F = Father

G = God according to essence

The Father is fully God.

Likewise:

S = G

The Son is fully God.

And:

H = G

The Holy Spirit is fully God.

The contradiction objection only works if Christianity says:

“The Father is the Son.”

But Christianity explicitly denies that.

Instead Christianity says:

The Father is God.

The Son is God.

The Spirit is God.

But the Father is not the Son.

That is not contradiction because identity is being predicated differently.

Now this enters metaphysics.

In creaturely beings, essence is multiplied across individuals.

Peter possesses human nature.

Paul possesses human nature.

John possesses human nature.

So humanity exists in many beings.

But in God, the divine essence is not multiplied.

The Father does not possess one third of deity.

The Son does not possess another third.

The Spirit does not possess another third.

The divine essence is numerically one.

This is why the Cappadocians constantly distinguished between:

οὐσία (ousia) = essence/substance/nature

ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) = person/reality/subsistence

So the Trinity is:

1\ ousia\ ;\ 3\ hypostases

One essence. Three persons.

Now another logical form:

If\ A = B\ and\ B = C,\ then\ A = C

This is the transitive property of identity.

Critics sometimes misuse this against the Trinity.

They argue:

The Father is God.

The Son is God.

Therefore the Father is the Son.

But this only works if “God” refers to person rather than essence.

Orthodox theology does not use “God” that simplistically.

“God” can refer to:

The divine essence

The Father personally as source within the Trinity

This is why context matters.

When Scripture says:

“The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28)

Christ speaks economically according to incarnation and relation of origin.

When Scripture says:

“The Word was God” (John 1:1)

It speaks according to essence.

The Fathers constantly distinguish these categories to avoid contradiction.

St Gregory Nazianzen

“For the Deity is one in essence and undivided, yet divided in persons.” (Oration 31).

Notice the precision.

Undivided in essence.

Distinct in person.

That is monarchial Trinitarian logic.

The Father is not the Son according to hypostasis.

The Son is not the Spirit according to hypostasis.

But the Father, Son, and Spirit are identical according to divine essence.

So the Trinity does not violate the Law of Identity.

Rather, the Trinity is one of the most metaphysically precise doctrines ever formulated because it distinguishes person and essence without collapsing either one.

The foundational Law of Identity:

A=A

Meaning:

A thing is itself.

If something has no stable identity, it cannot be known, described, or distinguished. Every proposition assumes identity already. The word “God” must refer to something identifiable. The word “human” must refer to something identifiable. Without identity, all reasoning collapses.

The Law of Non Contradiction:

¬(A∧¬A)

Meaning:

A cannot both be and not be in the same respect at the same time.

Symbols:

• “¬” = not

• “∧” = and

Aristotle considered this the most certain law of thought. If contradiction becomes acceptable absolutely, then every statement becomes meaningless because opposites could both be true simultaneously.

The Law of Excluded Middle

A∨¬A

Meaning:

Either A is true or not A is true.

Symbols:

• “∨” = or

There is no middle category between true and false in classical logic.

The Reflexive Law of Identity

∀x(x=x)

Meaning:

Every entity is identical to itself.

Symbol:

• “∀” = for all

This is the formalized version of A = A in predicate logic.

The Symmetric Law of Identity

x=y→y=x

Meaning:

If x equals y, then y equals x.

Identity works both directions.

The Transitive Law of Identity

x=y∧y=z→x=z

Meaning:

If x equals y and y equals z, then x equals z.

Identity transfers consistently across relations.

Leibniz’s Law (Indiscernibility of Identicals)

x=y→∀P(Px↔Py)

Meaning:

If two things are identical, then every property true of one is true of the other.

Symbols:

• “↔” = if and only if

• “P” = predicate/property

This is one of the most important identity laws in metaphysics.

If two entities differ in even one true property, they are not absolutely identical.

The Identity of Indiscernibles (Converse of Leibniz’s Law):

∀P(Px↔Py)→x=y

Meaning:

If two things share all properties, they are identical.

Leibniz argued true perfect indiscernibility is impossible between genuinely distinct entities.

The Principle of Substitution (Substitutivity of Identicals

x=y→(P(x)↔P(y))

Meaning:

If two things are identical, one can replace the other in propositions without changing truth value.

Example:

If “Clark Kent = Superman,” then anything true of Superman is true of Clark Kent.

The Numerical Identity Principle

1=1

Meaning:

An entity is numerically one and the same entity.

Numerical identity differs from generic identity.

Three humans share humanity generically.

One individual remains numerically one.

The Qualitative Identity Principle

Px↔Py

Meaning:

Two things share qualities or properties.

This does not necessarily mean they are numerically identical.

Two red apples can be qualitatively identical without being the same apple.

Necessary Identity

x=y→□(x=y)

Meaning:

If two things are truly identical, they are necessarily identical.

Symbol:

• “□” = necessity

A true identity relation cannot become false later.

Contingent things can change properties, but strict identity itself is necessary if genuine.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason:

Nothing exists or occurs without sufficient explanation.

Leibniz formulated this strongly against brute fact metaphysics.

Every contingent reality requires explanation either:

• in itself

• or in another

This became foundational in cosmological arguments.

The Principle of Discernibility:

Distinct entities must possess at least one distinguishing feature.

Otherwise distinction becomes meaningless.

This principle supports metaphysical differentiation.

The Principle of Determinacy:

A thing possesses a definite nature.

An object cannot be entirely undefined.

If something has no definable identity whatsoever, it becomes unintelligible.

The Principle of Essential Identity:

A thing must possess essential properties making it what it is.

Example:

Rationality belongs essentially to humanity.

Without essential properties, categories dissolve.

The Principle of Accidental Identity:

Some properties are non essential.

Example:

Hair color can change while identity remains.

This distinction between essential and accidental properties became foundational in Aristotelian and scholastic metaphysics.

The Principle of Ontological Identity:

Being itself requires identity.

To exist means to exist as something.

Pure non differentiated being becomes unintelligible because no distinctions exist.

This is one reason many Christian theologians criticized certain forms of Neoplatonism and absolute monism.

Frege’s Identity Distinction:

Gottlob Frege distinguished between:

• sense (Sinn)

• reference (Bedeutung)

Example:

“The morning star”

“The evening star”

Both refer to Venus, but convey different senses.

This distinction became extremely influential in analytic philosophy and language theory.

Russell’s Identity Theory

Bertrand Russell treated identity as a logical relation between terms rather than a metaphysical substance.

He emphasized formal logical precision over classical metaphysical realism.

Kripke’s Necessary Identity Theory:

Saul Kripke argued that true identities are necessary truths discovered empirically.

Example:

H2O=Water

Once discovered, the identity is necessarily true.

Possible worlds cannot make water cease being H₂O while remaining water.

Relative Identity Theory:

Peter Geach proposed that entities may be:

• the same in one respect

• different in another

Example:

Two books may be:

• the same text

• but different physical copies

This theory became influential in some modern Trinitarian philosophy, though many reject it for weakening classical identity.

Haecceity (“Thisness”):

Duns Scotus introduced haecceity to explain what makes an individual uniquely itself beyond shared essence.

Example:

Two humans share humanity, yet each possesses unique individuation.

This became important in medieval metaphysics.

The Law of Identity says a thing is what it is. A is A. So when Christians say God is one and three, the question is: one what and three what? If Christianity said God is one person and three persons in the same sense, that would be contradiction. But that is not the doctrine. The doctrine is one essence and three persons.

The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Spirit. The Spirit is not the Father. But the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God because each possesses the one undivided divine essence. The distinction is personal. The unity is essential. That is why Trinitarianism does not violate logic. It only violates bad categories.

“The superessential essence of God is not to be identified with the energies, even though God is wholly present in each of His divine energies. For the essence remains beyond participation, while the energies come down to us and are participated in by the saints.” (Triads, III.1).

Palamas is protecting two truths at once. God is not reduced to what creation can grasp, but God also does not remain locked away from creation. The Father, Son, and Spirit are unknowable in essence, yet truly known in divine energy. This matters for the Trinity because Orthodox theology is not saying we merely know ideas about God. We truly participate in the uncreated life of God, while the divine essence remains beyond comprehension.

“The light of the Lord’s transfiguration did not come into being and then pass away. It was not circumscribed, nor was it subject to sense, although it was seen by bodily eyes. It was the beauty of the age to come, the glory of the Kingdom, the uncreated light of God.” (Triads, I.3).

This is Palamas explaining why Tabor matters. The light revealed in Christ is not a created spotlight or emotional religious experience. It is the uncreated glory of the Trinity shining through the incarnate Son. The Father bears witness, the Son is transfigured, and the Spirit is present in the cloud. So the Trinity is not only confessed in doctrine but revealed in worship, glory, and deification.

“The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, one dominion, one power, one energy, one will, one kingdom.” (One Hundred and Fifty Chapters).

This is the Orthodox answer to tritheism. The three persons are not three independent wills or three divine agents negotiating together. The Father, Son, and Spirit have one divine operation because they share one divine essence. Their personal distinctions are real, but their divine life is never divided.

Palamas is not giving a “philosophy add on” to the Trinity. He is explaining how salvation works if the Trinity is true. The Father sends the Son, the Son becomes incarnate, the Spirit unites us to Christ, and through divine grace man participates in God without becoming God by essence. That is why Palamite theology is not optional for Orthodox theology. It shows how the Trinity is not just believed but encountered.

- St Gregory Palamas

Biblical Passages On Hints 

a lot of people like to ask where is Trinity in the O.T or The N.T

The idea of a Triune God according to them before Jesus in scripture or history is not There nor is it Hinted. My Goal is to Disprove that and Establish that The prophets DID give hint of a Triune God

And That God is Multipersonal

The Spirit of God appears at creation itself. “And the earth was a formless and desolate emptiness, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters” (Gen. 1:2). This is not a random wind if read canonically. The Spirit appears as personally active in creation, life, prophecy, judgment, and renewal. Job says, “The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life” (Job 33:4). Psalm 104 says, “You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; and You renew the face of the ground” (Ps. 104:30). The Spirit creates, gives life, renews, speaks, and sanctifies. That is already far beyond an impersonal force.

The Word of God also appears as more than a sound. “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their lights” (Ps. 33:6). Here the Lord creates by His Word and His Spirit, or breath. That is why Christians later saw creation itself as Trinitarian in pattern: the Father creates through the Word in the Spirit. John 1 does not come out of nowhere. It takes the Old Testament theme of God’s Word and reveals that the Word is personally eternal: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).

The Angel of the Lord is one of the strongest Old Testament hints. In Exodus 3, “the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush” (Exod. 3:2), but then the text says, “God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, ‘Moses, Moses!’” (Exod. 3:4). The figure is called the Angel of the Lord, yet He speaks as God, receives reverence, and identifies Himself as “the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Exod. 3:6). This is not a created angel speaking independently. The text presents a messenger who is distinguished from YHWH and yet speaks as YHWH.

The same happens in Genesis 16. The Angel of the Lord speaks to Hagar, and then the text says, “Then she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, ‘You are a God who sees me’” (Gen. 16:13). The Angel is distinguished as sent, yet identified with the Lord who sees. In Genesis 22, the Angel of the Lord calls to Abraham from heaven and says, “By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord” (Gen. 22:16). A normal angel cannot swear by himself as YHWH. The figure speaks with divine authority because He bears divine identity.

Judges 13 makes the same point. Manoah asks the Angel of the Lord His name, and He says, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?” (Judg. 13:18). After the Angel ascends in the flame, Manoah says, “We will certainly die, for we have seen God” (Judg. 13:22). The text allows the tension to stand. The Angel is sent, yet the encounter is an encounter with God. That is exactly the kind of Old Testament material that made the Fathers identify the Angel of the Lord as a preincarnate manifestation of the Logos.

Psalm 45 gives another major hint. “Your throne, God, is forever and ever; the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of justice. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of joy above Your companions” (Ps. 45:6–7). One figure is addressed as God, and yet this God has God who anoints Him. Hebrews 1 applies this directly to the Son. The logic is not pagan. It is biblical. There is divine distinction within the one divine identity.

Psalm 110 is another major text. “The Lord says to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet’” (Ps. 110:1). Jesus Himself uses this passage against the Pharisees. If the Messiah is merely David’s son, why does David call Him Lord? (Matt. 22:41–46). The text distinguishes YHWH from David’s Lord, yet places David’s Lord at God’s right hand in royal divine authority. This becomes one of the most important Christological texts in the New Testament.

Isaiah 48 is one of the clearest Old Testament triadic passages. “Come near to Me, listen to this: From the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit” (Isa. 48:16). The speaker claims presence “from the beginning,” then says the Lord God has sent Him and His Spirit. You have the Lord God, the sent speaker, and the Spirit. This does not give the whole Nicene Creed, but it absolutely gives a triadic pattern that strict unipersonalism has to explain away.

Isaiah 63 also gives a triadic pattern. “For He said, ‘Certainly they are My people, sons who will not deal falsely.’ So He became their Savior. In all their distress He was distressed, and the angel of His presence saved them; in His love and in His mercy He redeemed them, and He lifted them and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit” (Isa. 63:8–10). Here we see the Lord, the Angel of His Presence, and His Holy Spirit. The Angel saves and redeems, and the Spirit can be grieved. This is not bare monadic theism.

Unusual PROOFS For the Trinity

“In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, with the train of His robe filling the temple. Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called out to another and said, ‘Holy, Holy, Holy, is Yahweh of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory.’ And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called out, while the house of God was filling with smoke.

“Then I said, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, Yahweh of hosts.’ Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a burning coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs. And he touched my mouth with it and said, ‘Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away, and your sin is atoned for.’

"Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for US?’ Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!’ He said, ‘Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not know. Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their hearts, And return and be healed.’” Isaiah 6:1-10

The Apostle John sees something similar to the prophet Isaiah:

“Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and upon those thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads. And out from the throne come flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder. And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. And before the throne there was something like a sea of glass, like crystal. And in the center and around the throne, four living creatures full of eyes in front and behind. And the first creature was like a lion, and the second creature like a calf, and the third creature had a face like that of a man, and the fourth creature was like a flying eagle. And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within, and day and night they do not cease to say, ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come.’” Revelation 4:4-8

Note how these spirit creatures in the visions of Isaiah and the Apocalypse refer to God as being thrice holy. They do not cry out holy one time or two times or four or more. Rather, they only do so three times.

The God-breathed Scriptures describe the Father, the Son and the Spirit as being holy.

• The Father

“And I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.” John 17:11

• The Son

“And immediately there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, saying, ‘What do we have to do with You, Jesus the Nazarene? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!’” Mark 1:23-24

“The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him. But you denied the Holy and Righteous One and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, but put to death the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.” Acts 3:13-15

Astonishingly, John quotes Isaiah 6:10 to prove that it was actually Jesus whom the prophet saw visibly seated on his throne!

“Although Jesus had performed so many miraculous signs before them, they still refused to believe in him, so that the word of the prophet Isaiah would be fulfilled. He said, ‘Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?’ For this reason they could not believe, because again Isaiah said, ‘He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their heart, and turn to me, and I would heal them.’ Isaiah said these things because he saw Christ’s glory, and spoke about him.” John 12:37-41

John 12:41 tn Grk “his”; the referent (Christ) has been specified in the translation for clarity. The referent supplied here is “Christ” rather than “Jesus” because it involves what Isaiah saw. It is clear that the author presents Isaiah as having seen the preincarnate glory of Christ, which was the very revelation of the Father (see John 1:18; John 14:9). sn Because he saw Christ’s glory. The glory which Isaiah saw in Isa 6:3 was the glory of Yahweh (typically rendered as “Lord” in the OT). Here John speaks of the prophet seeing the glory of Christ since in the next clause and spoke about him, “him” can hardly refer to Yahweh, but must refer to Christ. On the basis of statements like 1:14 in the prologue, the author probably put no great distinction between the two. Since the author presents Jesus as fully God (cf. John 1:1), it presents no problem to him to take words originally spoken by Isaiah of Yahweh himself and apply them to Jesus.

• The Holy Spirit

“Do not cast me away from Your presence And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.” Psalm 51:11

Remarkably, whereas John claimed it was Jesus that appeared in Isaiah 6, the blessed Apostle Paul says that it was actually the Holy Spirit!

“And when they disagreed with one another, they began leaving after Paul had spoken one word, ‘The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers, saying, “Go to this people and say, ‘You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; And you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive; For the heart of this people has become dull, And with their ears they scarcely hear, And they have closed their eyes; Lest they might see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart and return, And I heal them.’”’” Acts 28:25-27 – Cf. Isaiah 6:9-10

For instance, Malachi announced that the Lord was going to appear in his temple after having sent a messenger ahead of him to prepare for his coming:

“Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord (ha adon), whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,’ says Yahweh of hosts.” Malachi 3:1

The phrase ha adon is used for the one true God YHWH in all of its other occurrences:

“Therefore the Lord (ha adon), Yahweh of hosts, The Mighty One of Israel, declares, 'Ah, I will be comforted concerning My adversaries, And I will avenge Myself on My enemies.''” Isaiah 1:24

“For behold, the Lord (ha adon), Yahweh of hosts, is going to remove from Jerusalem and Judah Both supply and support, the whole supply of bread And the whole supply of water,” Isaiah 3:1 – Cf. 10:16, 33; 19:4

The New Testament teaches that the messenger was John the Baptist, and that Jesus is that very Lord of Malachi that the Baptist was sent ahead of!

“This is the one about whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, Who will prepare Your way before You.’” Matthew 11:10 – Cf. Luke 7:27; Mark 1:2

What makes our Lord’s quotation of Malachi 3:1 so remarkable is that he identifies the object of the singular pronouns “I,” “My,” “Me,” as two distinct Persons, namely, the Father and himself!

Elsewhere, the Father and Son are described as the one sanctuary of the new heavens and earth, 

“And I saw no sanctuary in it, for the Lord God the Almighty AND the Lamb are ITS sanctuary.” Revelation 21:22 

What makes this rather astonishing is that the OT teaches that YHWH alone places his temple/sanctuary among his people:

“And I will cut a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will give them the land and multiply them and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever. My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people. And the nations will know that I am Yahweh who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever.” Ezekiel 37:26-28

THE Omniscient, Incomprehnsible Son

“In that same hour, Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, and said, ‘I thank you, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for so it was well-pleasing in your sight.’ Turning to the disciples, he said, ‘All things have been delivered to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is, except the Father, and who the Father is, except the Son, and he to whomever the Son desires to reveal him.’” Luke 10:21-22 – Cf. Matt. 11:25-27

This is a capacity that no finite creature possesses since God is beyond comprehension:

“He does great things past finding out; yes, marvelous things without number.” Job 9:10

“Can you fathom the mystery of God? Or can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are high as heaven. What can you do? They are deeper than Sheol. What can you know? Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.” Job 11:7-9

“Behold, God is great, and we don’t know him. The number of his years is unsearchable.” Job 36:26

“After it a voice roars. He thunders with the voice of his majesty. He doesn’t hold back anything when his voice is heard. God thunders marvelously with his voice. He does great things, which we can’t comprehend.” Job 37:4-5

“For the Chief Musician. A Psalm by David. Yahweh, you have searched me, and you know me. You know my sitting down and my rising up. You perceive my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down, and are acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word on my tongue, but behold, Yahweh, you know it altogether. You hem me in behind and before. You laid your hand on me. This knowledge is beyond me. It’s lofty.” Psalm 139:1-6

“Great is Yahweh, and greatly to be praised! His greatness is unsearchable.” Psalm 145:3

“‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not my ways,’ says Yahweh. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.’” Isaiah 55:8-9

“Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out! ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?’ ‘Or who has first given to him, and it will be repaid to him again?’ For of him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory for ever! Amen.” Romans 11:33-36

“‘My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give eternal life to them. They will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father who has given them to me is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are (esmen) one.’ Therefore the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, ‘I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of those works do you stone me?’ The Jews answered him, ‘We don’t stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.’” John 10:27-33

The reason why the Jews correctly inferred that Jesus made himself out to be God, even though he is both a Man who is not the Father, is because Christ ascribed to himself the very functions and characteristics that the Hebrew Bible attributes solely to YHWH!

“For Yahweh is a great God And a great King above all gods, In whose hand are the depths of the earth, The peaks of the mountains are His also. The sea is His, for it was He who made it, And His hands formed the dry land. Come, let us worship and bow down, Let us kneel before Yahweh our Maker. For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand. Today, if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, As in the day of Massah in the wilderness,” Psalm 95:3-8 Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)

“See now that I myself am he. There is no god with me. I kill and I make alive. I wound and I heal. There is no one who can deliver out of my hand.” Deuteronomy 32:39

“Yes, since the day was, I am he. There is no one who can deliver out of my hand. I will work, and who can hinder it?” Isaiah 43:13

“It was shown to you so that you might know that Yahweh is God. There is no one else besides him… Know therefore today, and take it to heart, that Yahweh himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath. There is no one else.” Deuteronomy 4:35, 39

“Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God. Yahweh is one. You shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.” Deuteronomy 6:4-5

“Therefore you are great, Yahweh God. For there is no one like you, neither is there any God besides you, according to all that we have heard with our ears.” 2 Samuel 7:22

“that all the peoples of the earth may know that Yahweh himself is God. There is no one else.” 1 Kings 8:60

“He returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him; and he said, ‘See now, I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel. Now therefore, please take a gift from your servant.’” 2 Kings 5:15

“with whom Yahweh had made a covenant and commanded them, saying, ‘You shall not fear other gods, nor bow yourselves to them, nor serve them, nor sacrifice to them; but you shall fear Yahweh, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and with an outstretched arm, and you shall bow yourselves to him, and you shall sacrifice to him. The statutes and the ordinances, and the law and the commandment which he wrote for you, you shall observe to do forever more. You shall not fear other gods. You shall not forget the covenant that I have made with you. You shall not fear other gods. But you shall fear Yahweh your God, and he will deliver you out of the hand of all your enemies.’” 2 Kings 17:35-39

“Yahweh, there is no one like you, neither is there any God besides you, according to all that we have heard with our ears.” 1 Chronicles 17:20

“Now for a long time Israel was without the true God, without a teaching priest, and without law.” 2 Chronicles 15:3

“You are Yahweh, even you alone. You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their army, the earth and all things that are on it, the seas and all that is in them, and you preserve them all. The army of heaven worships you.” Nehemiah 9:6

“For who is God, except Yahweh? Who is a rock, besides our God,” Psalm 18:31

“that they may know that you alone, whose name is Yahweh, are the Most High over all the earth.” Psalm 83:18

“There is no one like you among the gods, Lord, nor any deeds like your deeds. All nations you have made will come and worship before you, Lord. They shall glorify your name. For you are great, and do wondrous things. You are God alone.” Psalm 86:8-10

“Hezekiah received the letter from the hand of the messengers and read it. Then Hezekiah went up to Yahweh’s house, and spread it before Yahweh. Hezekiah prayed to Yahweh, saying, ‘Yahweh of Armies, the God of Israel, who is enthroned among the cherubim, you are the God, even you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth. Turn your ear, Yahweh, and hear. Open your eyes, Yahweh, and behold. Hear all of the words of Sennacherib, who has sent to defy the living God. Truly, Yahweh, the kings of Assyria have destroyed all the countries and their land, and have cast their gods into the fire; for they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone; therefore they have destroyed them. Now therefore, Yahweh our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you are Yahweh, even you only.’” Isaiah 37:14-20

“You are my witnesses,” says Yahweh, ‘With my servant whom I have chosen; that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am he. Before me there was no God formed, neither will there be after me. I myself am Yahweh. Besides me, there is no savior… Yes, since the day was, I am he. There is no one who can deliver out of my hand. I will work, and who can hinder it?’” Isaiah 43:10-11, 13

“This is what Yahweh, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Yahweh of Armies, says: ‘I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God. Who is like me? Who will call, and will declare it, and set it in order for me, since I established the ancient people? Let them declare the things that are coming, and that will happen. Don’t fear, neither be afraid. Haven’t I declared it to you long ago, and shown it? You are my witnesses. Is there a God besides me? Indeed, there is not. I don’t know any other Rock.’” Isaiah 44:6-8

“I am Yahweh, and there is no one else. Besides me, there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not known me, that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is no one besides me. I am Yahweh, and there is no one else… Declare and present it. Yes, let them take counsel together. Who has shown this from ancient time? Who has declared it of old? Haven’t I, Yahweh? There is no other God besides me, a just God and a Savior. There is no one besides me. Look to me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.” Isaiah 45:5-6, 21-22

“Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other. I am God, and there is none like me.” Isaiah 46:9

“Has a nation changed its gods, which really are no gods? But my people have changed their glory for that which doesn’t profit.” Jeremiah 2:11

“There is no one like you, Yahweh. You are great, and your name is great in might… But Yahweh is the true God. He is the living God, and an everlasting King. At his wrath, the earth trembles. The nations aren’t able to withstand his indignation. You shall say this to them: ‘The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth will perish from the earth, and from under the heavens.’” Jeremiah 10:6, 10-11

“Yet I am Yahweh your God from the land of Egypt; and you shall acknowledge no god but me, and besides me there is no savior. I knew you in the wilderness, in the land of great drought.” Hosea 13:4-5

“Yahweh will be King over all the earth. In that day Yahweh will be one, and his name one.” Zechariah 14:9

“Don’t we all have one father? Hasn’t one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, profaning the covenant of our fathers?” Malachi 2:10

“since indeed there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.” Romans 3:30

THE FATHER IS GOD

“How can you believe, who receive glory from one another, and you don’t seek the glory that comes from the only God?” John 5:44

“This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” John 17:3

“For though there are things that are called “gods”, whether in the heavens or on earth—as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’—yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.” 1 Corinthians 8:5-6

“one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in us all.” Ephesians 4:6

“For they themselves report concerning us what kind of a reception we had from you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead: Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come.” 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” 1 Timothy 2:5

The Son is God

“‘She shall give birth to a son. You shall name him Jesus [Yeshua], for it is he who shall save his people from their sins.’ Now all this has happened that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall give birth to a son. They shall call his name Immanuel,’ which is, being interpreted, ‘God (ho theos) with us.’” Matthew 1:21-23

Jesus is the God that has come to dwell with his people and who, after his physical ascension into heaven, continues to personally (not physically) abide with all of them till the end of the age:

remain “‘teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’ Amen.” Matthew 28:20

He is also that very YHWH who comes to do what only YHWH does, namely, save mankind from their sins since there is no mortal who is sinless and undeserving of judgment:

“If you, Yah, kept a record of sins, Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with you, therefore you are feared… Israel, hope in Yahweh, for there is loving kindness with Yahweh. Abundant redemption is with him. He will redeem Israel from all their sins.” Psalm 130:3-4, 7-8

is The Trinity Copied?

a lot of Critics like to try and say that the Trinity is copied from Similar Hindu Or Greek Philosophers whom had similar idea

My Goal is to Establish That the Trinity is NOT Plagarized from Myths.

First we have to establish what is difference between Similar idea, Plagarism, and Differences in other religion or older models of the “Trinity”

A lot of critics try to act like finding “three” somewhere in another religion automatically proves the Trinity was copied. That is historically weak and logically lazy. Similarity is not plagiarism. A triad is not a Trinity. A group of three gods is not the same thing as one God in three hypostases. The Christian Trinity is not “three divine beings with different jobs.” It is one divine essence, eternally existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

A similar idea means two systems share a surface resemblance. For example, Hinduism has the Trimurti: Brahma as creator, Vishnu as preserver, and Shiva as destroyer. Britannica describes the Trimurti as “a triad of the three gods Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva,” with each connected to creation, preservation, and destruction. That is a divine triad, but it is not the Trinity. It does not teach one indivisible divine essence, three coequal hypostases, eternal generation of the Son, eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father, or one divine will and operation. The resemblance is numerical, not doctrinal.

Plagiarism means actual borrowing with dependence. To prove plagiarism, a critic must show more than “this religion had three divine figures.” They would need to show historical contact, textual dependence, conceptual dependence, and doctrinal equivalence. In other words, they need to prove Christians took the doctrine from that source, changed the names, and repackaged it. But that is exactly what they usually cannot prove. They point to a triad, ignore the differences, and pretend the argument is finished.

Difference matters more than shallow resemblance. The Trinity is not three gods. The Trinity is not three cosmic functions. The Trinity is not creator, preserver, destroyer. The Trinity is not a divine family. The Trinity is not one supreme god with two lesser emanations. The Trinity is one God, one essence, one will, one operation, one glory, one worship, personally distinguished as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stanford’s summary of the doctrine says the Trinity is commonly expressed as “the one God exists as or in three equally divine ‘Persons,’ the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” with the creedal principle being that the three are “consubstantial,” meaning the same in substance or essence.

So when someone says, “Hinduism had a trinity first,” the answer is simple: no, Hinduism had triads. A triad is not automatically the Trinity. The Trimurti is three deities associated with cosmic roles. The Christian Trinity is not three deities and not three roles. Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are not eternally one essence in three hypostases according to Nicene theology. In many Hindu traditions, one deity, usually Vishnu or Shiva depending on the sect, is treated as supreme over the others. Britannica notes that the Puranas often portray either Vishnu or Shiva as the fundamental reality behind the other two, while Brahma is often secondary or an emanation. That is not Nicene consubstantiality.

The same problem appears with Greek philosophy. Yes, Christians used Greek philosophical vocabulary because Greek was the intellectual language of the eastern Mediterranean. Words like ousia, hypostasis, logos, and physis were used because the Church had to define revelation carefully against heresy. But using Greek terms does not mean copying Greek religion. If someone uses the word “substance” in theology, that does not mean he worships Aristotle. The Fathers took language, purified it, and forced it to serve biblical revelation. They did not borrow pagan myths and call them Christianity.

Greek philosophy had concepts of divine reason, mediation, forms, intellect, and emanation. But Greek philosophical systems did not teach the Father eternally begetting the Son, the Spirit proceeding from the Father, the incarnation of the Logos, the crucifixion, resurrection, baptism into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, or worship of the three as one God. The Church’s doctrine grew from Scripture, worship, baptism, doxology, and controversy over Christ and the Spirit. It was not created because Christians found a pagan triangle and baptized it.

Similar idea: “This religion has three divine figures.”

Plagiarism: “This religion copied a doctrine from another source with clear dependence.”

Real doctrinal equivalence: “Both systems teach the same thing in substance.”

The Trinity is not guilty of plagiarism because the alleged parallels fail all three tests. Hinduism gives triads, not one essence in three hypostases. Greek philosophy gives metaphysical categories and sometimes mediating principles, not the eternal Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Pagan mythology gives divine families and hierarchies, not consubstantial persons sharing one indivisible divine being.

A clean way to say it is this: the Trinity is not Christianity’s version of pagan threefold divinity. The Trinity is the Church’s confession that the one God of Israel has revealed Himself as Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. It came from the Church trying to be faithful to monotheism, while also being faithful to the full deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. The doctrine exists because Scripture forced the Church to confess all three truths at once: there is one God, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father.

The accusation that the Trinity was copied from myths usually survives only because people confuse “three” with “Trinity.” But by that logic, every group of three is plagiarism. Three judges, three branches of government, three philosophical principles, three gods, three angels, three kings, and three metaphysical categories would all somehow be the same idea. That is not scholarship. That is pattern hunting without discipline.

The notion of multiple persons in the godhead is normally thought to be a Christian innovative change to Judaism’s distinctive monotheism. But is it? UC Berkeley professor Daniel Boyarin, in his book The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ, provides compelling evidence that the trinitarian, or at least binatarian, notion of God, has roots deep in Jewish history – virtually from its beginnings.

This should not be a complete surprise. Throughout the Torah, that is, the first five books of the Jewish Tanakh or Christian Old Testament, there are multiple references to a multipersonal God as well as a multiple number of gods. Most readers are familiar with God’s statement in Genesis: “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness” (1:26 NET). Later, “the LORD God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil” (3:22). In the story of the tower of Babel, “the LORD said… ‘Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech’” (Gen. 11:6-7). Who is us?

Nor is the existence of multiple gods contested in Torah. In the story of the Exodus, God tells Moses and Aaron that “I will pass through the land of Egypt…and I will attack all the firstborn in the land of Egypt… and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment” (Exodus 12:12). Later, Moses and the freed Israelites sing, “Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods?” (Exodus 15:11). One of the ten commandments instructs God’s followers to “have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). God declared to the Israelites that “the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords” (Deuteronomy 10:17). This sentiment is echoed in other places in the Bible such as Psalms 136:2 and Daniel 2:47.

A divine council or heavenly host is mentioned several times in the Hebrew scriptures. “The LORD came from Sinai…he shone forth from Mount Paran; he came from the ten thousands of holy ones, with flaming fire at his right hand” (Deuteronomy 33:2). A vision granted to the prophet Micaiah revealed “the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left” (2 Chron. 18:18). Job refers to “a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them” (Job 1:6, cf. 2:1).

The upshot of this Jewish henotheism (attendance to one particular god among many) is that the Israelites proclaimed their God the highest god: “The LORD is great and certainly worthy of praise; he is more awesome than all gods. For all the gods of the nations are worthless, but the LORD made the heavens” (1 Chronicles 16:25). Solomon declared that he would “build a great temple, for our God is greater than all gods” (2 Chronicles 2:4). Even in New Testament times, these same beliefs persisted: “If after all there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things…” (1 Corinthians 8:5).

More Identification 

many critics like to criticize the Trinity because they don’t know it or think it makes no logic.

Goal is to Establish Why The Trinity is;

Logical

How we identify the Triune God (persons, being, etc)

Answering Difficult questions

The doctrine of the Trinity is usually criticized for one of two reasons. Either people do not understand what the Church is actually claiming, or they assume that any reality beyond ordinary material categories must automatically be irrational. Most objections against the Trinity are not really arguments against the actual doctrine confessed at Nicaea, Constantinople, and by the Fathers. They are objections against caricatures. The Church does not teach that one person is three persons. The Church does not teach that God is “three gods who agree together.” Nor does the Church teach that Father, Son, and Spirit are simply masks worn by one divine actor. Orthodox Trinitarian theology is far more precise, philosophical, and internally coherent than many modern critics realize.

The Trinity is logical because it distinguishes between essence and person. Logic only breaks when contradictory predicates are affirmed of the same subject in the same respect at the same time. Christianity never says God is one and three in the same respect. Rather, God is one according to essence and three according to person. Essence answers the question “what is God?” Person answers the question “who is God?” The divine essence is one, simple, eternal, indivisible, and numerically singular. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct hypostases possessing the one undivided divine essence fully and eternally.

This distinction is exactly why the Law of Non Contradiction is not violated. The doctrine is not:

1\ person = 3\ persons

Rather, the doctrine is:

1\ essence\ ;\ 3\ hypostases

One divine nature. Three distinct persons.

St Gregory of Nyssa explains this clearly: “The distinction of the hypostases does not divide the unity of nature.” (To Ablabius: On Not Three Gods). Gregory’s point is that distinction does not automatically produce division. The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Spirit, but the divine essence remains one because the divine nature is indivisible. The persons are distinguished by relation of origin, not by possessing separate divine substances.

The Father is identified as Father because He is unbegotten and is the sole source within the Trinity. The Son is identified as Son because He is eternally begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit is identified as Spirit because He eternally proceeds from the Father. These are not temporary roles or economic appearances. These are eternal hypostatic properties. The Father never becomes the Son. The Son never becomes the Spirit. The Spirit never becomes the Father.

St John of Damascus writes: “The Father is Father and not Son: the Son is Son and not Father: the Holy Spirit is Spirit and not Father or Son.” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I). This is identity language. The persons are genuinely distinct. Yet the same Father, Son, and Spirit possess one will, one operation, one glory, one power, and one divine essence.

This also explains why the Trinity is not tritheism. Three human beings are three humans because human nature is multiplied across individuals. Peter possesses humanity. Paul possesses humanity. John possesses humanity. Human essence exists in divided multiplicity. But the divine essence is not divided or multiplied. The Father, Son, and Spirit do not possess three separate divine beings. They possess one numerically identical divine essence. St Basil the Great writes: “The Godhead is common.” (Letter 38). The divine nature is one, not distributed into thirds.

The Trinity is also logical because personhood itself requires relational distinction. A solitary monad cannot eternally express interpersonal love before creation. This is why many Fathers and theologians argued that eternal communion belongs to God’s very being. St Dumitru Stăniloae writes: “Love presupposes communion. A single person cannot live in love because love is movement toward another person.” (The Experience of God, Vol. 1). The Father eternally loves the Son in the Holy Spirit. God does not become loving after creation. Love eternally exists within the life of the Trinity itself.

Many critics ask difficult questions because they assume the Trinity means either three separate consciousnesses cooperating together or one consciousness pretending to be three persons. Neither is Orthodox theology. The Father, Son, and Spirit are not three gods sitting beside one another in space. God is incorporeal, immaterial, timeless, and simple. Likewise, the persons are not mere masks because Scripture consistently presents real interpersonal distinction. The Father sends the Son. The Son prays to the Father. The Spirit descends upon the Son. At Christ’s baptism the Father speaks from heaven, the Son stands in the Jordan, and the Spirit descends like a dove. This is not one person talking to Himself theatrically.

One common objection asks: “If Jesus is God, why does He pray?” The answer is Christology. The Son became truly man. Prayer belongs properly to Christ’s assumed human nature and to His mediatorial role as incarnate Son. The incarnation does not destroy distinction between Father and Son. Rather, it reveals it. The eternal Logos assumed humanity without ceasing to be divine.

Another objection asks: “Why does Jesus say the Father is greater than I?” (John 14:28). The Fathers answered this repeatedly. Christ speaks according to His incarnate state, voluntary humiliation, and relation of origin. The Father is greater causally as source, not essentially as superior deity. St Athanasius writes: “The Son is not inferior in essence, but the Father is called greater because He is Father.” (Against the Arians). The monarchy of the Father does not imply inferiority of the Son.

Another objection asks: “How can three persons share one being?” But critics themselves already accept analogous distinctions in other areas of metaphysics without complaint. One human nature exists across many persons. One universal can exist across multiple instantiations. Mind itself contains intellect, will, and self awareness without becoming three minds. Of course every analogy eventually fails because God transcends creation, but the point remains: distinction does not automatically imply contradiction.

The Trinity ultimately transcends full creaturely comprehension, but transcendence is not irrationality. A finite mind failing to exhaustively comprehend infinite divine existence does not make the doctrine illogical. If God were fully reducible to creaturely categories, He would not be God. St Gregory Nazianzen writes: “No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Them than I am carried back to the One.” (Oration 40.41). The Trinity is not irrational confusion. It is the revelation that the one God eternally exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The doctrine also answers deep metaphysical questions about reality itself. Christianity teaches that ultimate reality is not impersonal force, blind matter, or isolated monadism. Ultimate reality is eternal communion. The Father eternally begets the Son and eternally breathes forth the Spirit. Love, communion, knowledge, and self giving belong to God’s eternal life prior to creation itself. This is why Orthodox theology sees the Trinity not merely as a doctrine to defend but as the deepest revelation of being itself.

Final wrap for the whole Trinity project

The Trinity is not three gods, not three parts of God, not three masks, not three personalities inside one person, and not a contradiction. The Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds. The Father is the sole source within the Godhead. The Son and Spirit are fully divine, not because they are independent gods beside the Father, but because they eternally receive the one undivided divine essence from the Father.

The Law of Identity only refutes the Trinity if someone lies about what Christians are claiming. Christianity does not say one person is three persons. Christianity says one God exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The category of essence answers what God is. The category of person answers who God is. One what. Three whos. That is not irrational. That is precise.

Analogies fail because created things cannot fully map onto uncreated tri personal being. Water becomes modalism. The egg becomes partialism. Three humans become tritheism. The sun and rays can become subordinationism. The safest explanation is not an analogy but the actual doctrine: one essence, three hypostases, one will, one operation, one glory, one worship, one God.

The Fathers are not saying, “The Trinity is confusing, so just accept it.” They are saying reality itself is deeper than pagan simplicity, Islamic monadism, and modern reductionism. God is not solitary. God is not a committee. God is eternal communion. The Father eternally begets the Son and eternally breathes forth the Spirit. Creation does not make God loving. Creation receives the love that already exists eternally in the life of the Holy Trinity.

By RONY MIKHAIL