|
|
Theology |
| Yes! It Could Be Today! |
| HOME :: Theology Studies :: Theology :: |
The triune God that Christians worship is the self-existing sovereign over all that exists. As such he is unique. And as such there is not, and in fact there cannot be, any other being like him.[1]
Man’s quest to understand who this God is, what he is like, and what he is doing has occupied the minds of men and women for thousands of years. No doubt this journey started with Adam and Eve, initially as they communed with God in the garden in the cool of the evening and subsequently as they lived out their lives and considered his judgments on them after they had sinned and had been banned from that same garden. This quest has continued down through the centuries as God has provided more and more revelation about himself and as men have continued to probe this subject of the triune God. And that study continues today even though there has been no new written revelation from God for nearly 2000 years. It has continued as men and women have worked to better understand what God has revealed about himself.
The subject of study here, the triune God who is the self-existing sovereign, continues that pursuit to understand more about the God who has created us and revealed himself to us. Even though, as just noted, it is an old subject, nevertheless, old as it is, we have not begun to exhaust it. In reality, at best, we have only scratched the surface. The subject of the triune God is vast. Realistically, it is a subject that will never be exhausted. No doubt, we who are his children will spend forever with this God as he unfolds himself to us so that we can appreciate more and more who he is.
This subject is not only an old one, more importantly it is a fundamental one. Over the years, those who have written on this subject have pointed out that importance. This importance results from the fact that such a study is worthwhile. It has value. It is life-altering. Our entire outlook on life has its deepest roots in what we think about God. This is true for all human beings, but especially so for those who are God’s children. As we proceed in this study, we should make every effort to stop and to reflect on the implications of whatever it is we are learning about God. Knowing what God is like should make a difference.
And the study of God is a subject in which we humans can get lost (in a good sense). It is really the ultimate subject. It fills us with wonder. It enriches our lives. It satisfies an inner thirst as nothing else can. It produces happiness, joy, contentment as nothing else will. We have all sensed these things when we have looked at God’s handiwork in creation. After all, that creation does declare his glory.
At the outset as we consider this profound subject it must be clear that underlying the study is a basic assumption. The assumption is that there exists one God who has revealed himself. This assumption is foundational. We will consider it in more detail in just a bit. Given this basic assumption, how will we proceed in our study of the triune God? As we proceed we will take an approach suggested by the concept of the Trinity itself.
“Traditionally the concept of a Trinity has been viewed from (a) an ontological perspective and (b) an economical or administrative one.”[2] Basically, the former focuses on God as he exists and acts within himself and the latter on God as he acts that which is apart from himself. This distinction is important and must be understood.
Taking this distinction into consideration, as we explore this vast subject we will take three steps. These steps are taken as we pose three questions. Moving forward these three questions will serve as a means of organizing our thinking. The questions themselves are simply asked. Each contains only four words. But the answers, as much as we are able to provide them, are profound.
As the first step, we will begin by trying to clarify God’s existence. How does God exist? This is the place we must start. If we do not get this right, our attempts to answer subsequent questions will fail. And if we fail in correctly answering this how question, we will find ourselves building on a bad foundation, one that leads away from truth about God rather than toward it. Because how God exists has great implications for us, we will make every effort to clarify just what that involves. God exists as a triune being. Thus, the first section, “God’s Triune Existence,” will primarily focus on the doctrine of the Trinity itself. In this section we will not consider the attributes and abilities of God nor consider God as he has set about working throughout this creation. The initial task will be to understand God’s existence as a trinity, as the Godhead.[3] What is the basic “structure” of the being we call God?
With God’s triune existence set as a foundation, we will build on that as we move on to the second question. What is God like? In answering this question we will organize our thinking around God’s triune being. We will focus on the characteristics of God’s nature as deity and on those persons who share that nature. We want to learn what the persons of the Godhead are able to do by virtue of having the nature of deity. This second section, “God’s Ontological Existence,” considers the Godhead as it has existed from all eternity, apart from creation. Ontology refers to “a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being.”[4] Strictly speaking the previous section also deals with ontology. However, that section is narrowly focused on the structure of the Godhead as a trinity. This section considers the substance of and the abilities and attributes inherent in God’s nature and possessed by the three persons of the Godhead. It helps us understand what God is like and what God is able to do. Some might refer to this aspect of God as his essential[5] existence. Essence in this sense refers to “the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is.”[6]
Once we understand what the Godhead is like and is able to do, we will take the last step and answer the third question. What is God doing? In this section, “God’s Vocational Existence,” we will consider the Godhead as the members are now working out the plan they established in eternity past, a plan designed to bring glory to the Godhead, especially through the salvation of creature man. Vocation refers to “the work in which a person is employed.”[7] Some might refer to this aspect of God as his economic[8] existence.
As mentioned earlier, before undertaking the task of posing and answering the three questions noted, there is a basic assumption that must be stated and clarified. “Consciously or unconsciously everyone operates on the basis of some presuppositions.”[9] So then, what assumptions will we make before we begin?
Erickson, in his systematic theology, poses this question. “Should theology begin with the idea of God, or with the nature and means of our knowledge of him?”[10] As he notes, some start with assumptions about God’s existence and some with assumptions about the revelation by which we know God. But as Erickson points out, both approaches have problems. He suggests the following as a resolution.
Is there some solution to this impasse? It appears to me that there is. Instead of beginning with either God, the object of knowledge, or the Bible, the means of knowledge, we may begin with both. Rather than attempting to prove one or the other, we may presuppose both as part of a basic thesis, then proceed to develop the knowledge that flows from this thesis and assess the evidence for its truth.[11]
As we proceed, this is the approach that we too will take. “On this basis, both God and his self-revelation are presuppositions together or perhaps we might think of the self-revealing God as a single presupposition.”[12] So we will make no effort to prove that God exists or that Scripture is his self-revelation. However, because of the importance of the basic arguments used to prove God’s existence apart from a written revelation, three arguments, the ontological, the cosmological, and the teleological, will be reviewed in Appendix 1. These arguments are based on the supposition that God has revealed himself to man.[13] “If God did not initiate the revelation of Himself, there would be no way for man to know Him.”[14]
Consequently, our starting point will be the assumption that “There exists one God who has revealed himself in the canon of Scripture.”[15] Almost everything we can know about God will be based on this assumption. While God has used other means in the past and is continually using creation itself to inform us, Scripture is clearly our primary source of knowledge about him. From Scripture we can learn of his triunity and his eternal existence. We can learn of his attributes, like the extents of his love, his power, and his knowledge. We can learn of his creation and his intentions for it. And we can learn about his plan to redeem a fallen creation.
In saying simply that “there exists one God” we leave it to Scripture to reveal to us and further inform us as to what that God is like. For example, we do not assume that God is eternal but allow Scripture to lead us to that position. Neither do we assume the Godhead is triune. Again, Scripture will allow us to demonstrate that God is such a being. As for what God is doing and his purposes for doing so, we will let the Scripture be our authority. The exact nature of God’s existence and activities will unfold as we explore what Scripture reveals about him. After all, this is his revelation of himself. We are dependent on God to tell us what he is like, whether that is specifically via his Scripture or generally through his creation, especially through the creature man.
At this point in time, Scripture is the final authority for what we are able to know about God. Saying that God “has revealed himself in the canon of Scripture” needs definition and clarification. First, when speaking of “the canon of Scripture” we are speaking of the Old and New Testaments as written, identified, and preserved and as now available for our examination. Second, it is understood that this is self-revelation. We are reading God’s opinion of himself. We believe that this revelation accurately characterizes what he is like. In fact, as will be suggested below, when through our lives we demonstrate the validity of this opinion we are able to bring glory to God. Furthermore, we must keep in mind that at times God’s revelation of himself contains anthropomorphic and other language used to represent what he is like and how he is working. As such, this is figurative language. Nevertheless, behind the figure is a point of truth God desires to reveal to us. In so doing, he does not mislead us.
Since the central focus of this study concerns the God of Scripture, it is important that we briefly consider how the word God is used in Scripture. The Hebrew word for God is ʾĕlōhîm. The Greek word is theos. Taken together, these two words are used almost 4000 times[16] in Scripture. So then, what do we find when we encounter this word God?
The word god in our English versions is used in both an “upper case” sense and a “lower case” sense. When we find the word God, with a capital G, the reference is to the one true God, the self-existing sovereign, the subject of our study. As we will see, the word is used variously in this capital G sense. When we find the word god in its non-capitalized forms, singular or plural, the reference is to something conceived in the mind of man to have divine characteristics, something that is worshipped or given allegiance. It is in this sense that we find the word in the commandment “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod 20:3). Regarding such so-called gods, Paul wrote to the Galatians, “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods” (Gal 4:8). Here Paul contrasts the one true God with those gods that are not God. Opposed to all false gods is the one true God. The vast majority of times the word god is used in Scripture it is with reference to this one God. As we find this word, three senses can be distinguished.
First, the word God is used of a particular person in the Godhead. The word is used this way in both Testaments. Often we can identify the person, Father, Son, or Spirt, to whom the word refers. But this is not always the case. For example, in Genesis 1 we find God speaking as any person would speak. “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’” (Gen 1:26). Here one of the persons in the Godhead is addressing the other two. “God said to Jonah, ‘Do you do well to be angry for the plant?’” (Jon 4:9). Here one of the persons of the Godhead is addressing the prophet Jonah. In these two instances we are not told which person is speaking. We only know that the person who is speaking is God.
In some contexts the person designated God can be identified. One of the most well-known verses in Scripture uses the word God as of a particular person, in this instance the Father. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16). We know that this is a reference to God the Father because he gave “his only Son” so that we could be saved. To the church in Ephesus Paul wrote that believers should be giving thanks “to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph 5:20). Here Paul wrote literally “the God and Father.” However, he was not identifying two distinct persons, just one.[17] In Hebrews 1 we have another example of a person in the Godhead speaking to another person in the Godhead. “But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom’” (Heb. 1:8). As we can see from the context (1:5), the speaker here is God the Father. The one being addressed is Son who is designated as God. In Acts 5:4 we read Peter’s words to Ananias. “You have not lied to men but to God” (NASB). From the context (5:3), we can see that Peter has in mind the Spirit.
Second, the word God is used in a way that reflects the deity of persons who are God. In this sense the word is a reference to the nature of the being we call God. That being, by very nature, is God. A person is being designated as divine, as God. In Psalm 100 we read, “Know that the LORD, he is God!” (Psm 100:3). David wrote, “I trust in you, O LORD; I say, ‘You are my God’” (Psm 31:14). Habakkuk wrote, “Are you not from everlasting, O LORD my God, my Holy One?” (Hab 1:12). Numerous times in the Old Testament we see God referred to as “the LORD your God.” And many times, especially in Leviticus, God refers to himself using this expression. Furthermore, just as we see references to “the LORD your God” we also see “the LORD my God.” Paul wrote, “He who has prepared us for this very thing is God” (2Cor 5:5). And similarly in Hebrews we read of a city “whose designer and builder is God” (Heb 11:10).
These first two uses of the word God can be seen together in the opening statement of John’s gospel account. John wrote, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). For the first occurrence, “the Word was with God,” the word God refers to distinct person, likely the Father. For the second occurrence, “the Word was God,” the word God indicates the divine nature possessed by the Word, the Son. John is stating that the Word, a person, was with a person, God, and the Word was, as to his nature, God. When considering the use of the Greek article with the word used for God, theos, Dana and Mantey observe the following.
The use of θεός in Jn. 1:1 is a good example. Πρὸς τὸν θεόν points to Christ’s fellowship with the person of the Father; θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος emphasizes Christ’s participation in the essence of the divine nature. The former clearly applies to personality, while the latter applies to character.[18]
Third, the word God is used in a general sense referring to the Godhead or the divine being as a whole with no specific person in mind. So then, such references include the three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, as well as their one divine nature. In response to a question from the disciples about who could be saved, Jesus said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matt 19:26). When rebuking Peter, Jesus said to him, “You are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man” (Mark 8:33). Paul writes that those who are godless are “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” (2Tim 3:4). So sometimes the word God is used as a general reference to the one being who is God.
As we consider passages of Scripture that make reference to God we will need to keep in mind these three distinct ways the word God is used. If we don’t do so, misunderstanding may result. And when we ourselves make statements about God we must make sure we are mindful of the way in which we are using the word God. For example, on the one hand it is correct to say “the Father is God” when we understand that God here refers to the divine nature possessed by the Father. The Father possesses a divine nature and is therefore God. On the other hand it is correct to say “God is the Father” only when we understand that God in this case refers to a particular person in the Godhead.[19] While the statement “the Father is God” is “reversible,” we must keep in mind that these two expressions are not equivalent statements. The word God is not used in the same way in the two instances.
When we study the Word of God, we must be careful to do so to the best of our ability with the aid of the Spirit of God. God describes himself and his actions using words we know from our own experience. Because God is a perfect being untainted by sin and we are not, care is needed when coming to understand what he is revealing about himself. In writing about the love of God and “the analogy of the divine self-description” J. I. Packer provides the following observation by way of caution.
God who gave us language prompted his penmen in Scripture to speak of him in nouns, verbs, and adjectives taken from the common human stock of language. … But because all these words ordinarily refer to finite and fallen human beings, when they are used of God they must be partially redefined: the core of the meaning will remain, but all associations or implications that suggest human finitude and fallenness must be eliminated, and the core meaning must be set in the frame of God’s perfection and purity. (emphasis added)[20]
As we study God’s revelation we must keep in mind Packer’s two points. On the one hand, the core meanings of words will remain. If they didn’t we would be unable to know anything about God. God doesn’t give us a completely different dictionary to use for revealing himself. On the other hand those meanings must be placed in the context of God’s perfect being. God loves. We love. His love is perfectly expressed, perfectly motivated. Ours is not. Despite these differences, we are able to understand, perhaps somewhat imperfectly, what it means to say that God loves us.[21]
Beyond this caution, Packer subsequently warns of another danger. This danger relates to the fact that all revelation is not equally revealing. In some places we learn more; other places we learn less. This means that we must be careful when concluding what Scripture tells us. We must be careful not to interpolate, not to read between the lines, in order to “fill out” our theological understanding. We must be content to limit our observations to what is really revealed. God has not deemed it necessary to provide every detail about himself in his revelation to us. Packer writes,
God through his Spirit interprets the Bible to us, that is, enables us to understand the writers’ meaning and apply their points to ourselves, and so to apprehend what he, the divine Author, wishes to teach us from the inspired text. But the Bible is a set of more or less occasional writings, in which things dealt with in detail are clearer than those to which only passing reference is made. Knowing that sin has twisted our minds … we should be willing to settle for ignorance … rather than indulge our theological fancies.[22]
Packer is correct. We must acknowledge that not all revelation is equally specific or clear. Furthermore, not only is care needed when we study Scripture, it is needed too when we consider God’s revelation of himself as he has manifested who he is and what he is like through his creation. As David testified, God’s creation displays his majesty and glory (Psm 8:1; 19:1). Paul wrote that some specific things about God are “clearly perceived” though creation (Rom 1:20). God has given us both natural revelation through his creation, including human beings, and special revelation through the written Scripture. We may investigate what he has given, but we must be careful that we do not exceed that which God has revealed to us. And with particular reference to Scripture we must limit ourselves to what the actual statements recorded therein tell us.[23]
Here is yet another attempt to help us know and understand God. Why make the effort? As mentioned, the subject is important and it is worthy of our time. But there is really nothing new here. The difference here is perhaps that of the approach or perspective. Sometimes looking at a subject from a different perspective can provide new insights and greater appreciation. When we look at the same object from a different perspective it often helps, especially if we do not have a good understanding in the first place. This study may also raise questions which we had not before considered and in so doing motivate us to more deeply study the nature and character of God. Perhaps then what follows will help us to get a fresh glimpse and a renewed appreciation of our triune God.
Most students would consider a study that focuses on how we should conduct our lives as God’s children to be “practical” in nature. Such a study has value as it impacts our lives for better as we live before God. But how is this study of God “practical?” Is this just information? God is triune. God is all-powerful. God is all-knowing. God is gracious, merciful, and kind. God is … whatever. So what? Does knowing God better change our outlooks, change our reactions, or change our prayers? It can change us. And it certainly should change us if it corrects mistakes in our thinking. The study of the triune God is not just dry, academic learning. It has the potential to change our lives.
We must recognize that what we think about God is critical to how we conduct our lives. There is a direct relationship between how we perceive what God is like and how we act. Incorrect perceptions easily lead to wrong actions. Correct perceptions provide a good basis for acting rightly. But, of course, they do not guarantee right action.
In the epistle of First Corinthians Paul addressed the conduct of the believers as they relate to other believers and also to non-believers. Their conduct is to be tempered by their attitude toward those around them. “Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor” (1Cor 10:24). Later Paul wrote, “Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved” (1Cor 10:32, 33). What Paul is asking is based on a general principle. “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1Cor 10:31). Paul’s primary concern in this context is with eating and drinking. These are day-to-day, ordinary activities of life. But the principle extends to “whatever you do.” Everything that a believer does as he lives out his or her life before God is to be done “to the glory of God.”
This raises an important question? How can we human beings bring glory to God? In this context the Corinthians could do that by giving no offense and by seeking to please others. By acting in this way with reference to their eating and drinking, these believers could glorify God by reflecting his Godlike character.
Generally then, how do we glorify God? When we think of glory that normally invokes the idea of splendor, magnificence, and grandeur. And certainly that is correct. But in this sense God is already glorious beyond anything we can imagine. It does not seem that our conduct could add to that aspect of God in any way. So if we are to glorify God, how might this be possible?
The Greek word for glory is doxa. Interestingly, a basic meaning of this word is “opinion, estimate, whether good or bad, concerning some one.”[24] Related to the word for seem, “the primary idea is one of ‘appearance,’ then of ‘opinion’ based on what seems good or impressive, with ‘esteem’ as product.”[25] When we think about God’s revelation, what we have is his own disclosure of what he himself is like. In some sense what God has given us is his, no doubt accurate, opinion of himself. The heavens declare that God is who he claims to be as the powerful creator and thus glorify him (Psm 19:1). In a similar way, when Jesus turned the water into wine he demonstrated his ability to create, again declaring his glory (John 2:11). In both cases what we see provides validation of God’s claims. What Jesus had done demonstrated who he is. We can do the same by what we do. As we, by our actions, demonstrate and confirm that we believe God is who he claims to be, we glorify him. When we believe God is faithful, loving, and good and we live consistent with that belief, God is glorified. When we believe God is all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present and live accordingly, again, God is glorified. Our actions can glorify God.
What does this mean then relative to our study of the Triune God? If we are, as Paul commands, to live our lives so that whatever we do is “to the glory of God,” then it is incumbent that we learn as much as we can about this God who has revealed himself to us. Wrong perceptions about God will lead to wrong conduct that will not glorify him. We must know who he is if we are to consistently live in a way that glorifies him. Thus, the study of God is vital. And it should be an ongoing pursuit.
Our increasing knowledge and understanding of God should be life altering. How we as God’s children react to the difficult issues of life differs widely. There is a direct relationship between how well we know God and what he is doing (and trust him in what he is doing!) and how well we face life. We should rest in who God is, recognizing his love and compassion and that he only works for our good. But all too often this is not the case. We may worry and fret about what the future holds because we do not feel secure. Some even go so far as to express their anger toward God, making accusations against him because of the difficulties that have come into their lives. This wrong-headed thinking is largely due to mistaken ideas about God (and a failure to believe and trust). And all of us suffer from time-to-time with this type of thinking. My hope is that this work, at least in part, will help rid us of any wrong-headed thinking we might have about God. Granted, it is not all just having right knowledge. We must also be yielded to the truth we know about him. However, we will never advance if we do not do so on the basis of the truth.
So then, in an ultimate sense, my goal is that by aiding us in understanding the Triune God who is the self-existing sovereign revealed in Scripture, we will thereby bring more glory to him as we live our lives aligned with who he is. We exist to glorify him and my desire is that by his grace this work will help us do just that. It will do that if it changes our lives in ways where they are now deficient so that they all the more bring glory to God.
[1] Even if one proposes that another self-existing being could exist, the fact that this God is sovereign necessarily means no other being can be like him.
[2] Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 61.
[3] For the most part I will use the terms “Trinity” and “Godhead” interchangeably. However, sometimes I will distinguish them in the sense that “Trinity” includes only the three persons and one nature while “Godhead” also includes the human nature acquired by the Son at the Incarnation.
[4] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ontology. Accessed 2020/12/28.
[5] I prefer to use the word ontological because of other ways in which the word essence is used in describing God’s being.
[6] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/essence. Accessed 2020/12/28.
[7] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vocation. Accessed 2020/12/28.
[8] I prefer to use the word vocational because it seems to more clearly describe God at work than does the word economic.
[9] Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 16.
[10] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, second edition, p. 31.
[11] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, second edition, p. 34.
[12] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, second edition, p. 34.
[13] These arguments seem somewhat circular since they assume God’s self-revelation in order to prove God’s existence. But they can be helpful. See Wayne Grudem’s comments about these “traditional ‘proofs,’” Systematic Theology, p. 143f.
[14] Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 29.
[15] This statement is a simplified adaptation of one used by Erickson, Christian Theology, second edition, p. 34. It omits the facts that God is triune, that he has particular characteristics, and that he has revealed himself via his creation. These facts can be derived from Scripture.
[16] Based on searches in Bibleworks, Version 10.
[17] The text follows the pattern of a Granville-Sharp rule 1 construction.
[18] Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 140.
[19] As such, this statement is like saying a person is a person. It is not very informative. It is incorrect to say “God is the Father” where God is understood as of the entire being of God or even of the nature of the divine being. There is more to God as a being than just the Father and it is a confusion to say that the Father, a person, is equivalent to his nature. Hopefully this will become clearer as we consider the Trinity itself.
[20] J. I. Packer, “The Love of God: Universal and Particular,” p. 208 in Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce Ware (eds), Still Sovereign.
[21] Use of common language is not accommodation on God’s part. There is a necessary, real correspondence. The extent of the correspondence may vary, but a core correspondence is always there. For example, on the one hand, when we are told that God loves and that we too should love, God is not accommodating us in speaking this way. He wants us to love in the same way that he loves. On the other hand, when we are told that God regrets taking an action, we need to understand that regret in the context of a being who with perfect knowledge, understanding, and wisdom makes his choices.
[22] J. I. Packer, op.cit., p. 209.
[23] I do not think that this prevents us from taking statements from Scripture and following established rules of logic to derive truths about God. In such cases, however, we must be especially careful.
[24] Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Abridged and Revised Thayer Lexicon), δόξα (doxa), cited from BibleWorks, version 10.
[25] Danker, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition, δόξα (doxa), cited from BibleWorks, version 10.