Christmas, Pentecost, and the Trinity
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
Galatians 4:4–5
How did God reveal Himself as triune? He didn’t give us a set of propositions, doctrines, or facts about Him. Rather, the person of the Father sent the person of the Son. That’s what Galatians 4 says. And later, the Father and the Son sent the Spirit.[1]
Let me say that again in a few different ways.
When the Son appeared, when Jesus Christ, the God Man was born on Earth, in time and space that Christmas morning, the church was called to figure out, “What kind of God is this that has a Son, who sent His son, and yet, is not two gods.” And then, at Pentecost, when the Spirit came, we ask a similar question. “How do we have three distinct persons – the Father, the Son, and the Spirit” yet one true living God.
God didn’t send us answers with the incarnation and Pentecost. He sent us persons. The Son and The Spirit. [2], [3]
God didn’t reveal the Trinity primarily though propositions in scripture but through persons in history. Thus we need to think about the doctrine accordingly. Based on the persons of the Son and Spirit. Not just abstract verses about the Father, Son, and Spirit. Although, we dare not ignore those verses either.
When we see God sending the Son and the Spirit, we should worship, and ask “Who is this?” What kind of God sends God, and is sent by God?
Who Is This God?
Let’s start here. The revelation of the Son doesn’t just teach us about the Son, but about the Father as well. We learn He is not an impersonal force. He’s not an abstract, philosophical idea. The Son teaches that God is not just “God”, but He is “Father.”
Herman Bavinck, a Dutch theologian, wrote,
“God’s fecundity [ability to produce offspring or new growth] is a beautiful theme.” The doctrine of the generation of the Son displays God as “no abstract, fixed, monadic, solitary substance, but a plentitude of life. It is his nature to be generative and fruitful.”[4].
By the Son, we learn God’s very core nature is to give life, to be dynamic, not fixed. Somehow, in the eternal existence of God, He begat a Son. This shows us that God is eternally life-giving and selflessly out-flowing.
And in another place, Bavinck claims…
“Just as one cannot conceive of the sun apart from its light, nor of a spring apart from its water, so one cannot conceive of the Father apart from the Son. God is not “without offspring”; on the contrary, he is always speaking. Those who deny the Trinity reduce God to a lifeless principle or end up with the doctrine of the eternal existence of the world.”[5]
So we get a theological claim, and then, our minds start running a bunch of checks. Does this work? Is this true? Does scripture confirm this?
Testing the Claims
If we want to affirm that God is not static, lifeless, just a philosophical abstract, but rather an overflowing fountain of life and of love, then that requires something to love.
Is that something creation? The world outside of his divine nature? If so, this (1) makes creation eternal and (2) makes God’s essence or nature dependent on creation (which we saw a few weeks ago can’t happen). So that’s no good. It denies God’s aseity.
Or, God’s life and love somehow overflow to something – someone – of the same substance of Him, yet separated in person from him. There’s mystery to how this actually works out, but it does work out logically.
In order to uphold the love of God and independence (Aseity) of God, we affirm the eternal Son of God.
Checking our Logic by Scripture
But does it hold up biblically? That’s a far more important question than is it logical.
And I guess it does, Right? Although we have a bunch of “One God” passages – Hear o Israel, the Lord your God is one.
But that doesn’t say there is only one person in the Godhead, but there is only one God. And the doctrine of the Trinity affirms that.[6]
And in fact, it seems like the Bible actually confirms this.
More than Meets the Eye
We think about How God calls Himself a father to Israel. And we realize, Wow - there’s more to this than we saw at first. He’s not just father in relation to them, but He Is Father.
“The scriptural name “Father” is a much better description of the personal property of the first person. Implied in the word “fatherhood” is a positive relation to the second person. The name “Father” is even more appropriate than the word “God,” for the latter is a general name signifying transcendent dignity, but the name “Father,” like that of YHWH in the Old Testament, is a proper name, an attribute describing a personal property of God.”[7]
And God is not just a “Father” to created things. God didn’t become a father when He adopted Israel and then believers. No, He’s eternally a Father to the Son. [8] He is Father. In His very essence. He’s not “God” with a dash of “Father” on top, but he’s Father to His core. Everything He does is fatherly, because God is eternally Father.
Confirmation by the Son
Jesus makes claims about His relation to the Father. And they help to check and develop our doctrine too.
Jesus says in John 17:5,
And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
And later, John 17:24
Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.
So Jesus isn’t a Son that was created, He was a son who was eternally begotten. Before Creation, the Son Was.
Or, we keep going, John 17:26
I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”
And so, we see there’s an eternal love between Father and Son. The way they relate is self-giving Glory and Love.
We’re starting to build here, we’re getting in a groove. The fact that the Father sent the Son means the Father is life Giving and self-less. Not static and dead. And the Son isn’t a created thing, but a co-equal and He’s co-eternal with the Father.
Furthermore, because we read in Isaiah 42:8
“I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other…”
And yet Jesus said in Jn 17:24 that the Father gave Him glory, that the Father and the Son must be somehow the One True God. The divine glory of the divine nature isn’t given outside the Godhead.
We’re making great progress at figuring this out. We’re discovering what kind of God we have by looking at the incarnation – at Jesus Christ.
Following the Logic
And then, Pentecost comes along and the Holy Spirit shows up, and we kind of refine and revise this process again, knowing that there’s not just 2 persons (the Father and the Son), but 3 (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). And through prayerful study and meditation, we determine what that means for our Theology.
All the while, we keep checking our work again by scripture. Are we understanding correctly? Are we interpreting history the right way? And so based on the revealed Persons, we learn about God – both who He is and what He is – and we can eventually form our doctrine of the Trinity.
I’m not going to do that work with you today, though. My goal today was to show how the doctrine of the Trinity was revealed - through Christmas and Pentecost.
And, I think I’ve set us up with enough material for next week. That’s when I’ll deal with that claim that is sometimes made saying the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t in scripture.”
Because, yeah, it doesn’t take a genius to realize the word isn’t there, and a definition isn’t there.
But, is the doctrine of the Trinity in scripture? What role does the Bible play in Articulating the Trinity? Should I add a third question for suspense?
Find out next week…
[1] Fred Sanders, The Triune God, New Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2016), 40.
[2] Sanders, 72.
[3] Sanders, 111.
[4] Robert Letham, Systematic Theology (Wheaton: Crossway, 2019), 119 quoting Bavinck, 2:308.
[5] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, vol. 2, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2003), 286.
[6] Bavinck, 2:273.
[7] Bavinck, 2:307.
[8] Bavinck, 2:272.