John C. Peckham
The basic doctrine of the Trinity affirms the following: There is one and only one God and God is three distinct, (fully) divine, persons.1 The question this section seeks to address is whether this basic doctrine of the Trinity is biblically warranted.2
This basic doctrine of the Trinity can be outlined in the following four premises:
(1) There is one and only one God (the oneness of God).
(2) There are three united persons of the Trinity (the triunity of God).
(3) The three persons (Father, Son, and Spirit) are distinct from one another. That is, the Father is not the Son or Spirit, the Son is not the Father or Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father or Son (the distinctness of the persons).
(4) The three persons (Father, Son, and Spirit) are fully divine and therefore coequal and coeternal (the full divinity of the persons).
The basic doctrine of the Trinity thus affirms: (1) God’s oneness, (2) God’s triunity, (3) the distinctness of the Father, Son, and Spirit, and (4) the full divinity of the Father, Son, and Spirit.
In the following four sections, I will survey some of the biblical support for each of the four premises above. Taken together, these four premises amount to the basic doctrine of the Trinity. As such, if these four premises are biblically warranted, then the basic doctrine of the Trinity (as defined here) is biblically warranted.3
(1) Scripture teaches there is one and only one God
The Bible explicitly teaches that there is one and only one God. Deuteronomy 6:4 maintains, “the Lord is our God, the Lord is one [echad]” (cf. Gen 2:24).4 Deuteronomy 4 adds: YHWH “is God; there is no other besides Him” and “the LORD, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other” (Deut 4:35, 39). 2 Samuel 7:22 also states: “You are great, O Lord GOD; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You” (cf. 1 Chron 17:20). Again, YHWH himself says, “I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God” (Isa 45:5; cf. 37:20; 44:6-7; 2 Kings 19:19; Ps 83:18; 86:10). Moreover, Scripture consistently affirms that YHWH is the great “I AM” (Ex 3:14) and there is no “god” formed before or after Him (Is 43:10; cf. 42:8). Likewise, Scripture repeatedly emphasizes that God is unique and strictly forbids the worship of anyone other than YHWH (Exod 34:14; cf. Deut 4:39; 5:7-9; Matt 4:10; Luke 4:8; Rev 19:10).
The uniform teaching of the OT that there is only one God is also explicitly affirmed in the NT. For example, Jesus himself quotes Deuteronomy 6:4 in the affirmative, “The Lord our God is one Lord” (Mark 12:29; cf. Mark 12:32). Elsewhere, Jesus refers to “the one and only God” (John 5:44). James 2:19 likewise explicitly affirms the oneness of God: “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.” Similarly, 1 Corinthians 8:4 says, “there is no God but one” (cf. 1 Tim 1:17). These texts (and others) provide evidence that Scripture expressly teaches that there is one and only one God.
(2) Scripture refers to a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
While Scripture teaches that God is one and only one God, Scripture also explicitly and repeatedly refers to the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There are numerous trinitarian formulas in the NT, only a few of which will be referenced here. Perhaps the foremost of these is the Great Commission, spoken by Christ in Matthew 28:19: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Here, the word “name” is in singular, which many commentators have taken as indicating the oneness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.5
Further, 2 Corinthians 13:14 states: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.” Ephesians 4:4-6 adds: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.” Similarly, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 teaches: “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.”6
John 14-16 includes numerous references to, and explanations of, the interrelationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and each person of the Trinity is depicted at Christ’s baptism—the Son being baptized, the “Spirit of God” descending like a dove and the Father saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased” (Matt 3:16-17). Moreover, many have pointed to the counterfeit “trinity” in Revelation 12-13 (the dragon, the sea-beast, and the earth-beast) as an indication of the real Trinity, the authority and worship of which the dragon and his cohorts attempt to usurp.7
These are by no means the only such trinitarian references. Indeed, Roderick K. Durst finds “seventy-five triadic order passages” in the NT in which all three persons of the Trinity are mentioned within a range of one to five verses.8 Durst states, in this regard, “the quantity of divine triadic instances is so profound and in such a diversity of orders that it constitutes a qualitative matrix of Trinitarian consciousness. Trinity is how the New Testament authors inadvertently thought and viewed reality.”9
Beyond this and other NT evidence, the OT also provides significant evidence regarding the Trinity. For instance, many passages speak of an “Angel of the LORD” and the context indicates that this “Angel of the LORD” is Yahweh himself.10 For example, in Genesis 16:7-13 the “angel of the LORD” appears to Hagar and in verse 13 is identified with God himself (cf. Gen 21:17). In Genesis 22:11, the “angel of the LORD” speaks to Abraham and then in the next verse says “you have not withheld your son, your only son from Me” (Gen 22:12), indicating that the speaker is himself God (cf. Gen 31:11-13; 48:16). Elsewhere, the “man” that Jacob wrestled with in Genesis 32:28 is identified as an “angel” and then as “the LORD, God of hosts” (Hosea 12:3-5).
In Exodus 3:2, the “angel of the LORD” appears to Moses in the burning bush and, in Exodus 3:4, God himself calls from the midst of the bush. Exodus 23:20-23, further, says of the “angel” sent before Israel, “obey his voice” for “My name is in him” (Exod 23:21; cf. Exod 14:19). Moreover, in Judges 13:13-22 the “angel of the LORD” appears wondrously to Manoah and his wife and, in verse 22, Manoah states unequivocally “We will surely die, for we have seen God” (cf. Zech 3:1-5; compare also the many instances where God uses the language of “us” and “our,” e.g., Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7, and others, e.g., Isa 6:3).
Perhaps the most explicit OT reference to the Trinity appears in Isaiah 63, wherein reference is made to the “angel of His presence” who is the same as the “angel of the LORD” that appeared in Exodus (see above). Isaiah 63 says of YHWH, “He became their Savior. In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the angel of His presence saved them; In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them, And He lifted and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit” (Isa 63:8-10; cf. Gen 1:2; Eph 4:30).11 Not only do we find reference to “His Holy Spirit” here but many commentators recognize that the “angel” here is a reference to the pre-incarnate Christ. For example, J. Alec Motyer comments that this “angel” is “an Old Testament anticipation of Jesus.”12 Further, J. Ridderbos comments: “This [angel of His presence] cannot be a reference to one of the created angels, for it could not be said of any of them that He redeemed Israel from all their affliction. So the reference is to the Angel of the LORD who is Himself God and is also distinguished from God.”13 Isaiah 63, then, appears to refer to all three persons of the Trinity, referencing YHWH, the “angel of His presence,” and “His Holy Spirit.”
If Scripture teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct, fully divine persons (as shall be affirmed in the following two sections) and yet there is only one God, the conclusion that God is triune follows. That is, it follows that there are three united persons of the Trinity. This brings us to the third premise of the basic Trinity doctrine.
(3) Scripture teaches that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct persons
Most parties to the discussion readily recognize that the Father is a person and the Son is a person, but some question the personhood of the Holy Spirit. However, in many instances Scripture attributes to the Holy Spirit characteristics and actions that can only refer to persons. For example, the Holy Spirit:
speaks (Acts 8:29; cf. 10:19-20; 28:25; 1 Tim 4:1; Heb 3:7)
forbids or allows (Acts 16:6-7)
teaches (Luke 12:12; cf. John 14:26)
testifies or bears witness (John 15:26; cf. Rom 8:16)
intercedes (Rom 8:26-27; cf. 15;16; Tit 3:5)
calls to ministry and sends out (Acts 13:2-4)
gives gifts to whom he wills—indicating he has a will (1 Cor 12:11)
reveals, searches, and knows the thoughts of God (1 Cor 2:10-11)
guides (Acts 8:29).
shares a name with the Father and Son (Matt 28:19)
can be lied to and tested (Acts 5:3-4, 9), and
can be “grieved” (Eph 4:30; cf. Isa 63:10; Heb 10:29).
These and other instances depict the Holy Spirit as possessing personal attributes and/or doing things that only a person can do. A mere force or power cannot be grieved, cannot bear witness or intercede, and has no will. Only a person can be grieved and only a person can give gifts to whom he wills (1 Cor 12:11). The key here, however, is to not think that being a person requires that one is a person in exactly the same way as humans are persons. We shall return to this line of thought later in this chapter.
Not only is the Holy Spirit identified as a “person,” Scripture portrays the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as distinct persons. This is contrary to the claim of some that the Holy Spirit is just the same person as (or part of) the Father and/or the Son.14 No, the Holy Spirit is a person distinct from the persons of the Father and Son, who are also distinct from one another.
This is evident in many instances. For example, each of the persons appear as distinct at Christ’s baptism (Matt 3:16-17). The Father and Son have relations and conversations where one is an “I” and the other a “You” (so-called I-Thou relations), indicating distinct persons. This is apparent in Christ’s prayer to the Father in Gethsemane, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me, yet not as I will, but as You will” (Matt 26:39). Beyond this, the Father and Son shared a personal love relationship before the foundation of the world (John 17:24; cf. 3:35; 5:20).
With regard to the Holy Spirit, Jesus speaks of the Spirit as “another” distinct from himself (John 14:16), one who will “teach” the apostles further (Luke 12:12; John 14:26); one who is not Christ but would testify of Christ (John 15:26; cf. 16:7-8, 13). Further, the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and is thus not Himself the Father and the Holy Spirit is sent by the Son from the Father; thus the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son.15 This is explicit in the juxtaposition of John 14:26 and John 15:26. In the former verse, Jesus says: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (John 14:26). In the latter verse, Jesus 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). This distinction between persons is further apparent when Jesus says that one who “speaks a word against” himself can be “forgiven … but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matt 12:32).
In these and other passages, Scripture is explicit that the Holy Spirit is not the Son or the Father and the Son is not the Holy Spirit or the Father and the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. Yet, as shall be seen in the next section, each of the persons is (fully) divine.
(4) Scripture teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are fully divine
Before turning to some of the biblical evidence regarding the full divinity of the persons of the Trinity, it is important to recognize that Scripture does not admit of any gradations of divinity. That is, if being “divine” refers to being God, the supreme being who alone is worthy of worship (cf. Luke 4:8, and thus possesses attributes and prerogatives that belong to God alone), one cannot be partially divine (cf. 1 Chron 17:20). One is either God or not; one is either divine or not divine. There is no middle ground. In this regard, questions are not typically raised regarding the divinity of the Father but sometimes questions are raised regarding the divinity of Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit.
Regarding the divinity of Jesus, John 1:1-3 states: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”16 This passage declares that the Word—who the passage later identifies with Christ—is “God.” The passage also teaches the eternal pre-existence of Christ since Christ was “with God … in the beginning” (cf. Micah 5:2; Gal 4:4) and did not himself come into being since “apart from him [Christ] nothing came into being that has come into being” (cf. Col 1:16-17; Rev 22:13).17 Indeed, according to Micah 5:2, Christ’s “goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity” (cf. Isa 9:6).
That Christ is divine is explicit elsewhere. Thomas addresses the resurrected Jesus as “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Moreover, although Scripture teaches that God alone is to be worshiped (Ex 34:14; cf. Matt 4:10; Luke 4:8; Rev 19:10), Jesus repeatedly accepts worship (John 9:38; cf. also Matt 2:11; 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; Heb 1:6; Rev 5:8-14). Indeed, the Father himself commands of Christ, “Let all God’s angels worship him” (Hebrews 1:6). If Christ was not divine, to worship Christ would be blasphemous idolatry.
Further, Colossians 2:9 explicitly declares the full divinity of Christ, saying, “in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9; cf. Phil 2:6).18 Just previous to this in Colossians 1, Christ is declared to be:
“the image of the invisible God, the firstborn [pro?totokos] of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn [pro?totokos] from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven” (Colossians 1:15-20).19
While some have mistakenly thought the language of “firstborn” (here and elsewhere) must mean that Christ had a beginning, this language of Christ as “firstborn” cannot be consistently taken to mean that Christ had a beginning to his existence because the passage goes on to say that “all things have been created through Him [Christ] and for Him. He is before all things” (Col 1:16-17, emphasis mine).20 Moreover, we’ve already seen that “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being” (John 1:3).21
Here and elsewhere, language of Christ as “firstborn” (and similar language) is covenantal language in reference to Christ’s status as the promised Messiah (“anointed one,” the true King of kings) in fulfillment of the covenant promises of one who would usher in the everlasting kingdom (cf. Daniel 2). Christ is the “son of David,” the one who ultimately fulfills the Davidic covenant and, as such, it is notable that in Psalm 89:27, God says of David, “I also shall make him My firstborn (pro?totokos in the LXX translation), The highest of the kings of the earth.” Of course, David was not literally “born” of God nor was he “firstborn” in any literal sense (even in his own family), but he was the chosen one of the Davidic covenant, through whom the Messiah would come.22 Thus, when Christ is referred to as “firstborn,” it is this language of the Messianic son of David, the one who would fulfill the Davidic covenant, that is most likely in view.
Similar language of Christ’s covenantal, Messianic role in the plan of redemption appears in Hebrews 1. Therein, Scripture teaches that through the Son, God “made the world” and that “He [the Son] is the radiance of His [God’s] glory and the exact representation of His [God’s] nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power” (Heb 1:2-3). Yet, who could be the “radiance” of God’s “glory and the exact representation of His nature” other than one who is divine?23
Hebrews 1 goes on, “to which of the angels did He ever say, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You’? And again, ‘I will be a Father to Him and He shall be a Son to Me’? And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “And let all the angels of God worship Him” (Heb 1:5-6; cf. Ps 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14).24 Notice, similar to Colossians 1:15, this language of being “begotten” cannot refer to Christ coming into being, not only because that would contradict other passages that teach Christ is eternal and did not come into being (e.g., John 1:1-3; Rev 22:13; cf. Isa 9:6; Mic 5:2; John 8:58), but also because in this passage (Heb 1:5-6) the angels already exist, but we know from Colossians 1:16-17 that Christ already existed before the angels. This must refer, then, to Christ coming into this world at some time in the plan of redemption and, here again, the language of “firstborn” is covenantal language in the same way as indicated of Colossians 1 earlier.25
Hebrews 1 goes on to indicate further that Christ is divine, quoting Psalm 45:6-7 as a reference to the Father speaking of Christ, saying: “But of the Son He says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom. ‘You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness above Your companions’” (Heb 1:8-9; cf. Ps 110:1). Here, “God” (the Son) is anointed by “God” (the Father). In this regard, in Luke 1:35 Christ is called the “Son” because of the incarnation—being conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of Mary, but pre-existing this birth (cf. Gal 4:4). Jesus, then, was not a mere human adopted as God’s son. Rather, in the incarnation, “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14).26
Here, again, some people mistakenly assume that language of Christ as the “only begotten Son” (monogenes huios, e.g. John 3:16) must mean that Christ had a beginning to his existence. However, most NT scholars believe the term monogenes does not derive from language of being born (gennaō), but from a term of being of a kind such that, as the NT scholar Leon Morris put it, monogenes “means no more than ‘only,’ ‘unique.27’” Even if, however, monogenes was derived from gennaō it might nevertheless be taken in reference to the incarnation since Christ was actually born of a woman, but that was not the beginning of his existence. Beyond this, it might also be taken as covenantal language in the same way as language of Christ as “firstborn” and “begotten” in Hebrews 1 should be taken, particularly given that in numerous cases gennaō is used figuratively, including in reference to the new “birth” of believers (John 3:3; 1 John 4:7; cf. Phlm 10).28 However, monogenes cannot consistently be understood as meaning Christ had a beginning to his existence, because this would contradict what Scripture teaches elsewhere, including in the book of John itself.
In this regard, it is significant that monogenes in reference to Christ appears only in Johannine writings (specifically, only in John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). Moreover, whereas other NT writings sometimes refer to believers as “sons” (huios) of God (e.g., Gal 3:26; Heb 12:5-7), the Johannine writings only refer to Jesus as the “Son” (huios) of God, referring to believers as “children” (teknon) of God (cf. John 1:12; 1 John 3:1), but never “sons” (huios) of God. This suggests that John had a particular burden to emphasize the uniqueness of Jesus’s sonship, using monogenes to emphasize that Jesus was the Son (huios) of God in an utterly unique sense.
In this regard, a strong case can be made that monogenes itself is a term of value—used to indicate one’s uniquely beloved (compare Gen 22:2 and Heb 11:17).29 There is a close association between monogenes and the term agapetos (“beloved”); both are used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew term yāḥîd (“only, unique”) and agapetos is also used to translate the very similar looking term yādîd (5 times), which means “beloved.”30 Indeed, it has been suggested that the “originally distinct meanings of yāḥîd (“only, unique”) and yādîd (“beloved”) became conflated” in the LXX.31 Accordingly, R.L. Roberts has argued that yāḥîd and monogenes are “used as hyperboles of affection” in the LXX and, as such, the best rendering of monogenes in John 3:16 is “only beloved.”32 If this is right, then references to Christ as monogones huios would mean something like “only beloved son” or “uniquely beloved son” or “one of a kind son.”
Although Jesus referred to himself as the Son of God, he is also called the “Son of David” (a Messianic title, e.g., Matt 9:27; 12:23; 21:9, 15; 22:14) and also even more frequently referred to himself as the “Son of Man” (e.g., Matt 8:28; 9:6; 12:32), which many scholars see as also a claim to divinity (cf. Daniel 7:13). Jesus himself made many other direct or indirect claims to divinity. He called “God His own Father,” which his opponents understood as “making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18; cf. Matt 14:33). He spoke of “His angels” (Matt 13:41) and “My kingdom” (John 18:36) and claimed “authority” to “forgive sins” (Mark 2:10)—the prerogative of God alone (Mark 2:7; Luke 5:20-21). Further, Jesus claimed, “all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father” (John 5:22-23) and “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) and “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).
Among the most striking of such statements is Christ’s declaration: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:58).33 This not only speaks of Christ existing before Abraham but is also understood as a reference to Yahweh speaking to Moses from the burning bush, saying “I am who I am” (Exod 3:14). Indeed, in Revelation 22:13, Christ declares himself to be “the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (cf. Isa 44:6) and Christ shares a throne with the Father and the throne is referred to as “the throne of God and of the Lamb” (Rev 22:1, 3).34 Not only did Christ have no beginning but his “kingdom will have no end” (Luke 1:33; cf. Dan 2:44; 7:14; Isa 9:7; Heb 1:8; Rev 11:15).
Scripture also teaches the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 5:3, Peter says, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit” and then in parallel in Acts 5:4, Peter adds, “You have not lied to men but to God.” The parallel indicates that the Holy Spirit is God (in the sense of an “is” of predication, see the discussion below).35 We’ve also already seen that the Holy Spirit shares a name with the Father and Son, in which Christ’s followers are to baptize (Matt 28:19). Further, Scripture attributes to the Holy Spirit uniquely divine attributes, referring to the Spirit as “the eternal Spirit” (Hebrews 9:14), indicating omniscience in saying that he “knows” and “searches all things, even the depths of God” (1 Cor 2:10-11), and indicating omnipresence in that, according to Christ, the Father gave Christ’s followers “another Helper, that He [the Holy Spirit] may be with you forever” (John 14:16; cf. Ps 139:7), even as they took the gospel message to the ends of the earth.
Moreover, the NT quotes words that were attributed to God in the OT and attributes them to the Holy Spirit. For instance, just prior to quoting what God says in Isaiah 6, Paul says, “The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers” (Acts 28:25). Likewise, Hebrews 3:7 introduces a quotation of divine speech from Psalm 95:7-11 by saying, “as the Holy Spirit says.” Notably, some of the words of God attributed to the Holy Spirit here are “your fathers tested and tried Me” and “saw what I did” (emphasis mine, cf. Exodus 16:7).
Based on the biblical data above (supported also by other data), I conclude that the four premises of the basic doctrine of the Trinity are indeed biblically warranted. Scripture expressly affirms: (1) God’s oneness, (2) God’s triunity, (3) the distinctness of the Father, Son, and Spirit, and (4) the full divinity of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Taken together, these affirmations amount to the basic doctrine of the Trinity: There is one and only one God and God is three distinct, (fully) divine, persons.
Yet, some have claimed that neither the Son nor the Spirit could be (fully) divine because Jesus refers to the Father as “the only true God” (John 17:3) and Paul writes that “there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist” (1 Cor 8:6a, NRSV; cf. Eph 4:6). However, in the very same verse Paul writes “and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (1 Cor 8:6b, NRSV; cf. Eph 4:5). As such, if Paul’s words “there is one God, the Father” entails that Jesus is not God, then Paul’s further words “and one Lord, Jesus Christ” would indicate that the Father is not Lord. However, many texts speak of the Father as Lord (e.g., Matt 11:25). Therefore, 1 Corinthians 8:6 cannot be consistently taken to mean that Jesus is Lord to the exclusion of the Father. Likewise, Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 8:6 should not be taken to mean that the Father is God to the exclusion of Jesus.
Further, to be consistent, the phrases “one God, the Father” and “the only true God” should not be understood as statements excluding the divinity of the Son and Spirit, for that would involve a contradiction with the data we have seen above that explicitly affirms the full divinity of the Son and Spirit. If one believes in the consistency of Scripture, as I do, then one should not read John 17:3 (or other texts) in a way that contradicts John 1:1-3. Faithfulness to the authority of Scripture requires that we affirm the interpretation that makes sense of all the biblical data without injury to any of it. In this context, the interpretation that does so is to read these phrases as affirmations of monotheism over and against false gods. Notably, if the Father, Son, and Spirit are ontologically united as one God (a conclusion that follows from the conjunction of the four claims discussed in the previous four sections), then speaking of the Father as the “only true God” does not exclude the Son and Spirit in the first place, since the Son and Spirit are one with the Father (cf. John 10:30; 14:9). Likewise, speaking of the Son as the “one Lord” would not exclude the Father from being “Lord” since the Father and Son are ontologically united.
In my view, the biblical data directly affirms each of the four claims of the basic doctrine of the Trinity. If this is true, then to be consistent with the view that the Bible does not contradict itself, the interpretation of other texts of the Bible must be consistent with these four claims. This brings us to the question of internal consistency or systematic coherence.
1 For this section, I rely in part on the four-point case I developed for my doctrine of God class and which I have briefly laid out elsewhere in other forms. See, e.g., John C. Peckham, The Doctrine of God: Introducing the Big Questions (New York: T&T Clark, 2019), 217-25.
2 This section will only attempt to lay out a brief survey of some biblical data that supports the basic doctrine of the Trinity. There is much more data to be considered and the biblical passages surveyed here each warrant further exegetical and theological study in their own contexts.
3 Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from the NASB.
4 As many scholars have noted, the Hebrew term echad does not require a strict, numerical unity (cf. the use of the term in Gen 2:24) and thus does not require a unitarian understanding of God.
5 Craig Blomberg writes: “The singular ‘name’ followed by the threefold reference to ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ suggests both unity and plurality in the Godhead. Here is the clearest Trinitarian ‘formula’ anywhere in the Gospels.” Matthew. NAC (Nashville: B&H, 2001), 432. Leon Morris comments, similarly: “We should notice that the word name is singular; Jesus does not say that his followers should baptize in the ‘names’ of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but in the ‘name’ of these three. It points to the fact that they are in some sense one.” The Gospel According to Matthew. Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 748. He notes, further: “That the early followers of Jesus thought of God as triune seems clear from the passages that speak of the three together (e.g., Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 12:4–6; 2 Cor. 13:14; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 4:4–6; 2 Thess. 2:13, etc.). That God is a Trinity is a scriptural idea.” Matthew, 748.
6 Gordon D. Fee comments, “one must note the clear Trinitarian implications in this set of sentences, the earliest of such texts in the NT.” The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 588.
7 For example, G.K. Beale comments, “the dragon, the sea beast, and the land beast form a competing trinity with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” The Book of Revelation. NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 729.
8 Roderick K. Durst, Reordering the Trinity: Six Movements of God in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2015), 68.
9 Durst, Reordering the Trinity, 66, emphasis original). Michael Horton adds: “The confession ‘one God in three persons’ arises naturally out of the triadic formulas in the New Testament in the context of baptism (Mt 28:19 and par.) and liturgical blessings and benedictions (Mt 28:19; Jn 1:18; 5:23; Ro 5:5-8; ICo 6:11; 8:6, 12:4-6; 2Co 13:13-14; Eph 4:4-6; 2Th 2:13; ITi 2:5, PB 1Pe 1:2.” Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 274-75.
10 It is crucial to recognize here that the Hebrew term translated angel (mala?k) has the basic meaning of “messenger” and does not necessarily refer to an angelic being. Throughout Scripture, the term mala?k can refer to a human messenger or a celestial messenger or even a theophanic messenger (as is the case in these passages).
11 John N. Oswalt comments: “Most commentators recognize that the understanding of the Holy Spirit here and in v. 11 is close to the fully developed NT concept of the third person of the Trinity. Here he is clearly a person who is capable of being hurt by human behavior, and in v. 11 he is the empowering and enabling presence in the human spirit.” Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah. NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 607.
12 J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 387. John N. Oswalt notes: “The genitive could be understood appositionally: ‘the angel, his face,’ or perhaps objectively: ‘the angel that is in the very presence of.’ In any case, this expression conveys the same sense that is found throughout the OT in most of the texts that discuss some visible representation of God. The angel is the Lord himself as visibly present (see Exod. 20:21–23; 33:2, 14–15; Num. 20:16; Josh. 5:13–15; Judg. 13:6, 21–22). Delitzsch makes a good case for this being an expression of the second person of the Trinity and points out such passages as Col. 1:15, which calls Christ “the image of the invisible God” (cf. also 2 Cor. 4:6; Heb. 1:3).” Oswalt, Isaiah, 607.
13 J. Ridderbos, Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Regency, 1985), 557.
14 The Holy Spirit is sometimes referenced as the “Spirit of God” (e.g., Eph 4:30) and elsewhere as the “Spirit of Jesus” (e.g., Acts 16:7), but such references do not indicate that the Spirit is the same person as the Father or Jesus. Interpreting these references this way would contradict the way the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinguished in Scripture. Rather, being one person of the Godhead, the Spirit is united with the Father and the Son and just as the Father is the Father of the Son (but not the same person) and the Son is the Son of the Father (but not the same person), the Spirit is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son (but the Spirit is not the Father or the Son).
15 W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann comment that the “emphasis on the Paraclete [Holy Spirit]” is “common in John,” being “clearly represented as being neither Father nor Son.” W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann, Matthew. Anchor Bible (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 362.
16 Leon Morris comments on the phrase, “the Word was God,” saying: “Nothing higher could be said: all that may be said about God may fitly be said about the Word.” The Gospel According to John. NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 68.
17 This rules out not only Arianism, but semi-Arianism, for if Christ did not come into being, he could not have been begotten at any point in time.
18 F.F. Bruce comments, in Christ “(truly man as he was) the plenitude of deity was embodied.” The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 100.
19 Here and elsewhere, I gloss the root of the corresponding Hebrew or Greek term rather than the inflected form so that readers can clearly see the instances in which the same root is used.
20 James D.G. Dunn comments on Colossians 1:16: “That ‘firstborn’ must denote primacy over creation, and not just within creation, is indicated by the conjunction linking the two verses: he is ‘firstborn of all creation because in him were created all things (τὰ πάντα).’” The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon. NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 90. F. F. Bruce adds, the phrase “he is ‘before all things’” is “a phrase which not only declares his temporal priority to the universe but also suggests his superiority over it (as the title ‘firstborn’ has already implied.” The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, 65.
21 Further, the reference to “firstborn” in the very next verse (Colossians 1:18) is qualified by the preceding verses so that “firstborn from the dead” is not talking about a literal birth but appears to refer to Christ’s conquest in the resurrection (note, that Christ was not literally the first to resurrect, either).
22 pro?totokos may refer to a literal “firstborn” child, but it is also used numerous times in Scripture as a technical term regarding one’s special status that in the OT was sometimes associated with one’s birthright and was later associated with the covenant promises, particularly those regarding the Davidic Messiah. pro?totokos appears in 9 verses in the NT, once of Jesus as Mary’s firstborn (Luke 2:7) and then in a quotation from the OT that every “firstborn” is to be holy to the LORD (Luke 2:23) in reference to Jesus’s dedication, five others times of Christ (Rom 8:29; Col 1:15, 18; Heb 1:6; Rev 1:5), once of the “firstborn” relative the passover in Egypt (Heb 11:28), and once of the “church of the firstborn [plural] who are enrolled in heaven” (Hebrews 12:23). Here, it is used figuratively of the redeemed, who are not all literally firstborn but are “firstborn” via their shared status in Christ by faith (cf. Rom 8:29).
23 P. Ellingsworth writes: “In the present verse, χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ [“exact representation of His nature”] reinforces ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης [“radiance of His glory”] in describing the essential unity and exact resemblance between God and his Son.” The Epistle to the Hebrews. NIGCT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 99.
24 Notice, 2 Samuel 7:14 is originally said of David, showing again the close connection to the Davidic covenant and promise of the Messiah. Further, “Ps. 2 itself is widely understood as a royal psalm (Gunkel-Begrich 140–171; A. A. Anderson 39f., 63f.; Schröger 35; Buchanan) associated with a coronation.” Ellingsworth, Hebrews, 111.
25 Put differently, Hebrews 1:2 already declared that God “made the world” through the Son. So, if the angels are already there when God “brings the firstborn into the world” and God “made the world” through the Son (cf. John 1:1-3), then the reference here cannot be to a beginning of the Son’s existence.
26 In this regard, some think that language of sonship requires that Christ be subordinate to the Father. However, while Christ does lower himself relative to his role in the plan of redemption (cf. Phil 2:5-11), the language of sonship by itself need not be taken to entail subordination. As shall be discussed later in this chapter, Christ’s Sonship in relation to the Father is unique—unlike that of any mere human. Moreover, even merely human sons are not always subordinate to their parents. See the further discussion later in this chapter.
27 The Gospel According to John. NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 93. As Morris puts it, representing the majority opinion on monogenes among NT scholars: “We should not read too much into ‘only begotten.’ To English ears this sounds like a metaphysical relationship, but the Greek term means no more than ‘only,’ ‘unique.’” The Gospel According to John. NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 93. See the discussion in Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008), 84-88. For his part, Harris concludes, “As far as the evidence of the NT is concerned, it may be safely said that μονογενής is concerned with familial relations, nor manner of birth. Neither the virgin birth of Jesus nor the ‘eternal generation’ of the Son is in John’s mind when he uses the adjective μονογενής.” Jesus as God, 86-87.
28 1 John 4:7 states that “everyone who loves is born (gennaō) of God and knows God.” Then, verse 9 states, “By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him” (cf. John 1:13-14). Likewise, in the very context of John 3:16, in John 3:3, Christ says “no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born [gennaō] again.” Elsewhere, Paul uses the verb gennaō figuratively of Onesimus, who was not actually his son, saying: “I appeal to you for my child Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my imprisonment” (Phlm 10). So, even if the correct translation of monogenes is with reference to gennaō, that would not by itself indicate that the reference is to some kind of literal, physical birth.
29 Genesis 22:2 translates the description of Isaac as Abraham’s yāḥîd as Abraham’s agapetos (“beloved”), but the reference to the Genesis 22 story in Hebrews 11:17 describes Isaac as Abraham’s monogenes. Further, although monogenes sometimes refer to one’s only child (cf. Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38), in Hebrews 11:17 monogenes is used to describe Abraham’s son Isaac, who was not Abraham’s only son, but was his uniquely valued and beloved son (cf. Gen 22:16). In the LXX, monogenes is sometimes even used of one’s own life (cf. Ps 34:17 LXX (35:17 ET). As such, in the LXX, the term monogenes does not necessarily refer to one’s only child, or offspring at all.
30 Whenever agapetos is used in the LXX to translate yāḥîd (6 times), it is always in reference to one’s offspring and thus connotes that which is uniquely treasured with the considerable emotional attachment that belongs to the parental bond of affection. yāḥîd itself is often translated in English as “only” and can be used of one’s only child (Judg 11:34; cf. Prov 4:3; Jer 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zech 12:10) but has the broader connotation of that which is uniquely valued and irreplaceable. yāḥîd is thus used of one’s own life (Ps 22:21; 25:16; 35:17) or the lonely (Ps 68:6) and in three instances refers to Abraham’s beloved son Isaac (Gen 22:2, 12, 16), who was uniquely cherished but was not Abraham’s only son.
31 Markus Barth, Ephesians 1–3 (AB 34; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974), 82. He goes on to say that this is “perhaps due to textual variants in the MSS” or “misreadings” or “idiomatic interpretation.” Barth, Ephesians 1–3, 82.
32 R.L. Roberts, “The Rendering ‘Only Begotten’ in John 3:16,” Restoration Quarterly 16 (1973): 15. Cf. Harris, Jesus as God, 85-86.
33 Leon Morris comments: “‘I am’ must here have the fullest significance it can bear. It is in the style of deity (see on vv. 24 and 28), ‘a reference to his eternal being’ (Haenchen).” Morris, John, 419.
34 Of Revelation 22:13, Beale writes: “The Apocalypse has already called God ‘the Alpha and the Omega’ (1:8; 21:6) and ‘the Beginning and the End’ (21:6), and Christ has been called ‘the First and the Last’ (1:17; 2:8). Now all these titles, which are used in the OT of God, are combined and applied to Christ to highlight his deity.” Revelation, 1138.
35 Ben Witherington III writes, Ananias “is guilty of lying not merely to human beings but to God in the person of the Spirit.” The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 216). He states, further, “It is worth noting that the Spirit here is treated as a person, one who can be lied to, not merely a power. Furthermore, the Spirit is equated with God, as a comparison of vv. 3 and 4 shows.” Witherington III, Acts, 216n80.