The doctrine of the Trinity attempts to describe how the one God is revealed as three distinct persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and yet is one substance. The language of Father and Son could be viewed as implying a hierarchy within the Trinity. In this paper I will outline the problems with this interpretation and the use of figurative language when describing the orthodox understanding of the Godhead. After briefly presenting the historical and theological background to the doctrine of the Trinity and describing three common heresies I will explain how the language used to describe God can be regarded are hierarchical, and briefly touch on the problems of using everyday human language to describe the transcendent Trinity.
The Trinity
A. Historical Background
The New Testament witness to how God acted through Jesus and the Holy Spirit revealed a new understanding about God. When the early church recognised the divinity of Jesus they needed a way to be able to accommodate this new revelation of God whilst remaining monotheistic. The problem was that if Jesus was God, did that mean that there were now two Gods? And how did the Holy Spirit fit in with their new understanding of God. The patristic writers believed Jesus to be of the same substance (homoousios) as God and not just similar substance (homoiousios).[1] Tertullian (c.160–c.225) was the first to use the word Trinity (Trinitas) and translated the Greek word hypostasis to the Latin persona, meaning person.[2] Tertullian argued that God was three persons but one substance (substantia). Arius (c.250–c.336) argued that Jesus was not fully divine, but rather a creation and therefore a different substance to the Father.[3] Athanasius (c.293–373) countered this argument by pointing to the fact that Christians worshipped Jesus. If Jesus were a creature and not fully God then they would have been guilty of idolatry.[4] The issue of Christ’s divinity was settled at the Council of Nicaea (325) and Arianism became viewed as heresy.[5] The Cappadocian fathers supported the divinity of the Spirit and this was formally agreed at the Council of Constantinople (381).[6] So by the end of the fourth century the coequality of Father, Son and Spirit had been agreed.[7]
B. Theological Background
Theological models were developed to provide a better understanding of the Trinity. In the Eastern church, emphasis was placed on the distinction between the three persons (hypostases), and unity was located in that the Father was the source both of the Son, the Word of God, and the Spirit, the breath of God.[8] The Son is begotten (gennesis) of the Father and the Spirit proceeds (ekporeusis) from the Father.[9] However, the Cappadocians maintained that neither the Son nor the Spirit were subordinate to the Father.[10] The relationship between the three persons is ontological, centred in who they are.[11] In the West, Augustine (354–430) viewed the persons in relational terms of mutual fellowship, with the Spirit as the bond of love that unites Father and Son.[12] The Western church later moved to a position where the Spirit proceeded from the Father and from the Son (filioque), which would lead to a division with the Eastern church.
C. Heresies
As the theological framework for the Trinity developed, views which came to be seen as inadequate were regarded as heresy. Here are three such ideas.
Modalism – the term was first used by German historian Adolf von Harnack (1851–1930) to describe Trinitarian controversies that suggested there were not three persons in God but rather three ways that God acted. Noetus and Praxeas in the second century and Sabellius in the third century were concerned about the unity of the Godhead. Fearing tritheism they argued that the one God revealed himself in different ways at different times.[13] Chronological modalism, as promoted by Sabellius, argued that God was Father at one point in history, then Son at a later time and finally God is Spirit. Functional modalism argues that God acts in different modes of actions at any given point in history.[14]
Tritheism – in this idea the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three equal but separate and independent beings. The concept of three persons is retained but they are no longer one substance.[15]
Subordination – this is when God the Father is viewed as superior to the Son or the Holy Spirit or more truly God than the other persons of the Trinity. It can lead to a hierarchical view of God. Arianism, where Jesus was considered less than fully God, is similar to subordination.[16] The idea of subordination will be explored further in the next section.
Hierarchy within the Trinity
A. Father-Son Language
There are a number of ways in which the language of Father and Son could be viewed as implying a hierarchy within the Trinity and I will provide two examples. Firstly, the Eastern Greek model of the Trinity’s emphasis on the monarchy of God the Father implies a hierarchy with Son and Spirit subordinate. Although, as has already been stated, the Cappadocians maintained this was not the case. They introduced the term perichoresis, which means mutual interpenetration, and describes the way that the three persons of the Trinity relate to each other in a mutual community of being.[17] The Western model in placing the Spirit as proceeding from the Father and the Son could be seen to suggest that the Spirit is subordinate.
Secondly, the Son and Spirit appear to be subordinate to the Father in the economic Trinity. The economic Trinity is a way of describing how God works in the world throughout salvation history, whereas the immanent or essential Trinity is a way to describe God’s eternal nature outside of history. [18] The economic Trinity described in the New Testament reveals that the Son and the Spirit are sent to do the Father’s work. In John’s Gospel, Jesus says, ‘the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise’ (Jn. 5:19). Jesus says that his authority has been given to him (Matt. 28:18). Roger Olson states that it is accepted ‘that the Son is subordinate to the Father in the economic Trinity.’[19] However not all scholars agree, and elsewhere in John it is clear that the Father acts through the Son and the Spirit. Jesus says that those who have seen him have seen the Father (Jn. 14:9). Irenaeus (c.130–c.200) gave the analogy of the Spirit and the Son as the hands of the Father working in history.[20] There is therefore evidence that the unity seen in the immanent Trinity can also be seen in the economic Trinity. The German theologian Karl Rahner (1904-1984) said ‘The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and vice versa.’[21] As has been seen, there is not universal agreement with this proposition.
B. Problems with hierarchical language
If a hierarchy within the Trinity is supposed then this has implications for the theology of the church. The revelation of God as Trinity provides a model for how humanity is to live in community, both in the church and in society. A model of the Trinity that implies a hierarchy would therefore also suggest a similarly arranged hierarchy in human communities. A model of God which stressed the Father’s monarchy over the Trinitarian unity and community could lead to excessively authoritarian and centralised expressions of government.[22] Jürgen Moltmann (1926–) argues against this reading of the Trinity in favour of emphasising the unity of God through the mutual communal relationship described by perichoresis.[23] Moltmann and others, who share a similar viewpoint, have developed the idea of social Trinitarianism in order to support the idea of the Trinity as an exempler of human social communtity.[24] It traces its roots to the Cappadocians and offers an alternative to hierarchical models of the Trinity.
The problem of language
The use of human language to describe a transcendent God has been considered problematic by many scholars. Is it even possible to explain the infinite reality of God in everyday words? Basil of Caesarea wrote that ‘the ineffable and unutterable [God] is to be honoured by silence.’[25] Augustine said that if you can get your mind around it, it cannot be God.[26] As soon as we begin to describe God in human terms a comparison is made to the everyday meaning of those terms. When God is called Father the idea of a human father, and all the associations with that word, is then projected onto God. Thomas Aquinas (c.1225–1274) questions whether words can be univocally predicated, that is to be given only one possible and unambiguous meaning, or whether the best that can be achieved is to acknowledge that words have analogical meaning.[27] He argues that a word applied to God and humans does not carry the same full meaning, so when a man is called wise it does not carry the fullness of meaning as when God is called wise.[28] Aquinas concludes, ‘Some things are said of God and creatures analogically, and not in a purely equivocal nor in a purely univocal sense.’[29]
Another problem with language is that the meaning of words also changes over time. What we understand by the words ‘person’ and ‘substance’ today carries different connotations to their original meaning. Person in everyday language relates to people and so separateness and individuality is suggested. Substance today suggests something solid and temporal rather than spirit or eternal. So the question is should we even try to use human language to describe transcendent ideas like the Trinity? Augustine acknowledges the deficiencies in human language but suggests it is better to say something rather than nothing. He writes, ‘When it is asked, “Three what?” human speech labours under great difficulty. Nevertheless, “Three persons” has been said, not in order to say just that, but to avoid saying nothing.’[30] Athanasius reminds us that God as the incarnate Son stooped down to our level in order to reveal himself to us.[31] God revealed himself to humanity as a man in order that humanity might better understand who God is. Therefore, despite the inadequacies of human language at describing the transcendent it is still worth attempting to use these forms in order to come to an understanding of God, albeit not necessarily a full understanding.
Conclusion
The language of Father and Son means that it is possible to imply that there is a hierarchy within the Trinity, although this is not what the patristic writers and early church councils intended to be the case. The problem arises due to the use of everyday human language in trying to describe a transcendent God. The revelation of God in the Trinity is as a community of three coequal persons who are of one substance. The language used to describe the Trinity should be used in a figurative way rather than literally. There are implications for the role of authority in the church that can be overstated should a hierarchical model of the Trinity be accepted. God has, however, chosen to reveal himself to humanity by stooping down to our level in order that we may understand. Therefore, despite the possibility of misunderstanding due to our inadequate language it is an open invitation from God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, one God in three persons, who wishes to engage with his creation.
Bibliography
Athanasius, Saint. On the Incarnation. Translated by Penelope Lawson. n.d.
Brümmer, Vincent. Atonement, Christology and the Trinity: Making Sense of Christian Doctrine. Aldershot; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2005.
Gunton, Colin E. The Christian Faith: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine. Oxford; Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002.
Gunton, Colin E., Stephen R. Holmes, and Murray A. Rae, eds. The Practice of Theology: A Reader. London: SCM Press, 2001.
Hall, Stuart G. Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church. London: SPCK, 2005.
Jenson, Robert W. Systematic Theology: Volume 1 The Triune God. Oxford; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997.
McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
—. Theology: The Basic Readings. Oxford; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008.
Olson, Roger E. Is there hierarchy in the Trinity? A series on a contemporary evangelical controversy. 8 December 2011. <http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/12/is-there-hierarchy-in-the-trinity-a-series-on-a-contemporary-evangelical-controversy/> (10 May 2015).
[1] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), , 235.
[2] McGrath, Christian Theology, 239.
[3] McGrath, Christian Theology, 142.
[4] McGrath, Christian Theology, 142.
[5] McGrath, Christian Theology, 15.
[6] McGrath, Christian Theology, 250.
[7] McGrath, Christian Theology, 240.
[8] McGrath, Christian Theology, 247.
[9] McGrath, Christian Theology, 247.
[10] McGrath, Christian Theology, 250.
[11] McGrath, Christian Theology, 240.
[12] McGrath, Christian Theology, 251.
[13] McGrath, Christian Theology, 244.
[14] McGrath, Christian Theology, 245.
[15] McGrath, Christian Theology, 246.
[16] McGrath, Christian Theology, 274.
[17] McGrath, Christian Theology, 241.
[18] Colin E. Gunton, The Christian Faith: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Oxford; Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002), 180.
[19] Roger E. Olson, Is there hierarchy in the Trinity? A series on a contemporary evangelical controversy.
[20] Gunton, Christian Faith, 181.
[21] Alister E. McGrath, Theology: The Basic Readings (Oxford; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008), 117.
[22] McGrath, Christian Theology, 258.
[23] McGrath, Christian Theology, 258.
[24] McGrath, Christian Theology, 258.
[25] Colin E. Gunton, Stephen R. Holmes and Murray A. Rae, eds., The Practice of Theology: A Reader (London: SCM Press, 2001), 286.
[26] McGrath, Christian Theology, 235.
[27] Gunton, Holmes and Rae, Practice of Theology, 292.
[28] Gunton, Holmes and Rae, Practice of Theology, 293.
[29] Gunton, Holmes and Rae, Practice of Theology, 293.
[30] Stuart G. Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church (London: SPCK, 2005), 201.
[31] Saint Athanasius, On the Incarnation (n.d.), 21.
Leave a Reply