Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity [1 ed.] 1443874779, 9781443874779

Citation preview

Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity

Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity: Some Hermeneutical Considerations By

Marius Nel

Foreword by Chris de Wet

Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity: Some Hermeneutical Considerations By Marius Nel This book first published 2023 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2023 by Marius Nel All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-7477-9 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-7477-9

TABLE OF CONTENTS Research Justification ............................................................................. ix Acknowledgements .................................................................................. xi Foreword ................................................................................................. xii By Way of Introduction ........................................................................... 1 Chapter 1 ................................................................................................... 5 Introduction: Why is the Trinity a Challenge to Pentecostals? Why Another Study on the Trinity? ................................................... 5 Reasons For Another Study ................................................................ 8 Logical Challenges of the Doctrine of the Trinity ............................. 9 Necessity of the Son’s suffering and death to appease the Father’s wrath ................................................................................................ 11 Pastoral concerns ............................................................................. 12 Prevalence of Conventional Trinitarian Views Among Classical Pentecostals ......................................................................................... 12 Another case study: Trinitarian theory and some South African Pentecostal students ......................................................................... 14 Trinity and Monotheism .................................................................... 16 Influence of Worldviews on the Doctrine of the Trinity ................. 20 Methodology ....................................................................................... 22 Conclusion........................................................................................... 26 Chapter 2 ................................................................................................. 28 The Bible and Trinity Introduction ........................................................................................ 28 The Old Testament and Trinity ........................................................ 29 Discussion of possible textual evidence........................................... 30 The development of Jewish monotheism ......................................... 31 “Wisdom,” “word,” and “spirit” ...................................................... 35 The name of Israel’s God................................................................. 40 Developments in the intertestamental period ................................... 41

vi

Table of Contents

The New Testament and Trinity ....................................................... 43 The New Testament and possible development of the doctrine of the Trinity? ............................................................................................ 43 Jesus and the Father ......................................................................... 46 Fatherhood of God ........................................................................... 53 Challenge of the Spirit in the Divinity ............................................. 54 Jesus and the angels ......................................................................... 56 Jesus’ relationship with the divine in a cosmic framework ............. 58 Relationship between Jesus and the divine in terms of his mission . 60 Jesus and the Spirit .......................................................................... 62 Conclusion........................................................................................... 64 Chapter 3 ................................................................................................. 66 A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church Introduction ........................................................................................ 66 Reasons why Jewish Christians started to worship Jesus despite their monotheistic religious culture? ........................................................ 69 The Differences of Opinion in the Early Church ............................ 71 Apologists: Father, Son, and Spirit are aspects of one person ......... 73 What later became the orthodox trinitarian view: three persons in one God .................................................................................................. 77 Modalism: three entities in one God ................................................ 79 Monarchianism: emphasis on Father’s sovereignty ......................... 80 Tertullian: three manifestations of a single power ........................... 81 Marcion of Sinope: Jesus as benevolent God vs. Old Testament demiurge .......................................................................................... 82 Arius: only the Father is unbegotten ................................................ 84 Subordinationism: hierarchy in God ................................................ 87 “Heresy” in the early church ............................................................ 89 Emperor Constantine’s resolution of the differences of opinion: Council of Nicaea ............................................................................ 91 Athanasius: the Son is “whole God” ................................................ 93 Conclusion: consensus of trinitarian doctrine? ................................ 94 Medieval Contributions ..................................................................... 99 Do East and West believe the same about the Divinity?................ 100 The filioque discourse that divided the church .............................. 106 The Contemporary Scene ................................................................ 108 Karl Barth ...................................................................................... 109 John Zizioulas ................................................................................ 116 Conclusion......................................................................................... 122

Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity: Some Hermeneutical Considerations

vii

Chapter 4 ............................................................................................... 124 Pentecostal Hermeneutics Introduction ...................................................................................... 124 Unarticulated Pentecostal Hermeneutics ....................................... 130 Articulated Pentecostal Hermeneutics ........................................... 144 Early Pentecostals’ Bible reading .................................................. 147 Pentecostalism as a religion of the Spirit? ..................................... 154 Consensus of contemporary articulated Pentecostal hermeneutics 156 Conclusion ..................................................................................... 161 Elements of Pentecostal Hermeneutics ........................................... 163 Authority of the Bible .................................................................... 165 Immediacy of the Bible.................................................................. 175 Conclusion ..................................................................................... 177 Bible Reading and Spirit.................................................................. 178 Subjectivity and the Community .................................................... 183 Shift in the early Church to become a religion of the Book ........... 192 Pentecostalism as a religion of the Book? ..................................... 197 Protection in biblical interpretation ............................................... 201 Valid Pentecostal exegetical skills ................................................. 202 Pentecostal Hermeneutics and Experience .................................... 208 Conclusion ..................................................................................... 209 Implications of an Articulated Pentecostal Hermeneutic for Trinitarian Theory ........................................................................... 211 Concluding Remarks ....................................................................... 212 Chapter 5 ............................................................................................... 215 God and Trinity Introduction ...................................................................................... 215 Distinction Between Divine Essence and Economy ....................... 217 Eternity of God .............................................................................. 220 Holiness of God ............................................................................. 227 Glory of God .................................................................................. 230 Concluding remarks ....................................................................... 232 Traditional Classical Pentecostal God-talk .................................... 236 Pentecostal Alternatives: Finished Work and Oneness Pentecostalism .................................................................................. 243 Some Contemporary God-Talk: Jesus Seminar ............................ 256 Implications of the Traditional Pentecostal View of the Trinity .. 261 God’s maleness? ............................................................................ 261 God as Communion ....................................................................... 267 God as Trinity and socio-political concerns .................................. 272

viii

Table of Contents

God in an Interfaith Context .......................................................... 273 Conclusion......................................................................................... 281 Chapter 6 ............................................................................................... 284 Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity Introduction ...................................................................................... 284 Incomprehensibility of the subject of God-talk ............................. 288 Alternative Ways of God-talk ......................................................... 290 First pillar: Human inability to comprehend God .......................... 298 Second pillar: Divine relationality ................................................. 307 Third pillar: Godhead exists, not of three persons but three entities or modes of being ............................................................................... 311 Comparison With the Views of Oneness Pentecostals .................. 323 Justification for the Incarnation and Death of Christ................... 328 Alternative Views and Pentecostal Spirituality ............................. 339 Ways of God-Talk among Early Christians: Distinction Between Supernatural Theism and Panentheism ......................................... 343 Trinity as Ethical Challenge ............................................................ 360 Trinity as a Challenge to Faith........................................................ 361 Pastoral Concerns ............................................................................ 363 Assessment and Conclusion ............................................................. 363 Bibliography.......................................................................................... 366

RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION This book is meant for academics in the fields of theology, especially Pentecostal and Neo-Pentecostal theology, and philosophy, especially philosophical theology; for pastors teaching fellow believers; and for Christian believers faced with the challenges that the church doctrine of the Trinity may pose. The book is written against the background of a nearly universal acceptance of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, accepted widely by Christians in the fourth century and explicated in the postConstantine creeds, that states a belief in God as one Being (monotheism) and three Beings, found in the Father, Son, and Spirit. It reflects on the logical problems posed by the doctrine and highlighted by philosophy for centuries and contemporary New Atheism recently. The trinitarian doctrine has the potential to test religious faith due to the logical challenges of combining the clear monotheist stance found in the biblical view of God with the accepted doctrine that defines the one God in terms of three persons. It proposes an attempt to reconsider the doctrine from an articulated (contra unarticulated) Pentecostal hermeneutical perspective, proposing that God’s monotheism should not be seen in terms of one God revealing the divine self to humans in different forms, which biblical authors perceived as personifications of God, in the Father, Son, and Spirit. In other words, it proposes that the church rethink the Trinity in terms of modalities instead of persons. The study is based on various resources, including qualitative research among Pentecostal theological students, a comparative literature study to ascertain the extent of historical and contemporary developments of the trinitarian doctrine and Pentecostal responses to it, exegesis of Scriptures to describe the different responses in biblical traditions to the issue, consideration of Pentecostal hermeneutics, and personal reflections about the doctrine. It aims to stimulate discourse among Pentecostal scholars, philosophers, and experts in related disciplines, along with pastors and believers. The book suggests strategies for redressing the current lack of responsible responses about the Trinity from an articulated Pentecostal hermeneutical perspective among Pentecostals. The author shares the Pentecostal theological premises that God reveals the divine self

x

Table of Contents

to human beings as God did in biblical times and that it is possible to explain in human terms God’s economy in personal encounters with God in the Bible and contemporary charismatic experiences. However, it is not possible to contain God’s essence in clear statements because of the incomprehensibility of eternity, holiness, and glory that define the divine essence. This book roots theological research and reflection about the doctrine from a specific hermeneutical perspective. The book will stimulate ongoing transdisciplinary research among theologians and philosophers. It will also encourage pastors and believers in God to engage with the existential realities of believing in God. The research outcomes are relevant to Pentecostal theology and philosophy. Marius Nel: Research Professor, Unit of Reformed Theology Faculty of Theology, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I acknowledge the contribution of my wife and soulmate for four decades to my academic work and pastoral ministry and the North-West University for creating the space and freedom for my academic work.

FOREWORD A study about the Trinity is inevitably an exploration into the depth and breadth of human social interactions. In some of the earliest Christian writings, long before a formal “doctrine” of the Trinity had been proposed, Christian authors imagined those in their perceived Godhead as being in conversation with one another. The author of Hebrews, quoting Psalm 40:6 (39:7 LXX), has Christ say to the Father: Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘See, I have come to do your will, O God’ (in the scroll of the book it is written of me).1

Early Christian authors attempted to bridge the ineffability of the divine nature by imagining what the Godhead may have uttered to Itself, or among Each Other. Here, the drama of incarnation and salvation is reflected in a script of appropriate acknowledgements and annunciations, negotiated by means of transforming scripture into voice, canon into conversation. This relational enterprise became part of early Christian exegesis and hermeneutics, and the way Christians thought about God influenced how they wrestled to make sense about themselves, their bodies, souls, and spirits, the world they lived in, and the people around them. A history about the Trinity is therefore inextricably part of writing a history about human self-reflection and social relationality. This is also the trajectory from which Marius Nel, in this book, makes his various propositions. It is not merely another study on the Trinity, but an invitation to discourse. While the focus is on Pentecostals and the doctrine of the Trinity, as the title suggests, the book showcases a hermeneutical dialogue between Pentecostals and various and diverse articulations of the 1

Heb. 10:5–7; NRSV.

Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity: Some Hermeneutical Considerations

xiii

Godhead. The keystone in the critical study of Christianity—be it historical, theological, sociological, and so on—is an acknowledgement of its diversity. Robyn Faith Walsh’s innovative and provocative study on the Synoptic Gospels has recently shown that conventional approaches to these writings, arguing that the authors represent spokespersons for a specific religious community “behind” the passage, are probably less a reflection of ancient realities and more a product of nineteenth-century German Romanticism. In this paradigm, Gospel writers were reconstructed like Romantic poets speaking on behalf of their Volk. Walsh argues that we should view such early Christian authors rather as elite cultural producers of discourse and practice, who may have functioned in a dynamic network of literate specialists—some of whom may not even have been professing Christians.2 This approach cautions us against what Willi Braun calls an “addiction” to Christian origins,3 and rather proposes that we analyze early Christian articulations of their thought, practice — and themselves — as discursive constructions that are relational yet self-reflexive. Walsh and Braun were concerned with redescribing approaches to early Christian origins. Whilst Nel takes a similar stance towards the reception of the concept of the Trinity and its Pentecostal hermeneutical negotiations, his book challenges its readers to lend an ear to other, often suppressed, voices and to reconsider what many believed their “spokespersons” said about God and human relations. While the reader will find a rich historiographical study of the Trinity in these pages, it more prominently represents what Michel Foucault termed a “history of the present.”4 In this sense, Nel writes a history with contemporary questions and crises of ordinary believers in mind — especially those of Pentecostals. Upon reading this book, one is challenged to rethink how notions of personhood, gender, volition, being, and indeed, God, might be perceived. In a world of 2

Robyn Faith Walsh, The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020). 3 Willi Braun, Jesus and Addiction to Origins: Towards an Anthropocentric Study of Religion, ed. Russell T. McCutcheon, NAASR Working Papers (Sheffield: Equinox, 2020). 4 Michael S. Roth, “Foucault’s ‘History of the Present,’” History and Theory 20.1 (1981): 32–46, https://doi.org/10.2307/2504643.

xiv

Foreword

social media, where one “person” may construct several Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook accounts, where there is a constant suspicion about “fake” persons or profiles, human cultures in the Fourth Industrial Revolution have already begun to rethink what is meant by personhood, modality, and being, especially their constructed-ness. For Pentecostal hermeneutics and theology, this book will hopefully function as a watershed in the discourse. The central question Nel asks Pentecostals—and any reader, in fact—to consider, is: should a traditional trinitarian structure always be the foundation for the way we think about God? Is this the only and the best way to conceptualize the divine? These are challenges the early Christian expositors of scripture and doctrine also faced. In fact, when Augustine started to write his monumental magisterial treatise, De Trinitate, he began not only by acknowledging the limits of reason and speech when speaking about the topic, but he actively opposed those who thought of God in inappropriate terms: “those who conceive of God in bodily terms, those who do so in terms of created spirit such as soul, and those who think of him neither as body nor as created spirit, but still have false ideas about him.”5 But how else are we able to think about God if not by relating Him to ourselves, our bodies and emotions, or the world in which we live? Augustine may have felt compelled to refute such approaches exactly because this seems to be the natural point of departure when it comes to human thought and speech about God. In the spirit of Eastern Christian thought, Nel invites Pentecostals, here, to start at a position of silence. In the second century this debate was already in progress. Despite their differences, so-called “Gnostic” Christian groups and Ignatius of Antioch were both thinking of God in terms of silence. Ignatius writes: “There is one God, who manifested himself through Jesus Christ, his Son, who is his Word, coming forth from silence, who in all things was pleasing to the one who sent him.”6 Ignatius may have even considered God to be Silence itself, from whence a Word, a Discourse, is

5

Augustine, De Trinitate 1.1.1; trans. John Rotelle, Saint Augustine: The Trinity (The Works of Saint Augustine 1.5; New York: New City, 1991), 150. 6 Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Fathers (New York: Paulist Press, 2012), 45.

Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity: Some Hermeneutical Considerations

xv

produced. The paradox, the tension, between God as Silence and God as Word is a constructive and relational tension, a creative dialectic that Nel allows us to consider and use when speaking about God. In sum, Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity is stimulus for Pentecostals to, for a moment, turn their ears away from traditional spokespersons in their Volk, and to become creative participants in a transformational yet highly diverse dialogue about God, being, and who we, as humans, are in relation to all this. It begins from a position of silence, an acknowledgement that anything said about God will always fall short, because God is incomprehensibly ineffable. The first appropriate reaction to an awareness of the divine can only be silence. God has spoken first through His Word and, thus, there is also a divine call to us to respond and reflect. Rather than following the now common “addiction” to divine ousia (or substance) when speaking about God and the Trinity, it is more prudent to begin with divine and human relationality. Relationality moves us to consider God in relation to ourselves and our world. Finally, following Karl Barth’s idea of divine “modes of being” rather than conventional obsessions with “persons” and “personhood”, this book opens up numerous possibilities for rethinking our experience of God not only as a Father, but as a Mother; not only as Lord, but as Lover; as a Creator that allows itself to be recreated in the human spiritual imagination, where God inevitably meets us. In a world of Twitter and TikTok, virtual reality and artificial intelligence, robotics and quantum mechanics, where “users” (whatever their substance) are often themselves in different modes of being, such a proposition might not be so alien as it once was. From a pastoral perspective, this approach brings us to a more inclusive pastoral and systematic theology, in which we acknowledge the diversity of human experiences to divine relationality. In this way, we may enter the conversation with God and each other as we are, acknowledging and celebrating our differences in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, age, ability, religious confession, sexual orientation, and all other points of how we substantiate (or not) our identities and relate to the divine. Prof. Dr. Chris L. de Wet Professor of New Testament and Early Christian Studies Department of Biblical and Ancient Studies College of Human Sciences

xvi

Foreword

University of South Africa, Pretoria Honorary Research Fellow: Australian Lutheran College, University of Divinity, Adelaide, Australia Corresponding Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities Pretoria August 2022

BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION I worship God in line with the paradigm established by the classical Pentecostal tradition and belong to a South African Pentecostal denomination. The most prominent reason I joined this tradition was that I experienced Spirit baptism more than five decades ago, in line with their expectations. I had the opportunity to study various theological subjects at diverse institutions, bringing those subjects in line with the Pentecostal paradigm. For the past decade, I focused on hermeneutics that attempts to explain what happens in the interpretation process of the Bible that distinguishes Pentecostal readers from others. A vital part of the academic enterprise is critically deconstructing traditional ways of thinking to gain further and other perspectives. I learned to ask questions that sometimes may appear awkward and embarrassing to others as a means to understand better. This study also asks questions, at times provocative ones that may stir up some controversy. The questions are deliberately provocative and may be disconcerting, inviting readers to think about a subject they may have accepted as evident. In some cases, the questions are defined in terms of published results of recent Jesus research that most Pentecostals do not accept, but that requires believers to defend their traditional views. However, it does not seek to provide final answers. Its subject matter prevents it from giving final answers. Instead, it asks questions about two separate but interrelated issues. The first is concerned with God and our views as believers of Jesus. Is Jesus divine? If Jesus is divine, what is his relationship with the Father? And where does the Spirit fit into this perspective of the divine? The second issue, related to the first, is why Jesus had to die on a cross. Was it an atonement for our sins? How is it possible that God would require one part of the divine to die to appease another part of the divine? Why did God not forgive humans their sins in the way that Jesus taught believers to forgive, like the lord of the enslaved person in Jesus’ parable of the unforgiving servant? The lord released the enslaved person and forgave him

2

By Way of Introduction

his debt out of pity for him. Jesus clearly intended the parable to reference the way the Father forgives (Matt 18:27). Third, and related to the prior issue, what is our relationship to God? How can our severed relationship be restored? To answer these questions, we traditionally use the Bible. Therefore, a prominent element in the following discussion is how Pentecostals read the Bible when they formulate their God-talk (or theology). This publication intends to propose that Pentecostal (and all other) believers should reconsider the traditional way they think about God. The Church established the “traditional” view in the fourth century CE. In the process, the Church chose between different perspectives. The Catholic Church, including both the Eastern or Greek and Western or Latin traditions, decided that a trinitarian view of one God existing in the three persons of the Father, Son, and Spirit was the best way to view God. However, the early Church differed in some of its perspectives from what the consensus of believers later decided was the orthodox way to view God. However, the Eastern Orthodox (Greek) Church’s views of God differ from that of the Western (Latin) Church. Ultimately, they defined their views differently because the angle they used to think about God differed. Therefore, the study looks at the Eastern Church’s God-talk and considers some of their perspectives worthy of further consideration. In attempting to provide tentative suggestions about alternative ways to view God, the study brings the different perspectives of the early and Eastern believers to the table. At the same time, we consider these perspectives, along with the church’s orthodox view, in the light of how Pentecostals read and interpret the Bible. Their hermeneutical angle differs from how Protestants, Reformed believers, and Roman Catholics interpret the Bible. Some of the Pentecostals’ hermeneutical perspectives connect, instead, with those which Eastern Orthodox believers utilize when interpreting the Bible. We do not use insights and comments only of mainstream scholars, like Karl Barth and John Zizioulas, but also of theologians that Pentecostals usually do not read, assuming they are “liberal” in their perspectives. On the

Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity: Some Hermeneutical Considerations

3

contrary, we read them purposefully to render a comprehensive perspective of views in order to think outside the box. Pentecostals may view some of their theological views as controversial. Still, they provide a viewpoint to look more objectively at the Pentecostal paradigm with a view to rethink the Pentecostal restorationist purpose and reconnect with the early Church’s views. The final challenge in thinking about God consists of the incomprehensibility of the divine essence and the human inability to say anything more about God than what God revealed to humans. God falls outside of our frame of reference - and even outside of the universe (which could be considered our final frame of reference). How can we dare to speak confidently about who and what God is if we, the creation of the divine mind, are limited to our reality and our attempts at defining our reality by way of words and concepts that can only describe, but not contain, reality? Readers can then consider their own views in light of the views of others. Our purpose is to assist contemporary Pentecostals in revisiting, rethinking, and reworking their perspectives about God. Perhaps it will assist you in grounding your belief in the traditional way of the fourth-century Church more tangibly and solidly. It may cause minor changes in how you view God. and may lead to a deepening of your worship of the God who revealed the divine self in Jesus and the Spirit. For more than three decades, I was responsible for teaching the subject of Church history at the theological college of the Church to which I belong, the Auckland Park Theological Seminary in Johannesburg, South Africa. The first-year module concerned with the teachings of the early church referred to the doctrine of the Trinity. I always introduced the subject with the statement that this doctrine presents the solution of the early church to cover their embarrassment because they could not find the words to describe the divine self-revelation. Where does Jesus fit into the concept of one God? And the Spirit? To enable them to say anything, the Church invented a noword to describe a no-go subject (Subject), because to talk about God is to stammer.

By Way of Introduction

4 tri.unity a face from three sides man, god, spirit

three voices and costumes and masks one actor all questions explanations for hiding embarrassment to say what is not visible because god-talk is, by definition, stuttering

Lastly, thanks to Prof. Chris de Wet, Associate Professor of New Testament and Early Christian Studies at the University of South Africa, for writing a generous foreword, and to Dr. Amos Yong, a Malaysian American Pentecostal theologian and dean of the School of Theology and Intercultural Studies at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, California, for the kind invitation to do research at the David Alan Hubbard Library at Fuller Theological Seminary for three months to complete this project. Thanks also to Ms. Hester Lombard, librarian at the Theological Library at North-West University in Potchefstroom, South Africa, for her assistance in acquiring resources. She is the most excellent and helpful librarian I have ever met!

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: WHY IS THE TRINITY A CHALLENGE TO PENTECOSTALS? Why Another Study on the Trinity? Most Christians accept the widely held traditional trinitarian view of God as a Trinity, so how can another study on the subject be justified? First, this study focuses on Pentecostals’ mostly uncritical perspective of the Trinity, implying that they actually practice faith in a trinity of Gods, rather than one God existing as a Trinity. The study is born from observations of the liturgical practices, prayers, and testimonies of classical Pentecostals that amount to their worship of three Persons in the Divinity. Some of their songs and prayers they direct to the different Persons in the Trinity. They distinguish between them in such a distinct way that it becomes clear that they clearly differentiate between the Persons. This study intends to serve as a kind of devil’s advocate, attempting to ask questions related to such practices. It does not try to break down believers’ faith in God, but rather to show the implications of a skewed perspective on the Trinity that leads to tritheism and nullifies the Bible’s explicit monotheism. When one listens to believers talking about and with God, one gets the idea that their distinction between the three Persons can be attributed to their serving of three different Gods. In the light of the primary confession in the Bible about God that emphasizes the unity of the God who revealed the divine self to Israel and in the incarnation of Christ, such believers should reconsider their God-talk.

6

Chapter 1

The early church was not unanimous in its view of the identity of Jesus, the man that represented the self-revelation of Israel’s God to some disciples.7 This diversity of perspectives ranged from the early majority view among Jewish Christians that the emphasis on monotheism implies that Jesus was standing in a unique relationship with God in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets. But he was not identical to God. Most of them probably accepted the God who revealed the divine self in Jesus, affirming that he was the expected Messiah. However, their expectations of what the Messiah should be initially did not live up to what Jesus was demonstrating with his ministry, message, and death. As Jews, they kept on distinguishing the Messiah from the Highest God. Christians from other nations than the Jews evaluated Jesus based on their own religious and philosophical concepts. Some of them accepted that Jesus was like God or that Jesus uniquely represented God. However, it was difficult to explain how Jesus could have acquired salvation through the cross by atoning for human sinfulness; some Christians saw such reconciliation as an implication of Jesus’ death. For that reason, they explained Jesus in terms that identified him with God. Most Christians accept the traditional trinitarian view. However, it requires that they realize that the early church only defined this as the majority view in the fourth century CE due to the consultations called by Emperor Constantine to address the differences of opinion about Jesus’ identity. Today, for the first time, it has become possible to begin to understand the differences of opinion that characterized the first three centuries of the Church’s existence. This is due to discovering more documents that represent these views, especially in the Nag Hammadi library, because the 7

Researchers at the Westar Institute argue that the term “disciple” is an ecclesiastical translation of the Greek word. As a result, the term has associations that places it out of the ordinary. The early disciples thought of Jesus as their teacher and they identified themselves as “students.” Instead, the Institute suggests that the primary translation for the Greek term is “student.” In contemporary use, “disciple” does not necessarily imply “student” bur instead someone following a master. For that reason, the researchers choose to use “student” (Erin Vearncombe, Brandon Scott and Hal Taussig, After Jesus Before Christianity: A Historical Exploration of the First Two Centuries of Jesus Movements, The Westar Christianity Seminar [New York: HarperCollins, 2021], 36).

Introduction: Why is the Trinity a Challenge to Pentecostals?

7

fourth-century church successfully and effectively silenced any alternative views by persecuting their adherents and destroying their documents. These historical developments imply that the Church should at least note and reconsider these alternatives. We should also question what they suggest for the uncritical and unqualified acceptance of the traditional view. This study attempts to present these alternatives as far as is possible, followed by a description of an articulated Pentecostal hermeneutic as a means to revisit and reconsider the traditional view. Finally, the hermeneutic is applied to this task in the last two chapters, which discuss the various alternative perspectives that can supplement the way Pentecostals view God. Steven Studebaker asserts that many Pentecostals are confessional but not functional trinitarians, implying the uncritical way they think (or do not think!) about the trinitarian grounding of their God-talk.8 They profess belief in the Trinity, but this is of little further consequence. It implies that Pentecostal scholars adopted the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed’s primary content without considering their hermeneutical emphasis on Christocentrism, based on their pneumatology. They had not contributed in any essential way to trinitarian theology until the work of Amos Yong, Frank Macchia, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Kilian McDonnell, and Steven M. Studebaker.9 While most Christian believers accept that the God who revealed the divine self to human beings exists in a trinitarian way, they do so mostly without realizing or considering the analytical challenges this assertion implies. This book rethinks the trinitarian doctrine in an articulated, Pentecostal, hermeneutical way. Given the improbability of defining biblical monotheism in terms of a Trinity of persons, it asks whether Pentecostals should consider not thinking about God as three “persons.”

8

Steven M. Studebaker, “Trinitarian Theology: The Spirit and the Fellowship of the Triune God,” in The Routledge Handbook of Pentecostal Theology, edited by Wolfgang Vondey, Routledge Handbooks in Theology (Oxfordshire: Taylor and Francis, 2020), 185-194 (185). 9 Studebaker, “Trinitarian Theology,” 185.

8

Chapter 1

In other words, the research aims to revisit and rethink the original and traditional doctrine of the Trinity, developed in the Church in different shapes through the centuries. The purpose is not to undermine believers’ assertion that God exists as a Trinity of persons, but to challenge them to consider and question the statement from various perspectives, including theological, philosophical, and sociological views. These questions are then brought into relation with the Pentecostal hermeneutical process of interpreting the Bible. Therefore, the doctrine is visited in chapter 2 in terms of a short discussion of biblical authors’ views of God’s economy and essence and discusses various aspects referring to God found in the Old and New Testaments. Only then can the opinions of the Church be briefly reviewed to sketch an idea of the diversity of Jewish and Christian responses to God-talk that developed through the ages (chapter 3). Next, chapter 4 asks whether classical Pentecostalism demonstrates a distinctive way of reading the Bible when compared to other traditions. It will become clear that they do not share a common hermeneutical perspective for historical and doctrinal reasons. In broad terms, it is possible (and necessary) to distinguish between an unarticulated hermeneutic, followed by the majority of Pentecostals, and an articulated hermeneutic, developed in scholarly circles. The next two chapters (5-6) investigate and describe alternative methods of God-talk. However, these attempts at Godtalk are qualified as limited and temporary because the subject matter is indefinable and uncontainable in terms of human words.

Reasons for Another Study The two main reasons for the present study are centered around philosophical and pastoral concerns. First, both academic and popular philosophy have been asking important questions about the logical consistency of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, influencing how contemporary Western people view the Church and its task in the world. The traditional trinitarian doctrine confronts one

Introduction: Why is the Trinity a Challenge to Pentecostals?

9

with logical challenges, forcing thinking people to face its ostensible inconsistencies. To think logically implies that one accepts that there are certain premises, foundational ideas, or assumptions that have inevitable consequences if they are true. For example, how rational and logical is the doctrine of the Trinity that states that one can be equated to three when it concerns the Divinity? Augustine’s classic formulation in his dissertation about the Trinity states that “…the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God; the Father is good, the Son is good, the Holy Spirit is good; and the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent; but yet there are not three gods, not three goods, not three omnipotents, but one God, one good, and one omnipotent, the Trinity itself.”10 Logically, how can one be three? In contrast, Judaism and Islam have considered the idea of three persons within one Divinity repulsive and illogical; hence, they reject Christian claims of trinitarianism.11

Logical Challenges of the Doctrine of the Trinity Many thinking persons find the traditional doctrine a mathematical absurdity. It is impossible to state that one can be three and three can be one in logical terms. One such argument is found in David Bernard’s book. He argues that a triadic account that identifies the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as holding all the properties of God implies that the Father, F (PI…N), the Son, J (PI…N), and the Holy Spirit, S (PI…N), hold a common set of properties. It identifies each as God. Algebra, or Leibniz, dictates that if F, J, and S have a common set of properties, by the law of the identity of the indiscernible [(x)(y)[(y=x) > (D)(Dx=Dy)], it follows that F, J, and S are identical and simply the same.12 However, since the Father, Son, and Spirit share a common set of God properties, and yet each holds a collection of 10

Augustine, On the Trinity, 8: Preface, 4. In the translation of Stephen McKenna, Augustine: On the Trinity, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy, edited by Gareth B. Matthews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). 11 M. John Farrelly, The Trinity: Rediscovering the Central Christian Mystery (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005), 2. 12 David Bernard, The Oneness of God. Series in Pentecostal Theology, vol. 1 (Hazelwood, MI: Word Aflame, 1983).

10

Chapter 1

properties distinct from the other, the analytical challenges increase. Now F ((PI…N)+)XI…N)) & J ((PI…N)+)YI…N)) & S ((PI…N)+)ZI…N)) implies that F, J, and S hold all the divine properties, but each one also holds some properties possessed by none other. The Father is God, the Son is God, and Spirit is God; there are not three Gods, but only one God! To explain that in grammatical terms is to assert that the “one” in Deuteronomy 6:4 and the “one” in John 10:30 are not identical in terms of identity - that is, they are not the same. Instead, the same word is used for the “one-ness” in Genesis 2:24, stating that Adam and Eve shared “one” flesh. However, Adam and Eve are not identical; at the same time, their closeness is so perfect that the passage describes them as sharing one flesh. According to David Myer, in the same way Adam and Eve were two different persons but shared one flesh, God consists of three persons but is one God.13 It is clear why the philosopher Richard Cartwright concluded that the doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent, incomprehensible, and contradictory, leaving only modalism and tritheism as potential solutions.14 The logic of the identity of indiscernibles explains that modalism requires that there be exactly and only one God. In contrast, tritheism requires an indefinite article before each person designated as “God,” concluding that there are three Gods.

13 David O. Myer, “Teaching the Trinity,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 67, no. 3-4 (July/October 2003), 288-94 (89). 14 Richard Cartwright, “Philosophical Essays, 17,” available at http: www.kmgsleymc. com/Clark/lists/Eyrmg/Notes/Trinity.html; accessed 2021-01-20. Cartwright states that “The Father is God,” “The Son is God,” and “The Spirit is…God.” At the same time, he explains that “The Father is not the Son,” “The Father is not the Holy Spirit,” and “The Son is not the Father.” How can there then be one God? At the same time, he states that the Father is neither made, nor created, nor begotten; the Son is from the Father alone, neither made nor created, but begotten; and the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son, neither made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. He also adds what the Father is, such is the Son and such the Holy Spirit.

Introduction: Why is the Trinity a Challenge to Pentecostals?

11

That seems to be why The New Catholic Encyclopedia answers the question, “how does one preach the Trinity?” with, “one does not preach it at all!”15 It accords with the sentiments and practice of many present-day Christian believers for whom trinitarianism poses no challenge. They simply ignore it, and it has little or no effect on their religious lives or beliefs. They do not try to defend the doctrine intellectually because of its incoherence or incomprehensibility. At the same time, they do not actively disbelieve it; they simply ignore it.16

Necessity of the Son’s suffering and death to appease the Father’s wrath Another question challenged my rational abilities for many years. Why did God send someone (a “person” presupposes that it is “someone”) who, as an inherent part of the divine self, needed to appease divine wrath about the occurrence of human sin by sacrificing the life of that innocent person, who is God? How can God pay the price for sins required by the Divinity by offering the divine self, represented in the Son of God? Do you see the logical challenge this holds? Frank Macchia attempts to explain the logic of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity in this way. He says only God can save. The Father saves; the Son, Jesus Christ, saves; and the Holy Spirit saves. He concludes: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God.17 Few believers would refuse to accept that God (alone) can save human beings from the effects of their decision to lead a sinful life, which separates them from God. They would also agree that the Son saves. However, is it logical to assert that “Father” and “Son”

15

Thomas Carson, “Trinity,” in The New Catholic Encyclopedia, edited by Thomas Carson, 2nd ed., 299-300 (Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Research Inc., 2002). See also discussion in David P. Meyer, “Teaching the Trinity.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 67, no. 3 (2003), 288-94. 16 Farrelly, The Trinity, 2. 17 Frank D. Macchia, The Trinity, Practically Speaking (Westmont, IL: IVP Books, 2012), 5.

12

Chapter 1

refer to human language that describes them as “persons” while these terms are utilized to refer to a mystery contained in the Divinity?18

Pastoral Concerns Pentecostals exposed to a scientific way of thinking based on logical principles experience difficulties reconciling some of their beliefs with what they understand of reality and the logical consistency required of thought about facts, forming the second reason for the study. Many Pentecostals get confused when confronted with such an analysis of the logical consistency of the conventional doctrinal view. For example, how can one reconcile faith in divine self-revelation with, on the one hand, the biblical revelation of divine monotheism and, on the other hand, clear, logical rules about analytical thinking when attempting to understand the Trinity of three “Persons”?

Prevalence of Conventional Trinitarian Views Among Classical Pentecostals How many classical Pentecostals hold the traditional trinitarian view? Research completed by others shows that most of them subscribe to this view. Through insightful empirical research done in Birmingham, England from 2003 to 2005, Mark J. Cartledge attempts to categorize different theological models of the principle and tested adherence to these models among respondents of several theological institutions in the United Kingdom.19 He intentionally focused his research on students informed about the doctrine of the Trinity at the graduate level. The study represented 16.2 percent of such students. They represented four primary theological contexts for theological training for the ministry, including the ecumenicity 18

The “Spirit” is left out for the moment because the biblical term “spirit” refers to various phenomena, among which the wind, breath, the life force, or living essence in human beings, and the life force contained in God. In time, it will be argued that the name God revealed to Israel as the divine designation, YHWH, refers to God as the life force per se. 19 Mark J. Cartledge, “Empirical-Theological Models of the Trinity: Exploring the Beliefs of Theology Students in the United Kingdom,” Journal of Empirical Theology 19, no. 2 (2006), 137-162.

Introduction: Why is the Trinity a Challenge to Pentecostals?

13

of the Church of England, Methodist, Roman Catholic, and United Reformed churches; the Evangelical interdenominational and denominational context; the Pentecostal context; and two denominational colleges training ministers. Of the sample, 60.2 percent were men, and 39.8 percent were women. Cartledge did empirical work among core members (house group members) of Pentecostal and charismatic Churches, as well as mainline Free Churches classified as charismatic in other research.20 The results of the two studies are, in broad terms, the same. Of participating respondents, 37.9 percent were male, and 61.0 percent were female. The results provide interesting data. The majority of the respondents preferred to think about God in terms of three persons (62.2 percent) rather than one being (27.3 percent) and the persons of the Godhead as equal (87.5 percent) as opposed to unequal (3.5 percent). They viewed the Divinity as a community (53.1 percent) as opposed to a hierarchy (20.4 percent), as different (61.8 percent) as opposed to identical (18.0 percent), and as eternal (83.9 percent) as opposed to historical (0.8 percent). In addressing the Divinity in worship, prayer, adoration, thanks, and fellowship, the majority preferred to call on the Father in worship (39.5 percent), prayer (50.6 percent), and thanks (43.4 percent). They addressed Jesus Christ in worship (32.9 percent), prayer (25.9 percent), and gratitude (30.0 percent). They mostly ignored the Spirit as the one addressed in worship (0.9 percent), prayer (1.1 percent), and thanks (0.9 percent). In adoration, however, the picture changed dramatically; they preferred adoring Jesus (40.8 percent) as opposed to the Father (30.3 percent) and the Spirit (1.6 percent). Similarly, they preferred having fellowship with Jesus Christ (33.2 percent), to having it with the Father (23.5 percent), and the Spirit (15.5 percent).21 Cartledge concludes, among other things, that most Pentecostals subscribe to the traditional view of the Trinity, a belief with which he agrees. He also finds in his empirical research that it is possible to identify five empiricaltheological models of the Trinity. Only one represents an Orthodox20

Mark J. Cartledge, “Trinitarian Theology and Spirituality: An Empirical Study of Charismatic Christians,” Journal of Empirical Theology 17, no.1 (2004), 76-84. 21 Cartledge, “Trinitarian Theology and Spirituality,” 81.

14

Chapter 1

exclusivist stance and deserves to be called a proper Trinitarian model, although the Pneumatic-social model comes very close. At the same time, the Orthodox-exclusivist model is the dominant model throughout the sample, with a Modalist model following it and the Subordinationist and Transgender model in the third position. Students from Pentecostal and Evangelical educational contexts tended to prefer the dominant model, while students from the ecumenical context liked the Transgender model. Finally, the Adventist theological context picked the Modalist model par excellence.22

Another case study: Trinitarian theory and some South African Pentecostal students To find out how the trinitarian theory functions among Pentecostal theological students, I completed a quantitative case study in April 2022. It consisted of a short questionnaire addressed to 68 Pentecostal students registered in graduate (BTh and BTh Hons) studies at North-West University in South Africa at its three campuses: the Vaaldriehoek, Potchefstroom, and Mafikeng. Fifty-four of the students responded to the questionnaire (79 percent). Twenty-one (31 percent) students are not South African citizens, but come from different Southern African countries. The four questions addressed to the students were: firstly, how do you think about God as a Trinity? What does it mean? Next, what do you think the Old Testament teaches about God as a Trinity? And thirdly, what does the New Testament teach? Lastly, what do you think it implies to state that God consists of three persons? As a rule, the students’ responses were informed and well formulated. To the first question, most students responded that God as a Trinity implies that God is one while simultaneously consisting of three persons. One of the students provided an example: the supremacy of heavenly rule functions the same way as the monarchy in the United Kingdom, which consists of one unit and several preeminent rulers. It is not clear what the student meant by such rulers. Some respondents explained the Trinity in different ways. One 22

Cartledge, “Empirical-Theological Models of the Trinity,” 157.

Introduction: Why is the Trinity a Challenge to Pentecostals?

15

student describes its implication that God is a relational God consisting of three persons. Another replied along the same lines: that the three persons share, honor and love one another perfectly and sufficiently, although they have one character. Another replied that it refers to one God with different members distinguished by their various functions. Another added that it relates to the distinctive functions and personalities of the three persons combined in one God. To the following question related to the teaching of the Old Testament about the Trinity, the passage most of the students referred to comes from Genesis 1, stating that God refers to the Divinity with “we, us.” One student adds Genesis 3:22 (“like one of us”) to the list for the same reason. Two of the students argue that the Son features in the book of Daniel as the son of man, while one of them adds that the Son also figures in the book of Job, although it is unclear to what passage it refers. Another refers to Psalm 51:11-12, which explicitly refers to God’s Spirit (obviously, there are many more such passages in the Old Testament). Finally, one student emphasized that the Ten Commandments explicitly state that God is one and that believers should not worship any other god apart from Israel’s one God. Most of the answers to the question of what the New Testament teaches were unanimous. The Trinity underlies the incarnation of Jesus, the divine salvation plan, and that Jesus poured out his Spirit upon the Church consisting of believers. References primarily referred to the Gospel of John, although a few also referred to incidents in the book of Acts. For example, one student contrasted the unity of God at the hand of James 2:19 (a letter betraying clear Jewish monotheist sentiments) and the Trinity at the hand of 1 John 5:7. To the last, there was unanimity in the response that it refers to God as Father, Son, and Spirit, three persons in one Godhead. One student stated that it means that each person of the Trinity has a unique and distinct role: the Father as eternal God, creator of the heavens and the Earth; Jesus as Redeemer; and the Spirit as Advocate or Comforter, living in believers. Another student concurred by explaining that each of the three persons has their own “role” in the divine plan. With the Father and Son in heaven and the Spirit leading believers, one triune God completes divine work to ensure

16

Chapter 1

the cleansing and purification of God’s children. The student added that it also demonstrates that the love of God is seen in the divine relational nature. The last student remarked that it shows believers that even though they exist as body, soul, and mind, they are one, and all elements that form them work cohesively. In general, the students’ responses sounded like the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, without any further critical thinking or questioning of the theory.

Trinity and Monotheism Gilles Emery argues correctly that the doctrine of the Trinity is not one topic of reflection among others; rather, it constitutes the heart of the Christian faith. After all, religion centers on God. He refers to Pope Leo XIII, who called in his encyclical on the Holy Spirit, Divinum Illud Munus (1897), the mystery of the Holy Trinity “the substance of the New Testament.”23 The most crucial element of theology is the doctrine of God that determines all the other aspects of theological consideration. Traditionally, the Christian Church interprets God in terms of the doctrine of the Trinity – that is, as three persons in one God. Emory Lease argues that the number “three” played a vital role in the thinking of ancient people. It was a mysterious, mystical, magical, and spiritual number among many surrounding nations.24 For instance, the author shows how the number influenced Vergil. At the start of his first book on Caesar, Vergil says that “thrice were the lots consulted,” and that Aeneas ruled for three years, Ascanius thirty, and the Alban kings three hundred, all significant numbers with a significant total, 333.25 The number “three” was used in a threefold sense: for an intrinsic value; in symbolic, mystic, and esoteric way, used in ritualistic ceremonial observances and charms; and for an indeterminate number of times, even in the sense of “many.” Looking at the Bible, Emery also refers to the first creation 23 Gilles Emery, The Trinity: An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001), 1. 24 Emory B. Lease, “The Number Three, Mysterious, Mystic, Magic,” Classical Philology 14, no. 1 (Jan. 1919), 56-73. https://www.jstor.org/stable/263620 25 Lease. “The Number Three, Mysterious, Mystic, Magic,” 58.

Introduction: Why is the Trinity a Challenge to Pentecostals?

17

narrative (Gen 1:1-2:4a) with its reference to a triad of lights in the sun, moon, and stars; to Noah with his three sons and sacrificing a heifer of three days old, a she-goat of three days old, and a ram of three days old. Solomon’s temple had three distinct parts, like Greek and other temples from the early period. Daniel prayed “three times a day” (Dan 6:10), and Paul explains in 2 Corinthians 12:8 that he prayed three times that God would remove his thorn in the flesh.26 The research concludes by conjecturing that the use of “three” is due to three principal causes: ancient primitive conceptions shared between many cultures; the philosophical speculations of Pythagoras, Aristotle, and their followers; and, in its later development, the concept of the Holy Trinity.27 However, ancient Jews implicitly accepted the Jewish notion of their divine being existing as only one God, illustrated by numerous references to oneness in the Old Testament. The most important passage is undoubtedly the Shema, an essential element of Jews’ daily confession found in Deuteronomy 6:4, which states explicitly, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.” The passage is repeated in Jesus’ answer to the scribe who asked Jesus, “Which commandment is the first of all?” (Mark 12:28). Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one’” (Mark 12:29). Nevertheless, Christians seemingly do not consider the complexity of the logical implications of their assertion that divine oneness consists in three-ness. It is submitted that New Testament believers from surrounding nations who attempted to understand who Jesus was and described him as divine were moving outside the bounds of the expressed monotheism found in the Old Testament. Eventually, they predicated a divine nature to Jesus by interpreting him in terms of Hellenistic culture and its philosophical ideas about the existence of the divine. In contrast, most scholars accept that early Jews, the first Christian believers, interpreted Jesus in tune with the monotheistic language of the Old Testament. They did not view him as divine. YHWH was the only true

26 27

Lease. “The Number Three, Mysterious, Mystic, Magic,” 66. Lease. “The Number Three, Mysterious, Mystic, Magic,” 73.

18

Chapter 1

God for them, and Jesus could never have been more than a representative or prophet of God. “The oneness of God ruled out speaking of multiple persons in the Godhead.”28 Velli-Matti Kärkkäinen, a Finnish Professor of Systematic Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, ordained Lutheran minister and acknowledged as an expert on Pentecostal-charismatic theologies, refers to the publication of two Roman Catholic missiologists, Stephan Bevans and Roger Schroeder. They demonstrate the need for Christian theology to continue negotiating the constant features of core Christian doctrines.29 Kärkkäinen then also emphasizes the necessity to revisit the doctrine of the Trinity in the changed and ever-changing diverse contexts that contemporary people find so perplexing. He admits that some accommodations to cultural challenges were not always equally successful in the past.30 This publication is born from the same observation. Today, the trinitarian doctrine has become one of the motivating factors for the revitalization of atheism in the context of New Atheism, epitomized by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. These four men met on 30 September 2007 at Hitchens’ residence in Washington, DC, for a private unmoderated discussion that was videotaped and released as “The Four Horsemen.” They deliberately chose the term to associate themselves with the four equestrians referred to in the Apocalypse ascribed to John (Rev 6; cp. also Zech 1:7-17). However, now they referred to themselves as the “Four Horsemen of the Non-Apocalypse.” Their responses were triggered by the attacks on several American targets on 11 September 2001 by Muslim fundamentalists. In their response, they addressed the fundamentalist tendencies found in most world religions. For example, Richard Dawkins, in his influential book The God Delusion, refers to the Arian controversy in the fourth century CE that split the Church 28 Ben Witherington III and Laura M. Ice, The Shadow of the Almighty: Father, Son, and Spirit in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 67–68. 29 Stephen B. Bevans and Roger P. Schroeder, Constants in Context: A Theology of Mission for Today (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2004) 30 Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, The Trinity: Global Perspectives, 1st ed. (Louisville, KY; Westminster John Knox, 2007), 257.

Introduction: Why is the Trinity a Challenge to Pentecostals?

19

in two and forced Emperor Constantine to order the banning of all of Arius’ books.31 Arius was not willing to accept the consubstantiality of Jesus with God. He did not deny the existence of Jesus and his influence in establishing a Church of believers, but he was unwilling to accept that Jesus was of the same substance or essence as God. He relates the words of the Athanasian or Pseudo-Athanasian Creed, also referred to as Quicun(m) que Vult, the Latin words for the opening of the creed, “Whoever wishes.”32 Christians have used the creed in their liturgy since the sixth century CE, and it was the first creed in which the quality of the three persons of the Trinity is explicitly stated and explained. It serves as a statement of belief that focuses on Trinitarian doctrine within the context of Christology. It says that there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; and one Spirit, not three spirits. They exist as coeternal and coequal, implying that Christians should worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons. The creed was designed as a reaction to earlier Arianism. In other words, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, but at the same time, there are not three Gods but one God. According to Dawkins, such God-talk (or theology) demonstrates the obscurantist flavor of theology.33 He quotes Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that the only way to confront unintelligible propositions such as the widespread doctrine of the Trinity is to ridicule it because it is impossible to form a distinct idea of the Trinity. It is only possible to use reason to act upon ideas, and since the Trinity is not distinct, it cannot be treated in any other logical way. “It is mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”34 According to Dawkins, the belief in the Trinity shares the illogicality and irrationality of other Church doctrines such as Jesus’ virgin birth, the incarnation of Jesus, and the (Roman 31

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (London: Transworld, 2007, 2016), 54. Interestingly enough, scholars accept that the creed was not written by Athanasius, that it was not called a creed at first, and that Athanasius’ name was initially not attached to it. None of the ecumenical councils refer to the creed and it circulated among Western Christians. Southern Gaul was probably the place where the creed originated during the last of the fifth or early in the sixth century CE. The creed reflects Augustinian theology. 33 Dawkins, The God Delusion, 55. 34 Dawkins, The God Delusion, 55. 32

20

Chapter 1

Catholic) doctrine of transubstantiation. The cross has remained another stumbling block for many people, including these philosophers, as it was also for some philosophers in Paul’s time (1 Cor 1:23). He argues that the Church teaches believers not to attempt to understand them since they are not meant to be understood. In this way, the Church overcomes the apparent illogicality of such beliefs. “Learn how to gain fulfillment in calling it a mystery.”35 According to Dawkins, such a statement supports Martin Luther’s warning that reason is the greatest enemy of faith. Reason never comes to the aid of spiritual things but, more frequently than not, struggles against the divine revelation and treats all that emanates from God with contempt. For that reason, rationality was religion’s arch-enemy. “Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.”36 Hence the need for the Church to revisit its formulation of the doctrine. The results of empirical studies showed that many Pentecostals have a popular lay level tripersonalistic understanding of the Trinity, to use the words of Amos Yong, another respected Pentecostal theologian responsible for more than twenty monographs and Dean of Fuller Theological Seminary. It is impossible to reflect the discourse about the Trinity across centuries in its different shades due to its scope. Therefore, it is necessary to limit the study to relevant branches of investigation within the discourse, necessarily leaving out much more published material and authors than will be referred to in the process.

Influence of Worldviews on the Doctrine of the Trinity In a stimulating article, Retief Müller asserts that the early Church’s fine distinctions necessary to make the concept of the Trinity understandable are not translatable in terms of other languages and worldviews.37 This is another notion that requires our attention. At the same time, he seemingly accepts the gospel of Jesus Christ to be infinitely translatable. He argues that the Cappadocians contributed to the trinitarian terminology’s confusion 35

Dawkins, The God Delusion, 232. Dawkins, The God Delusion, 221. 37 Retief Müller, “The (Non-)Translatability of the Holy Trinity,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 75, no. 1 (2019). a5405. 36

Introduction: Why is the Trinity a Challenge to Pentecostals?

21

by narrowly defining the Greek term hypostasis (from “to be present, to exist”) and the Latin term used to translate it, substantia, in such a way that one could not be regarded as a translation of the other, even though their etymology is similar. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed attempted to solve the confusion by stating that there is only one divine substance (ousia or substantia). The substance, however, is realized in different ways in the three divine “persons” (hypostases). Müller correctly asserts that any attempt at translation “would be entering a minefield.” His angle is the apophatic emphasis on the human inability to comprehend God, a subject that will crop up many times because it is also vital in this research. Suppose the assertion is correct that the concept of the Trinity can scarcely be translated for logical reasons. It may even be that the concept of Trinity used in different ethnic, cultural, and linguistic theological endeavors differs from what the Nicene Church attempted to convey about God. It is undoubtedly a research field that requires further attention in the future. Some honest Trinitarian theologians of the day acknowledge the impossibility of developing a complete Trinitarian theology. For that reason, many endeavors take the route of emphasizing the immanence of God, while others limit their discussions to the transcendence of God. For example, A.A. Van Ruler admits that he has not found a Trinitarian theology that successfully combines both aspects into one theory in the entire Christian theological tradition. Theology is not able to offer anything approximating that.38 In addition, Ernst Conradie states that his research supports this contention despite the astonishing recent renaissance of Trinitarian theology.39 The statement that God exists as a triunity of persons should, according to him, be regarded not as a point of departure or framework for theological debates, but as a doxological conclusion because speaking about God’s essence takes us to the place where words dry up. Instead, we use music to praise God before lapsing into the silence at the heart of worship.

38

A.A. Van Ruler, Calvinist Trinitarianism and Theocentric Politics: Essays Towards a Public Theology, J. Bolt (ed.) (Lampeter: Edwin Mellen, 1989) 1. 39 Ernst M. Conradie, “South African Discourse on the Triune God: Some Reflections,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 75, no. 1, (2019), 10. a5483.

22

Chapter 1

A few years ago, I noticed that I distinguish between the three persons of the Deity in my prayers and pastoral work, although I implicitly believe in God’s unity. For instance, I found that I was afraid and ashamed to enter the presence of the Father because of my continued sinfulness, while I would instead take the issues of my persistent sinfulness to Jesus. I also sensed that I view Jesus’ presence as though he was standing on the right-hand side from the observation point of the viewer. At the same time, another was standing next to the person on the throne on the other side. This image derives from the book of Revelations. Underlying my distinction between the three persons was the valuation of the three persons, with the Father as superior and the Spirit and Jesus as submissive. I knew that this way of thinking was unbiblical. However, it sensitized me to other believers’ prayers and liturgical customs, including my colleagues’. I certainly was not the only one to use such a distinction to picture God.

Methodology The research is based on several methodologies related to various disciplines. First, it represents a venture into systematic theology, defined here as the field of discourse with God and the things related to the divine as its object. Second, it implies that the Bible would be playing a vital role in the study, serving as a norm (in most Protestant traditions serving as the supreme source and norm).40 Third, it utilizes the grammatical-historical exegetical method subscribed to by many (if not most) Pentecostal scholars critically, deliberately attempting to listen to other voices and other ways of reading the passage. Contemporary theology is based on the principle that it is vital to understand an ancient text that one reads in terms of the historical, cultural, social, and economic context in which it originated. Therefore, in attempting to interpret the passage, one should try to hear it as the first hearers heard it within their given circumstances. Most scholars accept that it is impossible to define authorial intention many centuries after the text was first written. However, by imagining oneself back in the situation in which the author wrote the text and the first hearers or listeners

40

Scott Swain, The Trinity: An Introduction, Short Studies in Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 17.

Introduction: Why is the Trinity a Challenge to Pentecostals?

23

heard it, one finds it possible to sense the theological message of warning, encouragement, or direction that the words convey. In the second place, it ventures into practical theology because of its deliberate choice to function within the Pentecostal paradigm or comprehensive way of seeing, a sizeable interpretive framework that shapes everything seen. For Pentecostals, all theological endeavors are defined by and limited to the context of worship and praise, requiring that doctrines be directly related to charismatic experiences of biblical truths. Attention is additionally given to the pastoral consequences of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. Empirical work also engaged some theological students from Pentecostal Churches in order to hear the voices of informed readers of the Bible. Lastly, the study is also qualified by the newer, articulated Pentecostal hermeneutics that developed in the 1980s and 1990s, in contrast to most Pentecostals’ utilization of a conservative Evangelical hermeneutic. The articulated hermeneutic serves to reconsider the traditional trinitarian doctrine for its implications and consequences. Pentecostal scholars use this hermeneutic to theologize. They define their task as interpreting the Bible in alternative ways from both Evangelicals and those Pentecostals who function with a conservative, literalist hermeneutic.

Definition of Pentecostalism The present study represents an attempt at experimental or constructive theology to explain a possible view of the three-in-one that the New Testament presents as the God of Jesus Christ, the savior who keeps on revealing himself in the Church’s life through the Spirit. The research attempts to place the discussion within the main trends found in the theology of the Church’s doctrine of trinitarianism. It applies the articulated Pentecostal hermeneutical perspectives to biblical and extrabiblical divine self-revelation. Each publication about the Trinity presupposes a particular cultural position and its accompanying prejudices. This one is no exception. I am a white male born in apartheid South Africa who benefited from the humiliating

24

Chapter 1

apartheid policy of the previous Nationalist regime. At a young age, I became an adherent of the Pentecostal tradition. In this study, and prior studies as well, I deliberately attempt to critically dissolute “naïve, selfcentered thinking” by intentionally listening to the voices of the marginalized, such as LGBTIQ+ people, women, other minorities, the poor, landless people, people from the younger, non-Western Christian Churches, etc.41 This observation is fundamental, since the more prevalent unarticulated Pentecostal hermeneutical model tends to discriminate against such “others.” Therefore, for example, many Pentecostals view homosexuality as a sin, requiring LGBTIQ+ Christian believers to be celibate or repent and convert to heterosexuality. Furthermore, women are also considered inferior to men, since Eve was created after Adam. These and similar issues present ethical challenges that the Church needs to address. The study is limited to the classical Pentecostal movement. Given the wide diversity that characterizes the movement, defining “Pentecostalism” is a daunting task. Allan Anderson states that the term refers to such a wide variety of movements scattered throughout the world that defining it should be done carefully to include all and exclude none.42 Pentecostal groups include a broad spectrum, from established denominations and megachurches to independent churches and networks. It includes indigenous movements in the Third World that have adapted to their respective cultural and religious contexts to such an extent that it may be difficult to identify them as “Pentecostal.” The movement includes, for most researchers, also NeoPentecostalism. However, I think the pentecostalization practices and strategies that characterize many of these independent networks and megachurches should instead not be identified with Pentecostalism, since there are too few agreements amidst the many differences. It is possible to categorize the Pentecostal movement in various ways. A popular categorization refers to three waves within the movement. The first 41 Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981), xiii. 42 Alan Anderson, “Introduction: World Pentecostalism at a Crossroads.” In Pentecostals After a Century: Global Perspectives on a Movement in Transition, edited by Allan H. Anderson and Walter J. Hollenweger, 209-23. JPT Sup. 15 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 19.

Introduction: Why is the Trinity a Challenge to Pentecostals?

25

is classical Pentecostalism, which originated at the beginning of the twentieth century. A second wave can be seen in the charismatics among Protestants and Catholics, who have pentecostalized the established mainline Church effectively since the 1960s. Finally, independent groups that originated in the 1980s represent the third wave and include some indigenous groups in the Third World. They are referred to as neoPentecostals who established independent groups.43 Like some adherents of the charismatic movement within established churches, neo-Pentecostals replaced the classical Pentecostal emphasis on Spirit baptism for empowerment with witness and Church growth as a direct result of charismatic manifestations. One such movement was the “Signs and Wonders” movement of John Wimber and others. Amos Yong estimated that there were two billion Christians worldwide at the beginning of the third millennium, of whom 65 million were Pentecostals, 175 million were charismatics, and 295 million were neoPentecostals.44 It implies that as much as ten percent of the world’s population, or one-third of all Christians, are part of the broad Pentecostal movement.45 This study concerns itself only with the classical Pentecostal tradition and refers to the other movements only insofar as they provide relevant comparisons. Steven Studebaker, a professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at McMaster Divinity College, is interested in Pentecostal missions. He started his book on Pentecostal Trinitarian theology with a statement he heard from a lecturer: Pentecostalism is not a theological tradition but a religious

43

Stanley M. Burgess, “Neocharismatics,” in The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, edited by Stanley M. Burgess, Eduard M. van der Maas (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 20. 44 Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005), 19. 45 Emil Bartos. “The Three Waves of Spiritual Renewal of the PentecostalCharismatic Movement.” RES: Biblical Exegesis Between East and West. 7, no. 1 (April 2015), 20-42.

26

Chapter 1

movement.46 Studebaker states that for one to understand Pentecostalism, it is vital to remember that Pentecostalism is not concerned with theology in the first place. As an experience-centered religion, it is concerned with the experience of conversion and sanctification, Spirit baptism, and the exercise of the spiritual gifts (charismata). Its scant theological endeavors only follow the spiritual experiences. In all their theological endeavors, Pentecostals see the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 as their starting point. The reason is that they view the experience of Spirit baptism as the introduction to the New Testament Church, serving as the initial catalyst for their own restoration of the New Testament Church. Their charismatic experiences are directly related to and attributed to the Holy Spirit’s work. In their experiential world, the Spirit is not ornamental, as may be the case in other traditions - on the contrary, the Spirit is indispensable to their lives and theological thinking. Studebaker compares the link between the Pentecostal experience of the Spirit and theology to the link in Lutheranism between its theology and practice of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. He adds that the essential nature of the experience of the Spirit to the Pentecostal movement means that pneumatology is fundamental to all their theological endeavors.47 Even in its study of dogmatics, it is essential to be reminded that Pentecostals do not start with theology and its propositions of truth. Instead, it begins with the awareness of continuous divine involvement and intervention. Pentecostals eventually formulated their theological investigation of the Bible in terms of that experience.

Conclusion The study begins by discussing the trinitarian concept in the Bible, and a distinction is made between the Old and New Testaments. It is followed by a brief historical survey of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian 46 Steven M. Studebaker, “From Pentecost to the Triune God: A Pentecostal Trinitarian Theology,” in Pentecostal Manifestos, edited by James K. A. Smith and Amos Yong (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), 1. 47 Studebaker, “From Pentecost to the Triune God,” 7.

Introduction: Why is the Trinity a Challenge to Pentecostals?

27

Church, beginning with the foundational events in the early Church. Next, Pentecostal hermeneutics is introduced. It discusses the unarticulated and articulated hermeneutical models utilized in classical Pentecostalism. The following two chapters discuss the doctrine and its implications in terms of traditional Pentecostal God-talk, and proposes an alternative way of formulating it for the reader’s consideration. The end of the study aims to sketch alternative views for the consideration of classical Pentecostals about the doctrine of God, specifically the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. The study should be seen against the background of interaction with both contextual theological endeavors in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and postmodernist thinking. The last chapter supports such an argument.

CHAPTER 2 THE BIBLE AND TRINITY Introduction In considering the doctrine of the Trinity as taught by most Christian Churches, the critical issue to note is that the term “trinitarian” does not occur in the Bible. Although the word is absent, most Christians believe that the Bible consistently develops the concept. One finds references in the Bible to the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and various other designations of the Divinity, such as Wisdom and Truth. It poses the question whether it confronts the reader with a diversity of gods. Certainly not, because Israel seems to have accepted monotheism even in the earliest layers of its Scriptures. Unfortunately, nowhere in the Bible does one find a clearly worked out expansion of the different divine designations’ interrelationships, roles, and origins. Different Scripture portions refer to aspects of the relationships, e.g., the Father and Son in John 17 and the Spirit in Romans 8. The first challenge the earliest Christian believers faced was to relate Jesus to the Divinity. Was he a human, albeit an extraordinary charismatic prophet like some of the other well-known figures of (almost) the same time frame as he, like Hanina ben Dosa, a miracle worker and pupil of Johanan ben Zakai? Or was he related to God in some way? Within first-century Judaism (a phenomenon representing a diversity of views), the idea of a human being functioning as an essential part of God would certainly have been seen as blasphemous. Likewise, it is probable that many Jewish Christians probably did not accept that Jesus was an essential part of divinity, given the emphasis within Judaism on the monotheism.

The Bible and Trinity

29

Next, they had to determine what they remembered of Jesus speaking about his relation to the Father and the Spirit. How did he see that relationship? Their views eventually developed, as demonstrated by comparing the earlier Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John. In contrast to the other Gospels, John provides several clear pronouncements of Jesus indicating his relationship with God. For instance, John’s Jesus says that the one who sent him is with him and does not leave him alone (John 8:29), and “The Father and I are one” (10:30). It took the early Church a long time and many attempts before they succeeded in formulating a doctrine that most believers accepted. As a result, the trinitarian doctrine dates only from the fourth century CE in its final accepted form. This chapter briefly analyzes possible biblical information related to the trinitarian concept. To discuss it in detail would require several volumes of research results. Instead, it lays the groundwork for us to look further into the matter of the Trinity as it developed in the Church and then among Pentecostals. In the end, it discusses alternative ways of looking at biblical data concerning aspects of God, identified traditionally as representing a trinity of persons. The study distinguishes between the Testaments because the doctrine became necessary only when Jesus’ incarnation, ministry, death, and resurrection confronted believers with the question of his relation to the Father.

The Old Testament and Trinity The question that needs to be answered is: how did the trinitarian doctrine unfolded and developed in the Old Testament? Or did it not develop at all, as Jews traditionally asserted? In the first place, the textual evidence that the Christian Church presented as a means to prove their doctrine is investigated, leading to a related observation about the development of monotheism in the Hebrew Bible. It is followed by a discussion of other characterizations of God. It also discusses two other relevant matters: the designations of “wisdom” and “word” as divine and the vital issue of the meaning of the revealed name of Israel’s God, YHWH. Finally, the

30

Chapter 2

argument concludes with a short overview of similar developments in the intertestamental period before looking at New Testament evidence.

Discussion of possible textual evidence Traditionally, Christian believers found traces of the Trinity in the Old Testament, in stark contrast to most Jewish readers of the Hebrew Bible. For instance, Christian theologians in the past used several popular proof passages, such as the reference to the plural in Genesis 1:26 (“Let us make”); the threefold repetition of YHWH’s name in the Aaronic benediction (Num 6:22-27: “YHWH bless you and keep you; YHWH make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you; YHWH lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace”).48 Other such passages include Isaiah 6:1’s threefold reference to God as “Holy, holy, holy,” and the figure of the “angel of YHWH” in theophanies or divine manifestations such as Genesis 18. In the past, many Christians interpreted references to an agent of YHWH that appeared to people, like an angel, as appearances of the second person of the Trinity, Jesus. Today, the consensus among scholars is that such references in the Old Testament instead serve as examples of the plurality of majesty, used by kings and queens when they referred to themselves as representatives of the people of their domain. It does not suggest a plurality in God. Presumably, the King of England still makes his royal pronouncements in the plural: “we declare….” Velli-Matti Kärkkäinen admits that these kinds of proof passages may indicate some form of plurality in God, although he emphasizes that one can explain them in other ways as well. However, he is correct when he states that they certainly do not support “proof” for the existence of a Triune God, as Jewish believers are quick to explain. One can use the same passages to “prove” that God is binitarian or even quadritarian! Lastly, some Christian believers argue that the Old Testament’s view of the divine is problematic 48

In all Bible quotations, the NRSV is used; where the translation uses “the LORD,” it is changed to YHWH to remind readers of the relevance of the divine name for the current discussion. The relevance of the term YHWH for the trinitarian discussion is explained later.

The Bible and Trinity

31

because it has not developed the trinitarian concepts as consistently as the New Testament does and perhaps limited the concept only to YHWH and YHWH’s Spirit.49 In discussing passages that Christians traditionally read to support their assertion that trinitarianism can be found in the Old Testament, it remains vital that one should interpret these passages in the context of the Hebrew Bible that supports monotheism. The bottom line is that the God of the Jewish metanarrative found in the Hebrew Bible is monotheistic. For Jews, the most vitally important of all passages is probably Deuteronomy 6:4, if only because of the Jewish custom since the late Second Temple period to repeat it twice daily as part of prayer both in the synagogue and in individual spiritual exercises.50 Jews call the prayer the Shema, which refers to the first Hebrew word in Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear.” The Jewish prayer combines elements of Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:13-21; and Numbers 15:37-41. Bernard Levinson explains Deuteronomy 6:4-25 as a sermon on the first commandment of the Decalogue, as can be seen in the previous chapter (Deut 5:6).51 It served as a legally binding oath that believers used to indicate their intention to carry out the Torah’s requirements in ancient times. In this way, the worshiper affirms, twice daily, the original covenantal ratification ceremony. In addition, it contains a call for complete personal devotion to exclusive loyalty to YHWH.

The development of Jewish monotheism While many modern readers regard the Shema as a way to deny Jewish monotheism, such a view is anachronistic. Instead, Levinson finds in it an ancient Israelite proclamation of exclusive loyalty to YHWH as the sole God of Israel.52 The passage can be translated in two ways, based on the

49

Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 4. Bernard M. Levinson, “Deuteronomy,” in The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Z. Breetler, 2nd ed., 345-428. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 361. 51 Levinson, “Deuteronomy,” 361. He finds direct allusions to it: vv. 4, 14 refer to 5:7; vv. 12, 21, 23 refer to 5:6; v. 15 refers to 5:9; and vv. 5, 17 refer to 5:10. 52 Levinson, “Deuteronomy,” 361. 50

32

Chapter 2

Hebrew possibility to form a sentence by simply joining a subject and predicate without specifying the verb “to be.” One can translate it as “YHWH, our God, YHWH is one,” or “YHWH is our God, YHWH alone.” The first translation is, according to Levinson, the older one. It confesses the unity and indivisibility of God. The second interpretation served mainly as an essential polemic against Christianity with its assertion of the one God existing as three persons, although it originated earlier. The emphasis acquired in the Second Temple period on Jewish monotheism required rereading the passage, making it more consistent with traditional monotheism. However, Levinson argues that it does not do full justice to the passage. This is the case because it does not contain a quantitative argument-about the number of deities-but a qualitative one-about the nature of the relationship between God and Israel.53 The original force of the verb was in its demand that Israel shows absolute loyalty to YHWH. It does not deny the existence of other gods, as the first commandment also presupposes. The reinterpretation is also reflected in the LXX or Septuagint, the third century BCE Greek translation of the Jewish original: “The Lord (kyrios) is one.” That translation became the common basis for most subsequent translations. As stated, the Hebrew translation for “one” can be “one, alone, exclusively,” and it is unclear what nuance the verse intends. By translating it as “alone” or “exclusively” and relating it to God (as in “YHWH, our God, YHWH is the one and only God”), it supports the argument that the passage refers to monotheism. However, it should be kept in mind that most of the Old Testament does not affirm that no other gods besides YHWH exist. DeuteroIsaiah is the only other biblical author supporting such a monotheistic argument (e.g., in Isa 44:645:5-7, 14, 18 21; 46:9). Therefore, the translation, “YHWH is our God, YHWH alone,” should be accepted. In other words, despite other gods, Israel chose God as their exclusive God and promised their allegiance exclusively to YHWH. Such a translation is supported by many other passages such as, for instance, Zechariah 14:9, “And YHWH will become king over all the earth; on that day YHWH will be one and his name one” (or as the new translation of the Jewish 53

Levinson, “Deuteronomy,” 361.

The Bible and Trinity

33

Publication Society translates, “YHWH shall be king over all the earth; in that day there shall be one YHWH with one name”). The implication is clear: YHWH alone shall be worshiped in the future and invoked by the true divine name (see the later discussion about the name’s meaning).54 The Old Testament and the Israelites’ religion can be distinguished from the religious traditions of surrounding nations by its strict, uncompromising monotheism. Israel’s allegiance to YHWH was exclusive. That explains why the prophets’ main message was one of warning that God’s wrath would rest on Israel if they did not pledge their loyalty exclusively to YHWH. The religions of surrounding nations were a temptation for Israel and led to their eventual apostasy. The Old Testament historical books used their apostasy to explain and interpret all the disasters that happened in Israel’s history, including the exiles of both the Northern and Southern kingdoms. That YHWH was punishing Israel for her disloyalty to her God became a refrain in Israel’s historiography. For instance, Zedekiah was the last king who ruled over the Southern kingdom (Judah). He reigned for eleven years before the Babylonian army destroyed Jerusalem and the surrounding towns. The author of 2 Kings 24:19-20 explains why it happened: “He did what was evil in the sight of YHWH, just as Jehoiakim had done. Indeed, Jerusalem and Judah so angered YHWH that YHWH expelled them from his presence.” The uncompromising monotheism of the Jews living in the first century CE did not leave any room for references to more than one deity. For that reason, early Christians had to spend much time defending themselves against Jewish accusation that they were tritheists. However, such justification is not the case in contemporary times. For instance, Velli-Matti Kärkkäinen finds in his survey of available literature that leading international scholars do not generally discuss the role of the Old Testament in trinitarian discourses.55 For instance, a recent compilation of essays

54 Ehud Ben-Zvi, “Zechariah,” in The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Z. Breetler, 2nd ed., 345-428 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 1237-54. 55 Velli-Matti Kärkkäinen. Christian Understandings of the Trinity: The Historical Trajectory (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2017), 1.

34

Chapter 2

devoted to biblical, historical, and systematic perspectives on the Trinity illustrates the point.56 Kärkkäinen further argues that Israel’s monotheism is not primarily concerned with the “number” of deities. As discussed above, its concern is to defend God’s exclusive election of Israel and God’s demands for absolute devotion and loyalty.57 In other words, God’s uniqueness, that God exists alone and that no other gods exist, is motivated by soteriological concerns rather than metaphysical ones.58 It reflects the difficult task of exclusive loyalty to God alone that Israel faced as the only people elected to belong exclusively to God. Another significant observation is that monotheism is not about ontological speculation; biblical authors argued for it and depicted it in terms of Israel’s worship practices. Kärkkäinen uses this remark to explain why he thinks the concept leaves the door open for thinking of God in terms of plurality.59 He argues that the threefold designation of one God must have been familiar to Christian believers; otherwise, they would not eventually have accepted the doctrine of the Trinity. He suggests that the Old Testament’s use of three terms to relate to God, “Word,” “Wisdom,” and “Spirit,” served to introduce the idea of a plurality in God to Jews long before the Christian Church originated. In his opinion, the three terms served to designate (semi-) personified agents of divine activity on earth. However, no Jew, from Old Testament times to today, has found any references to multiple designations for God in the Hebrew Bible, except for a few esoteric Jewish sects. For that reason, I argue that Kärkkäinen’s presupposition is has no foundation in the text of the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, his argument is not valid. Believers from other nations carried the concept of a trinity of persons in the Divinity into the early Church. Eventually, this group became the 56

Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (eds.), The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). 57 Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 10. 58 As explained by Stephen R. Holmes, The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History, and Modernity (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2012), 45–49. 59 Kärkkäinen, Christian Understandings of the Trinity, 10.

The Bible and Trinity

35

strongest. This was especially the case after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, when most Jews rejected and marginalized Christian Jews because of their perceived disloyalty in abandoning Jerusalem before its fall, in obedience to Jesus’ words in Mark 13:14-17 (Matt 24:15-28; Luke 21-20-24). Suppose one could have found an early trace of God’s existence in three forms in the designation of God’s activity as Spirit, Word, and Wisdom. What about the other designations of God (or rather, God’s activities) on earth, such as “Name” and “glory”? Does that signify the existence of five or more persons in the divine? For that reason, Kärkkäinen is not consistent in his argument. Later, it will be argued that the designations of God should instead serve in the same way that a woman (or male person, or child) experiences herself. She may find herself in multiple roles, for instance, as a wife, mother, and employee. And other people, like her husband, children, or fellow employees, may base their contact with her on only certain aspects. There is no reason to suspect that the other agents biblical authors referred to were not identified with Israel’s one God. Before looking at the trinitarian doctrine in terms of a Pentecostal hermeneutic, it is necessary to look carefully at how the Old Testament applies different terms for concepts and agents of divine activity, and the New Testament reapplies them in the context of the life and ministry of Jesus. Next, the study looks at these concepts or agents, especially “wisdom,” “word,” and “spirit”, associated with the divine in various ways.

“Wisdom,” “word,” and “spirit” Wisdom The term “wisdom” (hokmah) occurs more than three hundred times in the Old Testament, indicating its significance. It is vital to note that wisdom is a feminine term, in contrast to the Israelite Divinity the Old Testament portrays in exclusively masculine terms. Two passages which are crucial in understanding what the Bible means by wisdom are in Proverbs 8:22-30, indicating that YHWH created Wisdom at the beginning of divine work, before the creation of the Earth. Wisdom existed even before God established the heavens and made the skies above the planet. The ancient

36

Chapter 2

worldview saw the skies as the abode of the divine. Personified Wisdom refers to herself as “a master worker” who functions beside YHWH, serving as God’s delight. Wisdom was also always rejoicing in the divine inhabited world and the human race. Wisdom is, in this way, personified as a woman. Like God, she was also engaged in the divine work of creation, salvation, and providence. However, some of the functions ascribed to her only exist in YHWH. For instance, she calls herself a master worker (v. 30). She also depicts herself as God’s firstborn, begotten, or created by God. Secondly, Wisdom of Solomon 7:24-28 states that the personified Wisdom is more mobile than any motion and pervades and penetrates all existing things. Wisdom is a breath of the power of God, a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty. Nothing defiled can gain entrance into her presence. Wisdom is a reflection of eternal light, a mirror of the divine working, and an image of divine goodness. She is one, can do all things, and renews all things. In addition, she exists in holy souls, making them friends and prophets of God. She is more beautiful than the sun and the constellations of the stars. She is superior to light, and against her wisdom, no evil can ever prevail. Wisdom is, in this way, personified as a woman engaged in the divine work of creation, salvation, and providence, as the other passage explains. At the same time, some of the characteristics ascribed to her only exists in YHWH, implying an identification between YHWH and Wisdom. However, she distinguishes herself from YHWH by depicting her origins in the act of God. Other references are in the apocryphal (for Roman Catholics, deuterocanonical) book of Ecclesiastics or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of (ben) Sirach (24:1-22). Here, Wisdom praises herself in the assembly of the Most High for her glory among people because she came forth from the divine mouth and covered the Earth like a mist. She describes her home as the highest heavens while traversing the abyss’s depths. She holds sway over all people on Earth. In her search for a resting place among human beings, God demanded her to choose as her dwelling place the land of Israel, specifically Zion. Like in Proverbs 8, Wisdom states that God created her before the ages, in the beginning, and she shall never cease to be. This is followed by her invitation to all who desire wisdom to eat their fill of her fruits because those who obey her will never be put to shame or sin in any way.

The Bible and Trinity

37

Additionally, Wisdom of Solomon 7:22-30 explains that Solomon learned his wisdom from Wisdom herself, the fashioner of all things. In Wisdom he found, among other things, intelligence, holiness, uniqueness, subtleness, love for the good, humaneness, and freedom from anxiety. She pervades and penetrates all things and exists as a breath of divine power and a pure emanation of divine glory. Nothing defiled can enter her because she reflects eternal light. She is a spotless mirror of divine working and an image of divine goodness. She renews all things, passing into holy souls and making them friends and prophets of God. As a result, God loves nothing so much as the person who lives with wisdom. In the New Testament, the author of 1 Corinthians 1:23 identifies the crucified Christ with “the power of God and the wisdom of God.” However, it is possible, and even probable, to see in the Old Testament’s depiction in the wisdom literature rather a principle, a particular way of living with intelligence and deliberate reflection, that leads to a quality of life determined by reflective, humane, and wise behavior. It is true of the divine existence and those who deliberately pursue wisdom. Although some people might have received wisdom, there is no indication of other personifications of Wisdom.

Word The second term used to refer to divine activity is “word” (dabar). It appears in the first of the two creation accounts, in Genesis 1:1-2:4a. However, at face value, the observation that “we (God) said” corresponds to other activities ascribed to God in the same account, e.g., that God saw, blessed, created, and gave. Only when a passage like Psalm 33:6 seemingly ascribes creative power to the word does it become possible to think of YHWH’s words in terms that differ from other people’s words. The psalm states that YHWH made the heavens and all their host by the divine word and breath. However, the Psalm limits YHWH’s divine word by word of mouth to those populating the divine court and their abode. Again, the question is whether the Jewish worshipers would have seen something more in the “word of YHWH” than what they ascribed to all words used by living creatures. It might be possible that ancient people identified a person with that person’s words more stringently than contemporary people do, implying their

38

Chapter 2

requirement that people should speak with integrity and truth. They saw one’s word as synonymous with one’s existence. They also regarded people’s words as their honor, possibly even more than is the case among most contemporary people. For that reason, they would have reviewed God’s words as representative of divine glory.

Spirit A term that occurs more than four hundred times in the Old Testament is “spirit” (ruach). The Hebrew term is also feminine and can be translated into English as “wind, breath, or spirit.” God blows the divine breath (or spirit) into the first man’s nose before he becomes alive (Gen 2:7, in the second creation narrative in the book). Ezekiel 37 depicts dead bones coming alive when their spirit is united with them. The translation of the term depends entirely on the context of the passage, placing the responsibility on the reader and translator to interpret it. In other words, “spirit” can refer to wind and breath, either immaterial beings, human spirits, or the spirit of God.60 As noted, Psalm 33:6 adds “breath of YHWH” to “word of YHWH.” In both cases, the author uses the same word in Hebrew for “breath” and “spirit” (the term employed for “wind” as well). In the priest’s creation narrative in Genesis 1:2, the same word is used for the meaning of “a wind (or spirit) from God” that swept over the earth. The Yahwist creation narrative (Gen 2:4b-25) explains that YHWH formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils “the breath (or spirit) of life,” resulting in the man becoming a living being (v. 7). Its use in Psalm 104:29-30 illustrates the wordplay between “breath” and “spirit.” It explains human death as the result of God, who hides the divine face and takes away the human breath or spirit. On the other hand, when

60 J. Amanda McGuire-Moushon, “Divine Beings,” in Lexham Theological Wordbook,

edited by Douglas Mangum et al., Lexham Bible Reference Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2014).

The Bible and Trinity

39

God sends forth the divine spirit, wind, or breath, human beings are created, and the earth is renewed. Kärkkäinen argues that ruach (“word, spirit, breath”) serves as “an indication of an incipient plurality without a direct threat to belief in one God,” noting that it implies relationality as well, a significant theme in later Christian trinitarian thought.61 He finds support in Gerald O’Collins’s opinion that the vivid personifications of wisdom, word, and Spirit served to open the way for later believers to view God in tripersonal terms. Believers later started identifying God with the different divine activities, implying that different persons are responsible. However, it is submitted that identifying divine characteristics with three distinct persons represents a logical fallacy. Even O’Collins admits that it is a giant leap between the Old Testament’s profession of monotheism and the distinct personifications Christian believers find in these concepts, a leap that the Hebrew Bible does not suggest. It is far-fetched to argue, like O’Collins, that it prepared the way for early Christians’ eventual acknowledgment of the Trinity through foreshadowing. He also argues that they established the necessary terminology to describe it.62 The problem is further exacerbated and complicated by the inevitable challenge that no one can speak of the divine without using human language. And human language is too limited to contain a sensible discussion of God’s essence. John Calvin explains that God’s language is the spiritual language humans do not understand. For that reason, “God in divine kindness speaks to them in the language that they can understand like a mother using baby talk to her infant.”63 However, people can and indeed must speak about their experiences and encounters with God (divine energies). For instance, at the beginning of the eleventh century CE, Anselm of Canterbury (or Aosta, his birthplace) already stated that God is the id quo maius cogitari nequit, the unthinkable one, underlining the difficulty of finding language to use in referring to God. All languages consist of concepts derived from human

61

Kärkkäinen, Christian Understandings of the Trinity, 14. Gerald O’Collins, The Tripersonal God: Understanding and Interpreting the Trinity (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1999), 34. 63 J.I. Packer, John Calvin: A Biography (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1975), 77. 62

40

Chapter 2

experience, limiting them to the human dimension, the only dimension humans are aware of and can know. Science fiction may create the impression of life on other planets, a form that no one can imagine. It is more difficult to imagine the divine reality existing in a dimension outside the human frame of reference. This theme will come up more than once in the following discussions. Robert Bauckham, a prominent Anglican New Testament scholar, does not find any challenge in traditional trinitarianism. He explains that the purpose of the strict monotheism that one finds in the Old Testament was to deny that YHWH functions at the summit of a hierarchy of divine beings, as was the case with all the surrounding nations. Israel’s God represented a unique category, used to demonstrate the uniqueness of God in absolute terms, beyond comparison with anything else.64 He argues that biblical authors did not understand any distinctions within the Godhead as compromising the divine unity, resulting in the Second Temple Jewish understanding of the divine uniqueness that “does not make distinctions within the divine identity inconceivable.”65 The problem occurs when he identifies such distinctions with “persons,” something that authors of the Old Testament would have found unthinkable. He thinks that most Jews of that time probably would not have thought that distinctions within the Divinity that refer to “aspects” of the Divinity, such as God’s Spirit and Word, would compromise divine unity. He concludes that Jews would not have considered plurality in the divine a threat to the Jewish faith, a conclusion that certainly does not follow his argument. He jumps from aspects in the Divinity to persons without stating his presupposition that one can think of God only in personal terms.

The name of Israel’s God YHWH is the name by which God revealed the divine self to Moses and Israel. Interestingly, God is not specifically named in the New Testament. However, the New Testament uses the name for YHWH in the Hebrew Old Testament, translated in the Septuagint as “Lord” (kyrios). It is unclear 64

Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 12. 65 Bauckham, God Crucified, 22.

The Bible and Trinity

41

whether (some) authors of the New Testament implied that kyrios refers to YHWH. At times, they might have utilized the term in contrast to other powers in a political sense to contrast Jesus as kyrios and Caesar, who designated himself as kyrios. It should be noted that the Greek word for “god” (theos, like the Hebrew el or elohim) implies a polytheistic and even nonpersonal concept. The Greeks depicted their gods in anthropomorphic forms while they related to and exercised a determining influence on the fate of humankind. They were not transcendent and did not exist outside the world. Gods stayed above human beings and functioned in terms of their own reality, and many of the Greek gods acted in anything but righteous ways.66 However, applying the term “God” in connection with the incarnation of Jesus implies that the term is reserved for the God of Israel. The name YHWH can be translated as “I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be.” It implies that YHWH told Israel that the divine self “is” or “will remain to be” what the divine self has promised to be: Israel’s liberator from bondage and their provider. The author illustrates the impact of the word through the divine deliverance of the exodus from Egypt, given that God revealed the divine name to Israel while they were oppressed as enslaved people in Egypt (see Ex 6:2–8). That God “always is” who God is as Savior witnesses God’s unchanging faithfulness, also in the future. It is eventually tied to a divine pledge to be the liberator and savior, not only of the Exodus but also in the future.67

Developments in the intertestamental period Before discussing the New Testament in terms of the subject, it might be sensible to refer to some elements of the intertestamental period and developments within Judaism in the context of the Hellenistic world. Judaism engaged with and responded to Hellenism in various ways. It holds important implications for how Jewish Christians would eventually relate to

66 67

Kärkkäinen, Christian Understandings of the Trinity, 24. Macchia, The Trinity, Practically Speaking.

42

Chapter 2

the challenges that Jesus as the Son of God had for how they would view the Divinity. The prevalent religions of the day were largely polytheistic, mythological, and naturalistic. They deified natural forces. At the same time, they were subjected to a philosophical critique, seen in the work of thinkers in the Stoic and Middle Platonist traditions.68 Middle Platonism par excellence fostered the new belief in a transcendent god, distinguished from the world of matter and mutability. It integrated Platonism’s idea of a “world of ideas” as the basis of reality into the divine mind. God has, within the divine self, the logos by which God as creator of the cosmos acts. On the other hand, Stoicism emphasized the rational order that courses through the physical world and intended to bring human beings into accord with this order. The deity is immanent within the world, melding the principle of order, the logos, and movement, the pneuma or spirit that Aristotle and others had distinguished. Pneuma does not have any spiritual or personal connotations in most of Greek philosophy but serves to designate natural forces. Returning to Judaism, many Jewish religious adherents in Palestine expected the dawning of a new age. They longed for the deliverance it supposedly was to bring to the Jewish people. Palestinian Jews were again living under the oppression of foreign powers. Some expected their deliverance from such oppression to come directly from God. In contrast, others looked for a mediator, a messianic figure, a person God would send to deliver and renew the chosen people. The apocryphal Psalm of Solomon (17:32) verbalizes, for instance, the expectation of “the Lord Messiah.” The deliverance would consist of the termination of oppression by Greeks and Romans. Still, another element Jews expected was an inner spiritual renewal of God’s people that would accompany the deliverance from the oppressors. Some groups framed the expectation in terms of apocalyptic terms. The rabbis interpreted their present time as an age without the Spirit (spirit). That is the reason for the absence of any prophets. They expected that the coming

68

Farrelly, The Trinity, 38.

The Bible and Trinity

43

of the new age would include a new revelation of God in the renewal of humanity and creation. In addition, an influential Jewish philosopher working in the Hellenistic tradition of Stoicism and Platonism and influencing Judaism extensively, Philo of Alexandria (c. 50 BCE-50 CE), interpreted the Jewish Bible philosophically. He applied allegory to find the “deeper” meaning behind events described in Israelite history. His purpose was to make the Jewish religion presentable to the larger culture in terms it would be able to relate to and understand. His neo-Platonic views led to the idea that the Jewish God formed the world from divine ideas. In contrast, his Stoic perspectives led to his understanding of logos as a divine principle operative worldwide, acting as a divine power. In line with the Jewish tradition, he emphasized the transcendency of God. It required him to qualify the mediation between God and humanity. In other words, how can the infinite relate to the finite? He solved the challenge by employing intermediaries between God and the world. The highest of these intermediaries was the logos. He supposed it explained how God entered into relation with the world, representing the Divinity’s creative act. The logos, he argues, is the instrument in the world’s creation, the firstborn son of God, the angel of YHWH, the ideal high priest vested with the world, and the “second God.”69 However, the logos is not equal to God in an unreserved sense. He suggests that the logos would be a person, but that is not consistently his viewpoint. At times he refers to logos as a principle. Nevertheless, the relation between Philo and early Christian thinking is obvious, especially in the Gospel of John’s prologue. Now it is opportune to turn to the New Testament, and its continuation and discontinuation of the ideas about God found in the Old Testament.

The New Testament and Trinity The New Testament and possible development of the doctrine of the Trinity? The early Christian Church originated among Jews and operated for the first few decades as one more sect within the Jewish religion. Jewish Christian

69

Farrelly, The Trinity, 39.

44

Chapter 2

believers worshiped in the synagogues along with their fellow Jews. They visited the temple during the feasts as Jesus also did, and Jewish religious leaders, as a rule, did not discriminate against them. Jewish Christians presumably also met in private with each other. The exceptions represent the isolated cases where Jews, with the assistance of the Roman authorities, instigated the prosecution of some prominent Christian leaders whose behavior they saw as threatening to Jewish ecclesiastical and political interests. As Jewish believers, these Christians found the Hebrew Bible in its Greek translation, the Septuagint, indispensable as the most significant source of their religious imagination, like most other Jews. It should be kept in mind that the Hebrews spoke Aramaic and Greek because they did not use Hebrew in daily speech anymore. Some of them specialized in the study of the Torah. However, these believers also remembered and celebrated the accounts of Jesus’ words and deeds that they retold when they gathered on their own, in some cases early on Sunday mornings or evenings, in remembrance of resurrection Sunday, before leaving for their respective jobs. They stayed loyal to the Jewish faith, implying that they also shared the Jewish monotheistic faith. The earliest theological decision early Christian believers probably had to make was to define Jesus’ relation to the Father - an issue about which they became divided. There is no sign that the relation between God and the Spirit became contentious in Old Testament times. Clearly, it did not confront or affront the Jewish sentiment for monotheism. The problem originated when they confessed to Jesus as their Lord, a word that Jesus applied to himself (e.g., in Mark 2:28; 16:19 [more extended ending]; Luke 4:187:13; etc.). The context of the Jews’ non-negotiable commitment to monotheism that Jesus shared aggravated the situation. As concluded above, it was impossible to claim that Jesus was divine in terms of the Old Testament’s view of God. Moreover, Christians who called Jesus “Lord” (kyrios) were using a loaded word, since the Septuagint, the authoritative Greek translation, translates God’s name, YHWH, as kyrios. It also held political risks, since Roman authorities limited the use of the title to referencing the Roman Emperor.

The Bible and Trinity

45

Some Christian believers experienced the infilling or baptism with the Spirit, described as a gift. What is the relation between the Holy Spirit and God? Believers received the infilling with the Spirit during their first celebration of the feast of Pentecost (Shavuot), a Jewish celebration of gratitude for the harvest that occurs on the sixth day of the Hebrew month of Sivan (during May/June). Many others shared in the experience, according to the Acts narratives. The critical question of how they related Jesus and the Spirit to the monotheist God of the Old Testament originated in the context of exclusive Jewish loyalty to one God. It should be remembered that not all early Christians accepted what eventually became the trinitarian doctrine, as the next chapter explains. Unfortunately, it is not possible to describe the history of the discourse in the early Church because most resources were destroyed by the ravages of time. Therefore, it is also impossible to know how many did eventually accept the formulation of Constantinople and how many others held alternative opinions about the identity of Jesus. However, it is possible to find traces of such different views in the New Testament, especially in the relationships between Jewish and Hellenistic Christian believers and their respective leaders that became, at times, somewhat strained (see Acts 15 and the strained relationships between Paul and Peter in Gal 2:11-14). For that reason, Stanley Grenz is not correct to assert that the doctrine of the Trinity is what basically distinguishes the Christian doctrine of God as Christian, in the same way that monotheism distinguished the Jewish faith.70 Moreover, the theory did not function at all in the earliest period; it was developed only much later, probably during the second and third centuries, and finalized in the fourth century CE at the ecumenical council meetings. It is valid to question whether it was admissible for the Church to develop a doctrine not found in the New Testament; did the Church take the appropriate route and make the correct decision? Although nothing can be done about what the early Church did, contemporary believers can still decide whether they accept its decisions. Some argue that the early Church

70 Stanley J. Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004), 7.

46

Chapter 2

saw the necessity of rethinking the traditional Jewish concept of a monotheistic God to accommodate their experiences with the Son and the Spirit. For instance, A.W. Argyle opines that Christians needed to reconsider, reinterpret, and rethink their view of the Jewish God of the Old Testament to accommodate their belief in Jesus.71 However, whether it was permissible for Christians to do so remains a poignant question. Does it represent a successful reinterpretation that does justice to the details found in the Old Testament? The answer to this question is still outstanding.

Jesus and the Father Kärkkäinen admits that the Church’s trinitarian confession of faith represented in later creedal tradition initially started as a binitarian understanding of God, limited to and focused on the relationship between YHWH and Jesus.72 Most scholars would agree with Stephen Holmes, who finds the depiction of a special, perhaps even unique, relationship between God and Son in the four Gospels.73 He refers to this as the trinitarian face found in the relationship. However, many would disagree that such a relationship is complex and includes intimacy, union, shared knowledge, and subordination. Such a view of the relationship may be true in the descriptions in John’s Gospel, but the Synoptic Gospels do not display such a complex picture of the relationship. Pentecostalism’s sentiment for “Spirit Christology” established the close relation between Son and Spirit, and it is based on the integral, mutually conditioned relationality between Jesus and the Spirit (as the “Spirit of Christ,” closely linking the two). Two Synoptic Gospels also possibly refer to a close link between Jesus’ incarnation and the divine Spirit (e.g., Matt 1:18; Luke 1:35: Mary was found pregnant with a child from the Holy Spirit). One argument to prove Jesus’s unique relationship with the Father is his use of abba, the Aramaic word for “father,” to address God (Mark 14:36; Rom 71 Aubrey W. Argyle, God in the New Testament (Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott, 1965), 10. 72 Kärkkäinen, Christian Understandings of the Trinity, 16. 73 Holmes, The Quest for the Trinity, 51–54.

The Bible and Trinity

47

8:15; Gal 4:6). The term is transliterated into Greek and accompanied by the Greek word for “father” to explain it clearly for non-Aramaic listeners or readers. Jesus begins his prayer in the garden of Gethsemane, preceding his suffering and death with the words, “abba, father” (Mark 14:36).74 The term is also used in Romans 8:15, where the author notes that the Spirit enables believers to cry out, “abba, father.” Galatians 4:6 records that the Spirit also joins in the cry, “abba, father.” Jesus also encouraged the disciples to address God as “our Father” (without using abba) when he taught them to pray. Although Joachim Jeremias admits that to address God as abba was not unique to Jesus, he still argues that it provides proof of the uniqueness of Jesus’ relation to the divine.75 Jeremias supports the traditional view that abba refers to a way used to address God in a daddy-like nature, characterizing small children’s language to address their earthly fathers affectionately. That was supposedly the nuance of the term in the first century CE. This view is still popular with many preachers. Jeremias later changed his stance and clearly stated that Jesus intentionally did not use “the language of a tiny child” when he addressed God as “Father.”76 Several examples from that period survived that show that adults used the same Aramaic word to address their fathers.77 Such a distinction between the ways small children would refer to their fathers in contrast to adult children is also not supported by Aramaic use of the terms. This observation is supported by the use of the term in Daniel 5:2, 11, 13, and 18 in the Aramaic portion of the book (Dan 2:4b-7:28). Here, “abba” is used to refer to the Babylonian king. Today, biblical scholars argue that it primarily indicated an intimate relationship between an adult son and father.

74

It is a valid question to ask who of the disciples witnessed Jesus’ prayer since the Evangelist takes pains to emphasize that all the disciples were fast asleep (Mark 14:37). 75 Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1971), 67. 76 Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 66. 77 Thomas Scott Caulley, “Abba,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016).

48

Chapter 2

The fact remains that small children and adults did not use different Aramaic terms to address their father affectionately. As stated, John’s Gospel is unique in its sketch of the relationship between God and Jesus. Jesus claims that God sent him (John 5:37). The Father has granted him the authority to give eternal life to some people (5:21) and execute the judgment previously ascribed to YHWH (5:22). His assertion that whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father (5:23) also refers to the closeness of their relationship. He states emphatically that no one can see the Father without the Son (1:18; 14:6–9). These kinds of comments in the author’s interpretation of what Jesus taught are not found in the Synoptic Gospels. It illustrates that speculation about the identity of Jesus in terms of the divine thrived in the early Church. Another element of the relation between the Father and the Son is the argument that some parts of the New Testament link Jesus’ resurrection to his relationship with his Father. It demonstrates their unique relationship with the resurrection that introduced the ascension, which allowed to take his place at the Father’s side. For instance, in the prologue to his letter to the Romans, the author writes that God promised beforehand, through his prophets in the Scriptures (clearly the Old Testament), the good news (Gospel) concerning the divine Son. God then declared Jesus to be the Son of God when He resurrected him from the dead (Rom 1:2-4). The early disciples’ experience of and with Jesus when he was raised from the dead served as the starting point for their reflections about Jesus and eventually terminated in their confession of his deity. Jesus’ resurrection also implies that he ascended to heaven to sit at the Father’s right hand, indicating his position as the one responsible for performing divine tasks. It is clearly not to be taken literally but serves to express the division of functions between the Father and Son. At the same time, some Jews did not (and would never) accept Jesus’ status as deity for the same reason that some of them rejected Jesus’ healing of an ill man at the pool by the Sheep Gate, called Beth-zatha in Hebrew (John 5:2-9). In response to their condemnation of his violation of the Sabbath law, when he healed the man and told the man to stand up, take up his mat

The Bible and Trinity

49

and walk (v. 8), Jesus responded, “My Father is still working, and I also am working” (John 5:17). His words angered the Jews, and they decided that he should be killed “because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God” (5:18). In the New Testament, as represented by some of Paul’s letters considered to be authentic by most New Testament scholars, prayer is addressed both to the Father “through Jesus Christ” (Rom 1:8) and to the Father and Jesus together (1 Thess 3:11–13). In the same way, benedictions are in either name (Rom 16:20) and at other times only in the name of Jesus (1 Cor 16:23). It implies that early Christians viewed the Son as being on the same level as the Father. However, it should be kept in mind that early Christianity represented a diversity of ideas about Jesus’ status. The title regularly used for Jesus, “Lord,” is also indicative of the respect he earned from his followers, as the confession of Thomas in John 20:28 indicates. Jesus invites Thomas to put his finger in his wounds since he was not present when Jesus appeared to the disciples. On that occasion, he said, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe” (Matt 20:25). He now responds with, “My Lord and my God!” The last remark in this regard is related to Jesus’ recorded conversations with the Father, creating the impression that Jesus held a special relationship with the Father. For instance, Evangelists view Jesus’ prayers in terms of a close relationship with the Divinity. They emphasize that he prayed regularly, sometimes spending prolonged periods in prayer. Thus, in Matthew 11:25-27, Jesus introduced his invitation to the weary and those carrying heavy burdens to come to him for rest by thanking the Father for revealing these things to infants rather than the wise and intelligent. The “infants” refer to the weary and burdened ones targeted by Jesus’ invitation in verse 28. God favors the children, the weak. “The ‘wise’ of Jesus’ day had careful rules for interpreting the Bible and often rested in the security of the academic consensus of their circle; they prided themselves on their knowledge of traditional interpretations and sayings of the wise who had

50

Chapter 2

gone before them; they also emphasized practical piety, in Craig Keener’s words”78 Jesus welcomes instead the marginalized (infants) into his circle. In verse 25, what do “these things” that are revealed to infants refer to? Charismatic-Pentecostal scholar Craig Keener, in his significant sociorhetorical commentary of Matthew, refers to knowledge about what God is like. It is a standard term for passing on tradition, used to refer to the traditions (“those things”) received from the sages. However, he argues, in this context, it is used to emphasize that Jesus’ revelation comes directly from the Father, as explained in verse 27: “All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” It does not necessarily serve as a claim to omniscience (in 24:36, Jesus explains that only the Father knows when the coming of the Son would be), but it becomes clear that Jesus holds a position of special authority from the Father (28:18; Jn 17:2). In Keener’s opinion, he was given “the sole prerogative” to reveal the Father and the only means to approach God. However, the passage does not support an exclusive claim to be the only means to approach God. Although the passage is strongly evocative of the language that John’s Gospel would eventually use, most scholars accept that the words are part of the early tradition, implying that they most likely go back to Jesus. This clearly indicates where the Johannine tradition derived its picture of Jesus from.79 Recent investigations also conclusively proved the Palestinian Jewish background of Jesus’ words as representative of the mystic and apocalyptic thought of the time, colored by the Semitic worldview of Judaism of the first century CE. Jesus’ statement identifying the Lord of heaven and Earth as his Father was certainly not unique; he was following a much older tradition. Previously, many Jews used the same language to describe their relationship with YHWH, indicating their intimacy with God. However, Scott Swain denies it. He calls the designation of Jesus as the Father’s Son an example of 78

Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 346. 79 Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 346–347.

The Bible and Trinity

51

“proper predication” - that is, a predication that distinguishes the persons of the Trinity in exclusive terms.80 What makes the Matthew saying unique, according to Swain, is that Jesus states that the authority that belongs to his Father as Lord of heaven and Earth also belongs to him. The Father granted it to him. He clearly accepts that “all things…handed over to me by my Father” refers to divine authority. However, from the context, it becomes clear that Jesus is referring to knowing the Father rather than to the Father’s authority. He explains that his knowledge of the Father is unique; he becomes the only way to know the Father. Swain’s argument does not hold water. Keener argues that one should read these words of Jesus’ prayer in conjunction with the indisputable authentic saying in Matthew 24:36. Here, Jesus claims that no one knows the day nor the hour, not even he (24:36). Most scholars accept the saying as authentic because the early church would have served their Christological intentions by expressing the Son’s inclusion in omniscience instead of creating an expression that limits divine omniscience exclusively to the Father (this is Keener’s argument). Here, the challenge early Christians faced and addressed was the delay of the Parousia. It was certainly not an excellent strategy to explain that he was ignorant of its timing, as Ben Witherington acknowledges.81 However, Witherington’s following remark is unclear and presumably does not follow his previous argument. He argues that this remark shows and verifies that the Church accepted that Jesus called himself the Son of God in a distinctive sense.82 Keener agrees, and writes that the Gospel suggests that here, Jesus refers to himself as God’s “unique” Son, describing himself in the language of divine Wisdom.83 As Witherington explains, Jesus’ claim of having exclusive knowledge of the Father is comparable to the claims that only Wisdom knows God, and vice versa (cf. Job 28:1–27; Sir. 1:6, 8; Bar. 3:15–32; Prov. 8:12; Wis. 7:25ff.; 8:3–8; 9:4, 9, 11). Jesus may see

80

Swain, The Trinity, 40. Ben Witherington, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1990), 229–30. 82 Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 232. 83 Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 347. 81

52

Chapter 2

himself as Wisdom incarnate here.84 However, what actually happens is that Jesus limits his knowledge to glorify the Father as the only one who knows it all. The connection of this conclusion with the last prayer is then not clear, as argued by Keener. One aspect that should also be kept in mind concerns different biblical authors’ references to the “sons of God.” The term is found first in Genesis 6:1-4, the preamble to the flood narrative, where these sons found the daughters of men attractive and had children with them. The nephilim that the passage refers to may be their offspring. The nephilim may also act as a way to explain where the race of giants came from, the anakim and rephaim (Num 13:32–33), and Goliath may be the inheritor of some of the characteristics of these giants. The Genesis author contrasts the “sons of God” with the “daughters of men,” suggesting that they are not mortals but heavenly beings. Deuteronomy 32:7-8 refers to the people’s boundaries as being fixed “according to the number of the sons of God,” suggesting a legendary time when the sons of God ruled over the nations. The book of Job refers three times to the “sons of God” (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), who present themselves before YHWH. One of them, the Satan or prosecutor, is also among the divine council of lower heavenly beings attending to YHWH. Psalms 82:1 and 89:5–7 call them the members of the divine council of the “Most High” (elyon), often considered synonymous with YHWH. Daniel 3:25, 28 uses the Aramaic phrase to describe the fourth person alive in the fiery furnace, a divine or semidivine being. Perhaps the person is an angel or messenger of YHWH, as it seems the term was used in later periods (see Dan 3:28) – it is also found in deuterocanonical and pseudepigraphic literature. In the New Testament, the term is used in a different sense. Jesus calls the peacemakers “sons of God” (Matt 5:9), while in Luke’s version, those who love their enemies and do good will be “sons of the Most High” (Luke 6:35). The resurrected dead are “sons of God,” equal to angels, and “sons of the resurrection” (Luke 20:36). One becomes a “son of God” by faith (Rom

84

Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 227.

The Bible and Trinity

53

8:14, 19; Gal 3:26).85 Jesus being called the “son of God” should be seen in terms of how biblical authors used the term.

Fatherhood of God A concept that plays an influential role in the New Testament is the fatherhood of God. In the Old Testament, the idea that God is a father does occur, but rarely. Passages include Psalm 103:13, which states, “As a father has compassion for his children, so the LORD has compassion for those who fear him.” Proverbs 3:12 and Deuteronomy 32:6 are other examples. However, the most striking image of God as a father is found in Hosea 11:14, which explains that YHWH loved Israel as a child and called him, the divine son, out of Egypt. However, the more YHWH called Israel, the more the people went from God by sacrificing to the Baals and offering incense to idols. “Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk, I took them up in my arms; but they did not know that I healed them” (v. 3). YHWH bound them with cords of human kindness, bending down to them and feeding them. In contrast, in Jesus’ life, the fatherhood theme is programmatic and central, as illustrated by the thirty references in the first Synoptic Gospel, and the 120 references in the last Gospel (John).86 By calling God his father, Jesus illustrated his unique relationship with God, which was characterized by intimacy. He also teaches the disciples to address God as their father in their prayers (Matt 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4). Kärkkäinen notes that a curious and significant development is present in how the Gospels refer to the fatherhood of God. The oldest Gospel, Mark, uses the term only four times, while Matthew contains thirty references. The Gospel of John, written only at the end of the first century CE, uses the word 120 times, as prior mentioned.87 It is clear that the emphasis on the idea of God’s fatherhood developed over time in Christian thought. The earliest Gospel does not interpret Jesus’ relationship with God primarily or clearly in terms of a son and father. It serves as a warning that the teachings 85

Matthew James Hamilton, “Sons of God,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016). 86 Kärkkäinen, Christian Understandings of the Trinity, 20. 87 Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 25.

54

Chapter 2

presented by the different Gospels should not be read on the same level – one should distinguish between them in light of the way the early Church thought of Jesus’ meaning and teachings over time and in various locations. It is possible to see several clear developments that occurred in the Church’s reflections on Jesus, as demonstrated in their preaching. The Gospels present the Church’s remembrance, recollection, and reminiscence of Jesus and his ministry over decades as the apostles initially told them about him. Only much later did the concept of Jesus’ preexistence develop, initially in an undeveloped form. It is not clear whether the biblical authors refer to the idea of the preexistent Son as an idea in the divine mind or an actuality that had preexisted. It is also not clear whether the concept gradually developed or formed a stratum found in the earliest traditions. Not all scholars agree with the traditional view that the concept of preexistence originated with Paul; some think he developed an idea that existed from the earliest times of the apostles’ preaching – alternatively, did the early Church use an existing idea from other religious traditions? It is clear that binitarianism developed first to account for Jesus’s existence before the idea of two elements in the divine to account for references to the Father and Son made it necessary for the Church to eventually relate it to the Spirit. Before Jesus’ incarnation challenged the early Church to find a way to explain Jesus’ relation to the Father, no distinction between the Spirit of God and God existed. Both terms applied to one hypostatic union. It was only when (some) early theologians affirmed the deity of the lordship of Jesus that it presented a major, significant challenge in terms of monotheism.

Challenge of the Spirit in the Divinity The divine Spirit also plays a prominent role in the New Testament. The Spirit is viewed in terms of metaphors like “fire,” “dove,” and “paraclete.” The Old Testament has more than four hundred references to “spirit” (ruach), of which approximately one hundred are clear references to the “Spirit of God.” It implicitly defines the Spirit as the principle of life and divine energy.

The Bible and Trinity

55

An interesting addition unique to the prophetic books is the connection between the “Spirit” and the promised “messiah.” For instance, Isaiah 11:13 predicts the coming of a “shoot from the stump of Jesse” that will become a branch. The spirit of YHWH shall rest on him, a spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel and might, knowledge, and the fear of the Lord that will be his delight. What distinguishes this person (or group – perhaps the reference is to a renewed Israel) from others is the anointing of YHWH’s Spirit in his life. New Testament authors would later apply the passages to Jesus, evaluating them as prophetic and acknowledging the close connection between Jesus and the Spirit. The Gospel writers also referred to these expectations when they described Jesus’ birth, as referred to above. Matthew 1:20 describes how an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, telling him to take Mary as his wife, “for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.” Being conceived from the Spirit implicitly implies that Jesus was the one assigned to save his people from their sins, as the words of the angel in the next verse show: “She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (v.21). Matthew 3:16-17 explains that Jesus, at his baptism by John, saw the heavens open and the Spirit of God descending like a dove, alighting on him. A voice from heaven followed it, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” Following his baptism, the Spirit drives him into the wilderness, where Satan tempts him for forty days, and the angels wait on him (Mark 1:12-13). Scott Swain refers to this as an inner-Trinitarian conversation, where different entities or voices within the divine speak to or about one another. He refers to this as the Bible’s primary mode of Trinitarian self-revelation.88 In all the Synoptic Gospels’ accounts (Mark 1:10-11; Matt 3:16-17; Luke 3:21-22), the Father speaks to or of the Son and anoints the Son with the Spirit (Matt 3:16-17). Swain speculates that this may serve as a motivation for the Gospel of Matthew to teach the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (Matt 28:19). “Divine Trinitarian self88

Swain, The Trinity, 39.

56

Chapter 2

naming is the foundation of our baptismal naming of the triune God.”89 However, these conclusions are premature as they read more into the passage than what is warranted. It may represent the Church’s reflection on Jesus’ baptism in terms of Isaiah’s prophecy of the branch referred to above. It should also be kept in mind that God calling a human being a Son or bestowing the divine Spirit on the person does not necessarily indicate the direct identification with the human being and God, indicating divinity in Jesus.

Jesus and the angels Another vital passage in trinitarian arguments is found at the beginning of the book of Hebrews. The NRSV provides the heading for Hebrews 1:5-14 as “The Son is Superior to the Angels” (NIV provides the same title for the whole chapter). The first part serves as an interpretation of Psalm 2:5. The object of the divine words, “You are my son; today I have begotten you,” is clearly the king of Zion (referred to in “my holy hill”) in the previous verse. The Hebrews author applies it to Jesus to demonstrate the superiority of the Son, as God’s divine ambassador, over angels (v. 6). The author engages a well-known interpretive technique of the day, called “prosopological exegesis.” It consists of an exegetical process that provides the reader with the tools to interpret persons’ identities that are ambiguous (and at times, totally unclear) and that are speaking in the passage or spoken to in the passage. The exegesis asks the questions explicitly: who is talking in this passage? And, to whom is the speaker speaking in the passage? The speaker’s identity is clearly YHWH, but it is not immediately apparent to the Hebrews author about whom YHWH is talking. In the author of the Hebrews book’s interpretation, the Lord addresses the “person” of his Son, Jesus. The reason for Hebrews’ interpretation is found in the concept in Hebrews 2:7 (using Ps 8 with its similar ideas) that human beings are “a little lower than the angels (or divine beings).” The Son is, thus, superior to angels because he is eternally begotten, not made (also compare Heb. 1:7, which refers to the created nature of angels, again contrasting them to the son). Verse 14 calls the angels “spirits in the divine service, sent to serve

89

Swain, The Trinity, 39-40.

The Bible and Trinity

57

for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation; they are winds and flames of fire” (v. 7). But of the Son, it is stated that all angels should worship him, although, for the moment, he was made a little lower than the angels (like a human being – compared with v. 7). However, next, he was crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death (v. 9). The author also refers to the Son as YHWH’s “firstborn” (v. 6). Swain’s assertion that the clear meaning that the Son was begotten in the eternal, unchanging “today” of God’s triune life is again not supported by any evidence within the passage.90 The first four verses also do not refer anywhere to the Son’s eternity. The Son is called the appointed heir of all things, the one through whom the worlds were created, the reflection of God’s glory, the exact imprint of God’s very being, the one through whose word all things are sustained, and who sat down at the right hand of the divine (vv.2-3). However, it is not stated explicitly that his origins lie within eternity and that he shares divine personhood. The passage not only states what the Son’s relation to the Father is, but also what his relation to creation is. The Father begot the Son and created all things through the Son, preserves all things through him, and eventually exalted him to the right hand of the Divinity. Now the Divinity has given him a name more excellent than the angels. For Swain, this implies that the passage states that creation exists for the Father’s eternally begotten Son to be his inheritance; the person of the Son is the purpose of creation.91 Again, this is read into the passage, using presuppositions about the Trinity to interpret the passage in a trinitarian manner without the evidence within the passage that undeniably relates it. It seems to be a general problem of many interpreters that their textual interpretation is defined and qualified by their presuppositions about the Trinity. When one tries to read such passages by deliberately listening to them without such presuppositions, the passage, in many cases, sounds different.

90 91

Swain, The Trinity, 42. Swain, The Trinity, 43.

58

Chapter 2

A problem that Psalm 2 confronted the initial readers or listeners (the vast majority of people initially hearing the message because of widespread illiteracy) with was the identification of the son of YHWH with the Israelite king, that was supposed to be superior to the angels (see v. 6: “Let all God’s angels worship him”). In reading the Hebrews author’s interpretation of the passage, this should be considered. The author of Hebrews intercepts and solves the challenge by applying the words to Jesus, assuming that Jesus is divine in some sense. Current readers have to decide whether it is a good practice to interpret an Old Testament passage with such a new meaning. A passage like Hebrews 1:5 challenges interpreters to reconsider its innerdivine conversation based on the assumption of the Hebrews author that Jesus, a human person, is equal to the Divinity. Nowhere in the Bible is the term “person” used to describe the various aspects of the divine; in the New Testament, the two agents of Son and Spirit who are viewed as equal to the one Divinity also are not designated as “persons.” In any case, in what sense can “spirit” be equated to “person?” We clearly distinguish between the two. While it is clear that the human being, Jesus, was a person, did that mechanically imply that Jesus is also identified with being a person forever? Whether the widespread acceptance of the three agents or entities of Father, Son, and Spirit are equal, exist apart from one another, and should be interpreted as persons remains a question that needs to be addressed.

Jesus’ relationship with the divine in a cosmic framework A separate group of passages that focus on the Divinity is found in a cosmic framework, relating the divine work to the cosmos and human creation. The New Testament uses it to introduce the unfolding narrative of God’s involvement with human beings. Without them, it is impossible to grasp the full extent of the creation, redemption, and consummation provided by the divine for human salvation. The most important of these is undoubtedly the Johannine Prologue (1:118). The author uses it to introduce Jesus’ life and ministry and the author’s understanding of his meaning. It begins with the exact words as those found in Genesis 1:1, presumably intentionally, and assumes the existence of both Father and Son (1:1). The Son, concludes the Prologue, exists as the Father’s

The Bible and Trinity

59

only Son “close to the Father’s heart” (1:18). In John 1:3-5, the Word is portrayed as the means through which everything was made. He is the life and light of men that cannot be overcome by darkness, presumably referring to death. Verses 6-13 now contextualize “the true light,” the Word, with John the Baptist, the theme of the next pericope (1:19-28). John is “a man sent from God” (v. 6) “to testify to the light” (v. 7) without being the light himself. Instead, he identifies himself as the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, “Make straight the way of the Lord,” using the words of Isaiah (1:23). The author now continues in verses 14-18 to describe how the Word was incarnated amongst people. He had the glory of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth (or: like the only born unto the father) (v. 14), and he provided grace upon grace to his witnesses, the disciples (v. 16). He revealed God, something he could do because he was close to the Father’s heart, as the only Son (v. 17). He transcended what Moses revealed about the divine to Israel. It is clear that the Prologue implies the closeness and intimacy between the Father and Jesus, portraying them in nearly equal ways but assigning different functions to them. Because Jesus was a human person, it is tempting to view the Father equally as a person, if not a human being. However, the passage does not state that such equalization is permissible or even desirable. Like Hebrews 1:5, it views the relationship between the Father and the Son as primary for thinking about the purpose of the cosmos (cf. John 17:24–26, which defines the basis of the relationship between Father and Son as love).92 The Word is distinguished and identified with God simultaneously, providing a dialectical framework for thinking about the relationship between Father and Word, supported by proper and common predication. The Word is distinguished from Moses, John the Baptist, and other representatives of God and identified with the divine agent of redemption who became a human being to save humanity from the sins that separate them from the Creator. 92

This is not the only clear link between John’s Gospel and the enigmatic Hebrews book with its extended sermon. Clearly both documents originated within spheres that held some relation to each other.

60

Chapter 2

A similar passage can be found in Colossians 1:15-20 as part of the author’s introduction to the epistle. It describes the Son as the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, and the one through whom God created all things in heaven and on Earth (v. 15-16). He also exists as the head of the Church. He called his body to display the close association between Jesus and the faith community and explain the reason for the community’s existence: to continue Jesus’ ministry on earth after he left the earth. In him, the fullness of God dwelled, and God reconciled all things on Earth and in heaven with the divine by making peace through the blood of Jesus’ cross (v. 19).93 He also became the firstborn from the dead (v. 18), implying the resurrection of believers (the Church) aside from being the firstborn of the creation (v. 15). The author uses a series of prepositions that in ancient philosophical discussions show direct causality (e.g., “through,” “in,” “for”).94 It explains that the first and final cause of all creatures is the result of the Son, who is the cause of creation’s harmony (v. 17: “in him all things hold together”) and reconciliation through his incarnation and execution (vv. 19-20), implying that he is preeminent in everything (v. 18: “he might come to have first place in everything”). The prologue clearly identifies the Son with the divine, serving as the agent of creation, providence, and reconciliation. The implication for the relationship between the Son and creation is the Son’s pre-eminence in all things. Again, the Jewish reader would probably find clear reflections of Proverbs 8’s discussion of the relationship between wisdom and the divine in the passage.

Relationship between Jesus and the divine in terms of his mission Another type of valuable passage in considering the relationship between Jesus and the divine is related to the description of Jesus’ mission. For 93 The remark in verse 20 is remarkable, that God reconciled all things in heaven as well through Jesus, by making peace through the blood of the cross. Does the author exaggerate the beneficial results of the cross by applying its effects even to the heaven or does the author use religious ideas that rely on some source unknown to us? 94 Swain, The Trinity, 46.

The Bible and Trinity

61

instance, in Mark 12:1-12’s parable of the wicked tenants, Jesus provides the main characters and plotline of the Gospel as such and the contents of the early church’s preaching, in Swain’s opinion.95 The Father plants a vineyard, which refers to Israel, and hires it out to the leaders of Israel to keep the vineyard and produce its fruits (or some of them) for the owner. However, servants are harshly treated when the owner sends them to collect the fruits. Eventually and incomprehensibly, given the way the servants were treated, the owner decides to send “a beloved son” (v. 6), a title the author also uses for Jesus at his baptism (1:11) and transfiguration (9:7). The tenants killed the son, presuming in a manner that is not logical at all that they would inherit the vineyard in this way (12:7). The owner responds by destroying the tenants and getting other tenants to care for the vineyard (12:9). In his interpretation of the parable, Jesus refers to Psalm 118:22-23: the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone (12:10–11). The implication is clear: Jesus as the cornerstone will be rejected and killed, leading to the punishment of the current tenants when the Son is established as the cornerstone (2:20). In this regard, Colossians 1 states that the Son is the Father’s “beloved son.” He comes to the earth as and like the “servants” of the Father (prophets and others used as human agents of the divine among people). Still, he is distinguished from the servants in being sent at the story’s climax and identified as co-owner and heir of the vineyard (12:7). The fruit of the vineyard rightfully belongs to him. A similar passage is found in Galatians 4:4-7. The author refers to the identity of Abraham’s true children and heirs (a subject discussed in more detail in chapter 3). Believers are portrayed as “sons of God” (3:26) and “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise” (29). How did this happen? When the fullness of time had come (the time was fulfilled, implying that it is now the correct time for God to act), God sent his Son, born of a woman and under the Mosaic law, to redeem those enslaved by the law to sin and adopt them as God’s sons. As sons, the Spirit of the Son affirms Jesus’ Father as their Father as well, implying that they are no longer slaves but heirs through God (4:4–7).

95

Swain, The Trinity, 47.

62

Chapter 2

The author implies that Jesus’ incarnation introduced a new creation as his mission and the mission of his Spirit as the means to affirm believers’ sonship of the Father (4:6). Both missions form the saving activity of God, to make human beings heirs “through God” (4:7). The implication is clear: the relations between the Father and Son are replicated in the lives of believers, changing them into the same status as the Son. It implies that God becomes believers’ Father through the Son and by the Spirit. God is the Father of Jesus (Eph 1:3), Jesus’s redeemed siblings (Eph 1:5), and all creatures (Eph 3:14–15).

Jesus and the Spirit What about the relationship between Jesus and the Spirit? Jesus’ ministry of healing, his raising of the dead, exorcisms, and other miracles clearly require the anointing with the Spirit, as Jesus explains in the words of Isaiah: the Spirit of the Lord is upon him. After reciting Isaiah’s prophecy, he adds, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” The Spirit anoints him to bring good news to the poor, proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, and let the oppressed go free because it is the dawn of the Lord’s favor (Matt 13:54–58; Mark 6:1–6; Luke 4:16-21). The Spirit also resurrects Jesus from the dead (Rom 1:4) and he becomes the life-giving spirit (1 Cor 15:45). Since the day of Pentecost, the Spirit is the one who baptizes believers, in the words of John the Baptist, who also calls Jesus, according to Matthew 3:11, the one who “will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” The first disciples received his Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). In time, the disciples realized that the Spirit is, in the words of Wolfhart Pannenberg, the medium of Jesus’ communion with his Father and the believers’ mediator of the participation in Christ. 96 As Jesus mediated the presence of God for believers, the Spirit mediates the divine presence, as illustrated using the metaphor of paraclete for both Jesus and

96 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, vol. 1. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 260.

The Bible and Trinity

63

the Spirit.97 Like Jesus, believers also expect the Spirit to resurrect them from the dead (Rom 8:11). The relationship of the Son and Spirit with the Father is not readily evident. However, the New Testament identifies them more closely with the divine than it does in the case of human beings. It might be that their different origins distinguish the Son and Spirit from each other and the Father. The Father begets the Son, the Son is begotten by the Father, and both breathe forth the Spirit (view of the Western Church; the Eastern church believes only the Father breathed forth the Spirit). A distinction is made between active and passive spiration. Active spiration identifies the Father and the Son as the persons who eternally breathe out the person of the Holy Spirit. In contrast, passive spiration is viewed as the personal property of the Spirit, identifying the Spirit as a divine person eternally breathed out by the person of the Father and the person of the Son.98 According to this argument, paternity (begetting the person of the Son), filiation (being eternally begotten by the person of the Father), and spiration (being a person by eternally being breathed out by the person of the Father and the person of the Son) are the only fundamental distinctions between the three agencies. It is also suggested in the New Testament that the Spirit and word, identified with the incarnated Son in the Johannine Gospel, existed before the creation of life on planet earth. In distinguishing between the three entities or agencies in terms of their different origins, one should ask whether that implies that they represent different persons. Or does the depiction of their different origins only serve to explain how the specific agency started to serve divine purposes as required by circumstances? In conclusion, it might be possible to shift from the binitarianism of the early Church, emphasizing the Father and Son, to implicit trinitarianism, with many binitarian passages alongside the well-known trinitarian Scriptures,

97

See Marius Nel, “The Notion of the Holy Spirit as Paraclete from a Pentecostal Perspective,” In Luce Verbi 50, no. 1 (2016) for a full discussion. 98 Swain, The Trinity, 136.

64

Chapter 2

such as Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14.99 For instance, the binitarian passage Ephesians 1:3-14 sings the praises of the God and Father of Jesus; He provides every heavenly spiritual blessing by revealing the word of truth found in the gospel of salvation. It verbalizes the sentiments of believers sealed with the promised Holy Spirit (v. 13), the pledge of their inheritance toward redemption. However, a shift from binitarianism to trinitarianism occurred and an integrated trinitarian grounding did not accompany it to describe the ontological essence of God. As Pannenberg states, nowhere in the New Testament are the interrelations between the three designations clarified. However, it emphasizes the interrelatedness of the three.100

Conclusion This chapter considered evidence from both the Old and New Testaments. It showed the basis for the Church’s views of the relationship of entities within the Divinity. It found that the Old Testament does not indicate any development into a trinitarian doctrine of YHWH. Israel’s God is consistently portrayed in monotheistic terms. The authors did not find references to the “Spirit” challenging because they equated the Spirit to God in the same way that a human being’s spirit is correlated to the person. Finding “references” to the Trinity requires imaginative and creative activities that use the presupposition that the Bible reveals God as a triune consisting of three persons. Evidence from the New Testament showed that, in an attempt to define Jesus’ identity, authors used a binitarian view of God, implying that it was found in the early layers of the tradition. Only eventually did it evolve into a trinitarian perspective. However, there is no clear evidence of speaking about God in terms of persons, except if one accepts that the human being Jesus, a person, continued to exist after the ascension as a person, suggesting that the Father is also a “person.” However, the

99 Matthew 28:19-20 is probably the passage the most quoted by Pentecostals because it drives their missional urge in order to realize what they perceive as their restoration of the church that will be ready for the parousia. 100 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1:268-69.

The Bible and Trinity

65

discussion asked the question, does that presuppose that the Spirit is a person as well? Nowhere does the Bible clearly teach that the one Divinity consists of separate agencies or persons. However, it acknowledges that such agencies exist and stand in a close relationship with the divine, without explicitly mentioning or explaining the nature of the relation. In a similar fashion but without the exact immediate identification between the agency and the divine, it also identifies human representatives used by the divine in the act of revelation. The Bible, including the New Testament, subscribes to the view that there is only one true God and that all creatures find their origins in the divine act of creation. Jesus’ incarnation is explained in terms of divine love for human beings and grace, which allows human beings to be restored in their relationship with the divine. The result is that such beings are embraced within the relations of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the Father and the Son. The three divine entities or agencies are not identified as persons. The assumption used in parts of the New Testament that the Son’s humanity as a person that exists equally with the Father implies that the Father is similarly a person, although indeed not a human person. The divine does not consist of parts related to genus and species, substance and accidents, potentiality, and being and essence.101

101

Swain, The Trinity, 55, referring to Johannes Wollebius (1589-1629).

CHAPTER 3 A SHORT HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH Introduction The previous chapter discussed biblical evidence trinitarians used to base their doctrine of the Trinity. The next question is how the early Church thought about the relation between the Father, the Spirit, and Jesus. How did they reconcile what seems to be the irreconcilable views of strict Jewish monotheism with the Christian concept of three equal divine beings that share the one Divinity? How do three separate persons exist within one Divinity? The question produced various perspectives, especially in the first few centuries. However, it is unclear to what extent differences of opinion existed in the early church, how these differences developed historically, and how many believers adhered to different views. The common view or “master narrative” differed from this viewpoint. Most in the church accepted that the origins of Christianity were settled without needing any further data.102 The master narrative asserts that Jesus came to establish the Christian Church. He gave his disciples his complete teachings, and they relayed everything correctly to the bishops of the early churches. In turn, they faithfully passed down the entire teachings to their successors until the fourth-century church processed these doctrines into the Nicene Creed. The Church reached the consensus that the Creed represents the full and authoritative truth of the Church through the ages. In other words, the

102

Vearncombe, Scott and Taussig, After Jesus Before Christianity, 2.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

67

Church is the heir of a unified, continuous early tradition delivered in an unbroken line through the agency of the bishopric or diocese. However, in their research into the history of the first two centuries of the Church’s existence, the Westar Institute found that there was, at that stage, no master story. Instead, the early movements of Jesus people represent a set of mosaic tiles in the process of being pieced together.103 It took centuries to discover many of these pieces, and some are still missing. The discovery of Gnostic documents at Nag Hammadi in 1945 in Egypt opened the door to find many alternative views held by some of these Jesus people. The picture of the Jesus movement in the first two centuries is one of the manyshaped tiles that established not one story but many.104 The early Church found that it was vital to decide who Jesus was. Their most basic assertion was that God is one.105 How could they explain their experience of Jesus in terms of their monotheism? Some of them thought of Jesus as divine and developed a binitarianism, with Jesus co-existing with the Father, implying a two-in-one God. Clearly, this description did not satisfy everyone and did not completely explain their experience of Jesus. But they decided that it ruled out the other opinions about Jesus. The different opinions of Jesus’ identity were brought to a close by the challenges that Arius presented to the church in the third and fourth centuries CE. Arius (256-336 CE) attempted to solve the challenge of Jesus’ relation to the Father by seeing the Messiah exclusively as a human creature. He taught that although a special relationship existed between Jesus and God, Jesus was not an uncreated deity.

103

Research shows that the term “Christians” was seldom used to refer to the early believers. The literature shows that these people referred to themselves by various other names, such as “Believers of the Anointed (Messiah, Christ),” “Confidants of the Anointed,” “Friends of the Anointed,” “Sisters and Brothers of the Anointed,” “Intimates of the Anointed,” “the Enslaved of God,” “the body of the Anointed,” “brothers and sisters,” and “the Way” (Vearncombe, Scott and Taussig, After Jesus Before Christianity, 11, 27). 104 Vearncombe, Scott and Taussig, After Jesus Before Christianity, 3. 105 Christopher L. Webber, Welcome to the Episcopalian Church: An Introduction to its History, Faith, and Worship (New York: Morehouse, 1999), 67.

Chapter 3

68

Additionally, several monarchianist views also functioned in the early church as solutions to the challenge, with both modalist and dynamic versions. Tertullian was the first to refer to the movement as Monarchianism. Its two forms consisted of Theodotus’ argument that Jesus was a mere man adopted as the son of God and then endowed with divine power; that is the essence of dynamic Monarchianism. The other view, held by Sabellius and Praxeas, enjoyed more popular support. It held that only one divine being manifested the divine self and appeared under different modes and names, such as Father, Son, and Spirit. This is modalist Monarchianism. Popes like Zephyrinus (198-217) and Callistus (217-222) initially supported Sabellius’ position. Later, they turned away from it. Eventually, Callistus excommunicated Sabellius.106 Separate developments also characterized the Christian church in the East and the West due to different spiritual models and spiritualities operating in the two traditions as well as the linguistic problems where the Western church applied extrabiblical Latin terms to define its theology, especially in the case of the doctrine of the Trinity. At the same time, it was difficult to find Greek equivalents to reproduce the connotations found in the Latin terms defined by the church councils. As a result, the Eastern Church continued to use the same language as the New Testament (and Septuagint). For instance, the Western church used hypostasis, referring to “person[hood],” an unknown term in the Greek church. In attempting to find a common understanding of such key vital concepts independently from purely linguistic and etymological meanings, the two traditions slowly drifted apart, eventually resulting in two traditions that excluded each other. Readers should be reminded that the earliest Christians were mostly Jews, while Hellenists joined the church only at a later stage, thanks to the missionary work of the early apostles and other believers. Initially, the Christian Church consisted of believing Jews and God-fearing Greeks, and was perceived as an extension of the Jewish synagogue. However, these Jesus believers were eventually driven out. Finally, it led to their banishment from all synagogue services after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE due to what Jews perceived as the “disloyalty” of some Jewish Christians 106

Farrelly, The Trinity, 76.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

69

when they did not participate in defending Jerusalem. They did so because they heeded Jesus’ warning, according to Mark 13:14, that those staying in Judea should flee to the mountains when they saw the desolating sacrilege set up in the temple. Eventually, many of those Jewish Christians fleeing the devastation of Jerusalem and its surrounding towns settled in Pella, located in the northwest part of modern Jordan, at a rich water source in the Jordan valley, south of the Sea of Galilee (today’s Lake Tiberias). From this time, the number of Jewish Christian believers shrunk, and this element was eventually eliminated, with a few exceptions. More Hellenist Christians already belonged to the early Church at this stage than Jewish believers. The language they used was Koine Greek and (among Romans) Latin.

Reasons why Jewish Christians started to worship Jesus despite their monotheistic religious culture Traditionally, the approach toward monotheism in the second temple period was seen as strict and jealous, a vigilant monotheism that considered worshiping any other entity than God unacceptable. The implication is that early Jewish Christians, accepting that they were good Jews and thus monotheists, did not have any option but to deny Jesus any divine status. Instead, they agreed that Jesus was a special envoy of God. How can one then accommodate the clear indications within the New Testament that Christians viewed Jesus as divine? Recent debate in theological circles has centered on what led to the early Christian adoration and worship of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Two answers are provided to the question. The first answer suggests that Christian worship of Jesus as divine resulted from a lowering of standards regarding the exclusivity of Jewish monotheism in the latter part of the second-temple period (535 BCE-70 CE) among Jews. It might have occurred among more enlightened Jews, perhaps by its admitting of several semi-divine mediator figures into Jewish theology. Jesus would then have served as another of these mediator figures with divine characteristics, reflecting the looser or more reflective monotheism found in second temple literature. The existence of several intermediaries between God and humanity implies the diversity of first-century Jewish monotheism. Nevertheless, some

70

Chapter 3

orthodox Jews kept on emphasizing YHWH’s monotheism at the exclusion of any other figure related to the divine. In the same way, other scholars accept that many believers found it possible to reconcile belief in God’s uniqueness with reverence to other heavenly figures, such as exalted patriarchs or significant angel figures. They even left room for personified attributes of God in these figures. In some cases, proponents viewed such central figures as semi-divine. It explains how Jewish Christians could have eventually concluded that Jesus as divine should be worshiped and adored on the same level as God.107 A second response to why Jewish Christians would have considered seeing Jesus as divine and offering him worship on the same level as they do to YHWH was that they included Jesus as a divine figure within the general idea of Israel’s one God of Israel. The theological notion that the God who delivered the elect people from Egyptian slavery was the God who forsook Jesus on the cross and then raised him from the dead implies divine identification with Jesus, forcing them to consider Jesus’ identity.108 During the last two or three decades, a third alternative perspective developed. It asserts that Jewish monotheists in the second temple period never left room for another divine being existing next to or equal to God. However, early Jewish Christians solved their dilemma of viewing Jesus as divine by including Jesus within the identity of God. They found in the Hebrew Bible some intimations and analogies that suggested that God was to reveal the divine self in the future in person for eschatological reasons. In addition, God’s purpose was to renew the covenant with Abraham to bless Israel and the nations. When Jesus fulfilled these expectations, they concluded that Jesus is identical to God, a revelation of God on Earth, and included in the divine identity. This belief would then have accommodated belief in the pre-existence of the Savior. This last view questions the prevailing presuppositions in New Testament studies. It started with Reimarus and included the developments in historical 107

Fred Sanders, “The State of the Doctrine of the Trinity in Evangelical Theology,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 47, no. 2 (Spring 2005), 156. 108 Sanders, “The State of the Doctrine of the Trinity in Evangelical Theology,” 155.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

71

criticism, especially in traditionsgeschichtliche and religionsgeschichtlihe forms. The view developed that the earliest Christology was low and eventually evolved into a high Christology, representing a developmental Christology.109 It sees such Christian perspectives as a late development at the end of a long process, proven by the layered strata of different views on Jesus’ humanity and divinity found in New Testament documents. The low Christology in the earliest layers limited Jesus to being a human being and miracle worker (e.g., in Mark). A high(er) Christology eventually developed, that the incarnation of Jesus presupposes pre-existence in, e.g., John’s Gospel. Unfortunately, other documentary evidence of how early Jewish Christians’ perspectives developed to acknowledge the divinity of Jesus does not exist, apart from the New Testament documents written by Jewish disciples. It is difficult to discern a clear developmental line in Christological thinking within the early Church in the New Testament. Another option is to concentrate on how the early Church thought about Christ, the theme of the next section. The discussion then leads to further developments in the medieval and contemporary Church.

The Differences of Opinion in the Early Church The early Church started with the death of Jesus as a Jewish religious movement and transitioned to a Christian Church within a relatively short period. James Edwards concludes that these years probably represent the most remarkable and formative changes the church would ever experience in its history.110 Edwards compares it to the reaction of various plant and animal life near a water source. The changes were organic responses of the movement to the conviction that Jesus Christ changed the essence of history and religion with his life, death, and resurrection. And as a result, what he did and meant to them and charged them to do changed them into

109

Sanders, “The State of the Doctrine of the Trinity in Evangelical Theology,” 157-

8. 110

James R. Edwards, From Christ to Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the Church in Less Than a Century (Grand Rapids, MI: BakerAcademic, 2021), 249.

72

Chapter 3

missionaries on their way to the ends of the earth with the good news that Jesus Christ transforms people’s lives. The time it happened was characterized by believers’ lack of influence due to the movement’s powerlessness to the Roman state’s dominance. The Church was persecuted during certain times and in certain areas and experienced many obstacles in its mission. The movement initially consisted of a small number of adherents in various countries as a grassroots movement. In time, the Church changed from a rural to a predominantly urban movement. Where it originated and existed primarily in Jerusalem and Palestine, Rome became the young Church’s new center in expanding to the east and the south. Its primary language of communication changed from Aramaic to Greek, and its Scriptures were written down in the common language of the Roman Empire, except for Italy with its Latin. It changed from a predominantly Jewish movement to an international Church with a mission purposefully and effectively directed at all other nations. While its origin was in Judaism, with its religion consisting of the synagogue service and its study of the Torah, the Church existed as preaching and witnessing community of people who encountered the life-changing experience of God’s presence. While it initially congregated mainly in synagogues, the new setting was house churches and eventually church buildings. Its ethos also changed from the Jewish cultural world to a Christian ethos, shedding its early emphasis on the Mosaic law and consisting of a demanding moral code. Apostles led the early Church; after the apostles’ death, the Church appointed bishops to supervise the different Churches. Next to the traditional Church, several groups persisted in functioning, providing alternative views of Jesus’ meaning and message. Jesus and the early Jewish Christians meticulously kept the stringent Sabbath regulations contained in the Torah. In contrast, their successors never held the Sabbath as holy. They referred to themselves as a “church,” a term that represented comprehensive changes in Christianity’s spirituality, structure, hermeneutics, and vision, eventually leading to its decay into Christendom. Additionally, the early Church gathered on the first day of the

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

73

week, presumably to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.111 And early believers referred to their movement as The “Way.” The early Church had to face the challenge of defining the identity of Jesus. Was he a human being, or did he have divine origins? In their attempt to relate the Son to the Father, some in the early Church used the Logos theology, where logos (“word”) was distinctively related to the Father.

Apologists: Father, Son, and Spirit are aspects of one person The apologist Theophilus of Antioch (died c. 183) was the first theologian, as far as can be ascertained, to use the word “Trinity” (trias) to refer to the three, “God, his Word, his Wisdom.” Theophilus identified Wisdom with the Spirit; most other authors of the era identified Wisdom with the Word.112 For instance, Athenagoras explains that God’s Son is not like a human son at all. Jesus was instead the Father’s Word in idea and actualization, and God made everything through him.113 Other apologists of the second century CE, like Tatian, Justin Martyr, and Theophilus of Antioch, linked the philosophical concept developed by the Jewish philosopher Philo in Neo-Platonic terms to the Old Testament’s references to dabar (“word”). They then linked John’s use of the same term (in Greek) in the first chapter of his Gospel. Their purpose was to provide a reasonable defense for their faith vis-á-vis the philosophy and culture of their day. They did that by attempting to establish a correlation between Greek philosophy and Judaism and, by inference, between Greek philosophy and the Christian faith. Their purpose was to make the gospel more palatable to Greek listeners. They emphasized the unity of God; Christ was the Father’s thought or mind, manifested in creation and revelation. They used the analogy between a person’s rationality and speech to explain the shared substance between Father and Son. They also applied other metaphors, for 111

Edwards (From Christ to Christianity) dedicates his book to the development of these changes. 112 Farrelly, The Trinity, 75. 113 Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, in Early Christian Doctrines, edited by J.N.D. Kelly, 2nd ed. (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1960), 99.

74

Chapter 3

instance, the sun and its rays of fire that kindles a fire, to illustrate the close connection and distinction between God and Jesus. Eventually, this view would be called “consubstantiality.” Consubstantial is simply one possible translation of the Latin equivalent of the Greek term homoousios (literally, “the same substance”).114 Important to note is that the Apologists were careful not to separate Father and Son from each other. They emphasized that Father and Son were not different in kind and were not divided. When the Apologists played a vital role in the Church by the second century, early Christians clearly did not accept a distinction between the “persons” of the Father and the Son but saw them as modes or aspects of one “person.” The image of “word” does not distinguish between the person and the speech, and the same is true of the analogies of fire and the sun. Their frame of reference did not allow any notion of mutuality between the Father and the Son. Their sole purpose was to defend the transcendence of the one God. The same was true of the relation between Jesus and the Spirit. Until at least the end of the third century, believers made no clear discernment between the two. The Spirit of Jesus was the divine Spirit. It is also true of the New Testament; it did not divide the Son and Spirit straightforwardly. For Irenaeus, for example, the Son and Spirit were the two hands of God rather than two distinct personalities.115 It reflects the subordinationist tendency that insists that both the Son and Spirit are subjected to the Father. Irenaeus follows the custom in the Old Testament, which takes the Word and Spirit as parallel and virtually interchangeable entities in the service of God.116 At first, the Spirit was also equated to the Word. Only in time was the view accepted that equated the Son with the Word, based on Proverbs 8:22-23. Proverbs states that the Word claims to have been created at the beginning

114

https://www.franciscanmedia.org/ask-a-franciscan/consubstantial-explained; accessed 2022-05-24. 115 Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 4.20.1. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103404.htm; accessed 2022-05-17. See also Origenes’s explanation that the differentiation between the three consists in the Son working in rational creatures while the Spirit work in the Son and creation. However, the Father works in all things (in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.20.1). 116 Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 23.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

75

of YHWH’s work, as the first of divine acts of long ago, before the beginning of the Earth. When alternative views of the Trinity are to be discussed in the last two chapters, we will return to the early Church’s idea of the unity between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit and use this perspective, among others, to suggest how believers can rethink God. Shirley Paulson of the Westar Institute argues that by the second century CE, the early Church held a variety and diversity of angles on the figure of Jesus. Some of these clearly extended images originated in the first century CE, while others established entirely new views.117 What it lacks is a unified image. She discusses some of the images that predominate such views, such as that Jesus was a gender-bender, a deliverer, a “true” human, a rescuer from the violence of the Roman Empire, a noteworthy teacher and healer, a great light, a child of life and immortality, a mother that fulfills the role of the world, a guide. Some viewed Jesus in a cosmic role, who teaches the correction of the “transgression” that made humanity ignorant. He is, for others, the anointed one; the savior who suffers as an opportunity to exercise proper self-control under persecution; an enslaved savior; the expounder of wisdom; the “Lord;” the Word that was God and with God, and therefore the preexistent God; the God who descended into the world; and a stranger sent to save those trapped in this imperfect world (Marcion). Bart Ehrman also discusses these various viewpoints about the identity of Jesus that marked the church of the second and third centuries CE. He claims that there is considerable evidence for the existence of a variety of Christian groups that made one or another (or several) of these claims. However, in the end, the victorious viewpoint defined the trinitarian doctrine of the ecumenical councils of the fourth century and suppressed alternative views. They effectively silenced the other voices by destroying their writings.118 Some of these groups held adoptionist views that Christ was a full flesh and blood human being. He was neither pre-existent nor (for 117

Shirley Paulson, “Jesus by Many Other Names,” in Erin Vearncombe, Scott Erin and Taussig Brandon, After Jesus Before Christianity (New York: HarperCollins, 2021), 247-264 (247). 118 Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effects of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).

76

Chapter 3

most adoptionists) born of a virgin but as a human. He lived like all other humans. At some point in his existence – for most, during his baptism – God adopted Jesus as the Christ (Messiah). He lived in a special relationship with God and mediated the divine will on Earth from then on. In this sense, he became the “Son of God.” In other words, Jesus was not divine by nature, but the Christ became divine. In response, orthodox Christians argued if it is true that Christ was a “mere man,” he would not have been able to acquire salvation for human beings.119 To do that, he had to have been divine, perfect, and innocent of all sin. Other Christian groups agreed with adoptionists. Jesus was, in flesh and blood, a human. But then, something significant had happened to him, also at his baptism. He was not adopted to be God’s Son, but came to be indwelt by God (or the Spirit of God). At that moment, an emissary from the divine realm, one of the “deities” of the Godhead, named “Christ,” entered into the human Jesus. In this way, Christ empowered Jesus for his ministry of healing, exorcism, forgiveness, and the eventual work of salvation. Shortly before his crucifixion, however, the divine Christ departed from Jesus. Christ then returned to the Pleroma, the divine realm from when the Christ came, and Jesus was left to suffer his fate alone. Ehrman referred to this Christological view as separationist, indicating a clear and identifiable division between the man Jesus and the divine Christ. Several secondcentury Gnostic groups and teachers in particular proclaimed this viewpoint. Other Christians among the Gnostics and even outside of their ranks (such as Marcion) claimed that Jesus and the Christ were one unified being. He was completely human and divine. Christ was the divinity who had come to earth to redeem the people elected to belong to God. However, as God, Christ did not really experience the restrictions and finitude that characterized humanity. For that reason, Jesus was not really human. He only “seemed” or “appeared” to be human. This viewpoint is designated as docetism (from dokein, the Greek word for “to seem or appear”).

119 The party who won in the fourth century defined what orthodoxy is; their teaching

is the only correct one.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

77

Orthodox Christians also rejected other Christological views that were not as prominent. However, this shows that the early Church disagreed about Jesus’ identity. Overall, the picture was far more complex than orthodox sources would later make it out to be. Ehrman asserts that the group that eventually attained enough dominance to determine the proceedings of the councils that Emperor Constantine called to solve the discord in the church about the identity of their Savior established a negative perception of their opposition. Eventually, scribes of the proto-orthodox party even changed the sacred passages they transmitted in some places to conform to these views.120 The dominant view defined orthodoxy, stating that Christ was divine and human and implying that Christ was a person apart from the person of God. However, paradoxically, God was only one and not two beings. The dominant Christology of the fourth and fifth centuries consists of a justification of these paradoxical affirmations.

What later became the orthodox trinitarian view: three persons in one God For many centuries, the Church viewed the “church fathers,” Ignatius and Justin, as the representative majority of second-century opinion.121 Today it has become clear that they embodied only some of the period’s innovations. And the identity of Jesus often was not the dominant theme in the secondcentury movements’ writings and narratives. His death and its aftermath stirred the imagination more than his life and ministry. As a result, the early Church used multiple images of Jesus in attempting to explain his incarnation.122 The perspective of Western theologians on the triune (or more) designations in God corresponded to Eastern theologians such as the Cappadocians, consisting of Gregory of Nyssa, bishop of Nyssa; Gregory of Nazianzus, patriarch of Constantinople; Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea; as well as Athanasius. Instead of thinking of separation between the three, they emphasized the joint participation of the three in the revelation of salvation 120

Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 16-17. Paulson, “Jesus by Many Other Names,” 264. 122 Paulson, “Jesus by Many Other Names,” 264. 121

78

Chapter 3

history in the world. In their view, the condition and consequence of the unity of the works serve as a condition and development of the unity of essence. Athanasius argued that the Father would not be a father without the son. In other words, he saw a logical necessity for paternity. He concluded that the Father was never without the Son, betraying his thinking as limited to the Earthly dimensions of space and time.123 Athanasius did not respond to the logical challenge that being the father of one son may imply more than one son (and daughters!) or that the father before the son’s birth was not a father. Eventually, the conviction grew that the Son shares in the deity, as the Father and Spirit do. In distinguishing between the Son and Father, the Church reconsidered the relation between the Father and Spirit as well. Previously, Father and Spirit were identified in essence and distinguished in different functions. Only when orthodoxy formulated a trinitarian way of explaining the Divinity in time did the idea develop that it is possible to distinguish distinct personalities without compromising their unity, presenting the challenge this publication discusses. Eventually, in time and out of sync with the early Church’s view of God, some prominent leaders and theologians started arguing that one cannot find the triune distinction in different spheres of operation of the three or the generic idea of fatherhood. Only when these theologians described God in terms of plurality did they succeed in explaining the father-son relationality in God. Their teaching eventually ended in a concept of three distinct persons within God that the early Church fathers would not have subscribed to. It is submitted that the extreme contours of the discussion in tritheism sacrificed the vital identity of God when it implies separate deities. A response to this danger was in modalist thinking. It replaced the distinction

123 Athanasius of Alexandria. “Four Discourses Against the Arians,” in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, vol. 4: A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Translated by John Henry Newman and Archibald T. Robertson. Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892), 1.29. Origen, First Principles. Translated by G.W. Butterworth (Internet Archive: Christian Classics, 2013), 1.2.9–10 already asserted it.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

79

between the three by describing them as modes of being in order to defend monotheism at the cost of the apparent multiplicity and diversity implied in the designation of three persons.124 Modalism (discussed under the next heading) is the view that the three entities of Father, Son, and Spirit are not persons, but modes or functions of one and the same God. It also represents a subordinationist view: the Son and the Spirit are subordinated to the Father, with the Son viewed as the second and the Spirit in the third place. It is submitted that significant elements in the early Church probably thought in terms of such qualified modalism to protect the unity of God, an aspect that many contemporary Jewish theologians also emphasized as the main metanarrative about the God who revealed the divine self to Israel. Irenaeus is an excellent example of the contrast between the early Church and theologians of the latter part of the third and fourth centuries CE. His subordinationism emphasized that the Spirit and Son operate as the Father’s two hands. The Son and the Spirit exist as means for the Father to do the divine work on Earth. Irenaeus’ only concern was to defend the Father’s uniqueness and transcendence. Some refer to this view as “orthodox subordinationism.” “Orthodox” is defined here as the correct belief representing the views of the traditional official Church. However, Irenaeus also wanted to emphasize the unity between Reason/Intelligence (Father) and Speech/Word (Son). The one God exists in different “modes” at various points in the economy of salvation. Appropriation refers to something else. It associates the particular works of the Trinity with one of the three persons. At the same time, each person is also involved in the outward actions of one God.

Modalism: three entities in one God Modalism was initially formulated by Noetus (in the late second century), Praxeas (also late second century), and further elucidated by Sabellius (early in the third century). The fear and dangers of tritheism drove their labors. They argued that the self-revelation of God had taken place in different ways at different times. For instance, they associated the Father with creating the universe and giving the Torah and the Son with saving and redeeming humanity. The task of the Holy Spirit is to give new life to God’s 124

Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 27-28.

80

Chapter 3

people and sanctify them. In other words, the fundamental differences are not in terms of persons; they exist in terms of appearance and chronology. Another form of modalism does not refer to functional but chronological succession, stating that the one God acts in three different manners at any given point in history. For instance, the Father created at the beginning, the Son saved humanity at the time of the incarnation, and the Spirit worked sanctification in the time of the church. The Latin-speaking African advocate and theologian from the Roman province of Carthage, Tertullian, played a vital role in developing trinitarian thinking in the Church in the third and fourth centuries. Next, the discussion turns to his notions of God as a Trinity of persons. But to understand Tertullian, it is crucial to describe the movements to which he was responding.

Monarchianism: emphasis on Father’s sovereignty Tertullian responded mainly to the Monarchianists (Greek for “sole sovereignty,” implying this group’s emphasis on divine sovereignty), such as Noetus and Praxeas in the second century CE and Sabellius in the third. Monarchianists found it challenging to reconcile the Father’s sole sovereignty with the lordship of the Son and Spirit. And for that reason, they wanted to assure the supremacy of God the Father contained in, among other things, the Shema tradition (Deut 6:4) and the affirmation of that faith by Jesus and the disciples. They denied the preexistence of Jesus as Logos, subordinating the Son to the Father in a total sense. They do not find any fundamental personal distinctions between Father and Son (and Spirit, by extension). The three designations are nothing else than transient manifestations or modes of being of an undifferentiated Divinity, relating their view to modalism. They also propounded Patripassianism that taught that the Father suffered and died in the coming of the Son, providing a logical answer to the challenge that God may require the Son to die to silence divine wrath over human sinfulness. God also suffered and died on the cross when Jesus died. Centuries later, the twentieth century would see further discussions of Patripassianism by some significant theological scholars.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

81

There are two subcategories of Monarchianism. Dynamic Monarchianism preserved the Father’s sovereignty by promoting the idea that God was dynamically present in Jesus, implying that Jesus was different from any other human being. It is divine power (dynamis) that made Jesus almost God. Modalist Monarchianism, on the other hand, saw God’s sole sovereignty in terms of the three Persons of the Trinity that do not exist as self-subsistent persons but as modes or names of the same. The three Persons are not distinguished from one another but merely different ways God manifests the divine self in other times. Matt Stefan argues that modalist Monarchianism took exception to some of the Church fathers’ subordinationism, explaining that the Spirit and the Son are subordinated to the Father. In response, it argues that the names of “Father,” “Son,” and Spirit were only different designations of the same subject, the one God. It can be demonstrated by way of an early source. Praxeas, an Asia Minor priest living at the end of the second or beginning of the third century CE, taught that the Divinity is called Father regarding the relations in which God had stood to the world. However, in other appearances, God is called “Son.”125

Tertullian: three manifestations of a single power Tertullian lived in the second part of the second century CE. As Stoic philosophy also states, he taught apologetically that all real things are material. The implication is that God as a spirit is essentially material, made out of a finer sort of matter. He was forced to think of God as material, and to realize that goal, he utilized and introduced the Latin terms trinitas and ousia to define his trinitarian musings. In his response to Monarchianism, Tertullian used two convictions to reconcile the Son’s divinity with what he saw as the rigid monotheism of the Church. His challenge was to do so without affirming modalism on the one hand or tritheism on the other. First, he stated that the Father’s sovereignty does not necessarily preclude sharing it with an equal. No separation or essential distinctions exist in the three in one Deity (or three 125 Matt Stefan, Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 15th ed., s.v. “Monarchianism”; https://www.britannica.com/topic/Monarchianism#ref16825; accessed 2022-04-28.

82

Chapter 3

Deities).126 The three were separate manifestations of a single indivisible power, such as a government with coordinated agencies. The distinction between the three was a matter of distinction rather than separation. He illustrated it with the unity between the root and shoot of a tree, the source and the river, and sun and light. Father and Son are of one substance, implying identity of substance rather than numerical unity. God has one “substance” but three distinct yet undivided “persons.” He called it “one substance in three persons” (una substantia, tres persona). The term persona (Latin for “person”) etymologically denotes a mask worn by an actor in a play. In other words, it is not “real” since it does not represent the real person behind the mask. It is submitted that the word in its initial Latin meaning that concords with the Greek meaning was not fit for what Tertullian wanted to say about God. He used the term in another sense, implying that the meaning for Latin-speaking people shifted to include distinctiveness between different persons, as many modern languages still do. In Greek plays, one actor played several roles by changing the mask accordingly. It implies that the original term “persona” would not have supplied enough reason to apply it to the deity since the mask analogy refers instead to different modes, supporting Monarchianism and modalism. The translation of “person” as “mask” befits modalist terms and provides an alternative to applying “person” to the self-revelation in the Father, Son, and Spirit.

Marcion of Sinope: Jesus as benevolent God vs. Old Testament demiurge The differences of opinion among believers from this period on the concept of the Trinity continued until the fourth century. The controversy among Christian believers led, for instance, to the views of Marcion of Sinope (c. 85 c. 160 CE).127 As an evangelist in the early Church, he taught that the

126

In Origen, Homilies on Numbers. Translated by Thomas P Scheck (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2009), 12.1. 127 See for a through discussion of Marcion’s views, Pseudo-Tertullian, “Five Books in Reply to Marcion,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, edited by Alexander

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

83

benevolent God sent Jesus as the savior in the world, the true Supreme Being, in contrast to the Hebrew malevolent demiurge and creator god of the Old Testament. The Hebrew God, the creator of the material universe, is a jealous deity whose law consists of legalistic reciprocal justice. He punishes human beings for their sins by sending suffering and death over them. However, Jesus’ God is a totally different being, a universal God of compassion and love that functioned in contrast and reaction to the Hebrew God. Jesus responds to human sinfulness with mercy and forgiveness. Marcion taught that Jesus’ ministry and teachings were incompatible with the actions of YHWH. As a result, he developed a ditheistic belief system, consisting of a notion of two gods, a higher transcendent god and a lower world-creator and ruler. As a docetist, Marcion also taught that although Jesus is the son of the heavenly Father, his body was only an imitation of a material body. Docetism functioned within Gnostic circles that asserted that Christ’s body was not human but either phantasmic or of real but celestial substance. As a result, his sufferings were only apparent. Marcion denied that Jesus was physically and bodily born, died, or was resurrected. Marcion made a significant contribution to the early Church when he codified a Christian canon that he claimed contained the real revelation of God. In this way, he became the first to gather books together as a Christian canon. He forced the Church to do the same in response to his canon and decide which books should be viewed as authoritative. His canon consisted of only eleven books. In the Evangelikon, the first section, he provided a shorter version of Luke’s Gospel. In the Apostolikon, he presented ten epistles of Paul, thus it was slightly shorter and more concise than the canonical text. Marcion claimed he was proclaiming the same message to the Church as Paul had. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius claimed that Marcion clearly edited his editions of these passages to match his

Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Translated by S. Thelwall, vol. 4 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature, 1885), 142.

84

Chapter 3

theological views. However, some scholars argue that Marcion’s passages may represent earlier versions of these passages in some respects.128 Unfortunately, the Church effectively destroyed all of Marcion’s writings, and today we must construct his notions from what the Church theologians said about him. Their subjectivistic opinions of his thought make it impossible to fully understand the full extent of Marcion’s thinking. This unfortunate incident happened when the Church in Rome excommunicated him in 144 CE, shortly after he visited the city, and forbade him from preaching or publishing his views. Nevertheless, Justin’s judgment gives a good idea of how the rest of the Church responded to Marcion. In his 1 Apology, Justin twice mentions the name of the famous heretic: “After the ascension of Christ, the demons advanced certain people…to wit, a certain Marcion out of Pontus, who even now is alive and teaching his disciples to believe in some other God greater than the Creator (the Demiurge). And he, by the aid of the demons, has caused many from every nation, who have allowed themselves to be convinced by him, to speak blasphemies so as to deny that God is the Creator of this world and to believe that there is another greater than he, who has done even greater works” (1 Apol. 26.1–5).129 Upon returning to Asia Minor, he led his many congregations in teaching his gospel, as he stated in his edited version of Luke’s Gospel. During his lifetime, his Church expanded rapidly and became a major rival of the emergent Church, despite its opposition.

Arius: only the Father is unbegotten Back to how the deity of the Son (and Spirit) can be viewed as compatible with the uncompromising monotheism that characterized Christianity’s 128

See John Chrysostom, “Against Marcionists and Manichæans,” in Saint Chrysostom: On the Priesthood, Ascetic Treatises, Select Homilies and Letters, Homilies on the Statues, edited by Philip Schaff. Translated by W.R.W. Stephens, vol. 9 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889), 199–200. 129 Henning Graf Reventlow, History of Biblical Interpretation: From the Old Testament to Origen, edited by Susan Ackerman and Tom Thatcher. Translated by Leo G. Perdue, vol. 1 of Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 147.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

85

mother religion, Judaism. Origen of Alexandria, Egypt, an Eastern father of the first part of the third century CE, related the Son and Spirit to the Father by emphasizing the eternal begetting of the Son. The Son was light from light, although only the Father is self-subsistent, without origins, the highest one, the autotheos. The Son and Spirit are derived from the Father, argues Origen.130 He responded to the Arian idea that there was a time when the Son was not and spent a significant part of his theological energy on opposing Arius’ views. The Arian controversy followed the early Church’s challenge to understand Jesus and the early development of trinitarian thinking, indicating the divisions. It erupted in Alexandria around 318 CE when Arius stated that the Father alone in the Trinity does not have a beginning. The Logos’ beginning was initiated when the Father generated the Logos. That Jesus had a beginning precludes him from being God, reflected in what Arius ascribed to Jesus’ subordination to God. He argued that there could not be two gods except if the Father and the Son were identical, making it unnecessary to distinguish between them. Subordinationism affirms that a distinction exists between the three persons of the divine; however, the second and third persons are not equal to the first person. Arius (c. 256 – 336 CE) was Alexandria’s Cyrenaic presbyter, ascetic, and priest. He was somewhat older than Origen. He taught that only the Father is without origin or birth, the transcendent one. God created the Son, implying that he had an origin similar to all other creatures.131 In the tradition of the modalist monarchians like Sabellius, Arius defended the absolute monarchy or sovereignty of God and denied the unity of the essence of the three. However, he allowed for a distinction of the subjects. In the fourth century, bishop Eunomius of Cyzikus followed him in this stance. One implication of Arianism was that Jesus, being a creature like any other human being, opened the way for humans to imitate the Savior. They can become as obedient to the Father as the Son. They can also be adopted into 130

Origen, Commentary on the Gospel According to John. Translated by Ronald E. Heine (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989), 13.25. 131 See Athanasius, “Four Discourses Against the Arians,” 308–309.

86

Chapter 3

sonship, like the Son. The Son is the Father’s assistant, operating under orders, and so can believers become. Jesus’ virtuous life modeled perfect creaturehood, inviting other humans to follow the same path of salvation. This concurs with the views of several modern New Testament scholars, especially those who played a part in the Jesus Seminar, a group of about fifty American critical biblical scholars and a hundred laypeople founded in 1985 by Robert Funk. It originated under the auspices of the Westar Institute. The Seminar was active through the 1980s and 1990s and into the early 21st century, formulating what it saw as Jesus’ original words and message.132 Thomas McCall calls Arianism the archetypal Christian version of polytheism.133 He refers to the work of R.P.C. Hanson.134 The main tenets and characteristics of Arianism are as follows: God was not always Father; he was once in a situation where he was simply God and not Father (as is the case of all creatures). The Logos/Son is a creature. God made him out of nothing. The Logos is alien from the divine being; he is not truly God because he came into existence. A Trinity of dissimilar and different hypostases exists. Their subsistences (hypostases) are unmixed, one infinitely more inestimable in glories than the other. Frank Macchia responds with the traditional argument in response to Arius’ assertion that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not really divine; only the heavenly Father is God, implying that the Son and Spirit are subordinate to God as lesser beings created in time. Macchia argues that such “proof” consists of references stating that all three persons of God are divine. One such instance is the words in Ephesians 4:6, which refers to “one God and Father of all.” In addition, Titus 2:13 refers to Jesus as “our great God and

132 See, e.g., Marcus J. Borg,

The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith (New York: HarperCollins, 2003) as well as the fruit of all the discussions in Robert W. Funk, Arthur J. Dewey and the Jesus Seminar (eds.), The Gospel of Jesus: According to the Jesus Seminar, 2nd ed. (Salem, OR: Polebridge, 2015). 133 McCall, Which Trinity?, 74. 134 R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381 AD (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 20.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

87

Savior,” and Acts 5:3–5 equates lying to the Spirit with lying to God, implying that the Spirit is also a divine person.135

Subordinationism: hierarchy in God Several references to the theme of subordinationism have been made, implying the vital role it played in the early Church’s deliberations about the identity of Jesus, and later also the Spirit. Subordinationism states that the Divinity consists of some form of hierarchy, conceived in either ontological or functional terms. It is necessary to distinguish between two forms of subordinationism. On the one hand, ontological subordinationism implies that the persons of the Godhead are essentially unequal concerning divinity; the Divinity exists primarily in the Fatherhood. As discussed above, two of its proponents were Paul of Samosata (third century CE) and Arius (d. 336 CE). They followed dualist neo-Platonist thought and saw God as utterly transcendent and incommunicable. God sent a lesser deity, the Word, to make contact with and save the world. The Son is a divine creature because there was a time when he was not, implying that he did not exist in eternity. The implication is that the Son is not equal to the Father. On the other hand, Arius, wanting to preserve and defend the Father’s exclusive monarchy, distinguished the persons of the Trinity, thus denying their unity of essence. In combating Arius’ ontological subordinationism, the Council of Nicaea (325 CE) stated clearly that Jesus as the Son of God is from the being of the Father. He is God of God, Light from Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. The Western tradition followed Augustine by emphasizing the unity of the divine essence rather than the monarchy of the Father. Nearer to our time, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) also subscribed to subordinationism. He suggested that there are three distinct but inequal persons within the Godhead. Because the unbegotten Father eternally begets the Son, there exists a relationship of dependency between the Father and the Son.136 A significant early researcher 135

Macchia, The Trinity, Practically Speaking, 5. William J. La Due, The Trinity Guide to the Trinity (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2003), 84.

136

88

Chapter 3

of Pentecostalism, Walter Hollenweger, argued that Pentecostals and charismatic Christians might be subscribing to a form of subordinationism when they link their pneumatology closely to Christology.137 Functional subordinationism, on the other hand, emphasizes the mission or work of one of the three persons. For instance, the work of the Father is to send the Son. Jesus’ mission is to fulfil the will of the Father; the Son’s is to send the Spirit.138 This responds to modalism’s apparent failure to distinguish the persons of the Trinity. Modalism views the distinction between the Father who begets and the Son who is begotten in terms of a divine producer (God) and a creaturely product (Jesus). Even when some forms of subordinationism ascribe deity to the Son, Jesus is not the selfsame divinity as the Father but a lesser deity, a created deity. His mission is to mediate between the Divinity and human creatures. It follows that the Logos is a creation of the Father of Jesus Christ (Eph 1:3), Jesus’s redeemed siblings (Eph 1:5), and all creatures (Eph 3:14–15).139 Subordinationism revived in the sixteenth century, and its most prominent current exponent is the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It also exists as eternal functional subordinationism or eternal relations of authority and submission. Conservative evangelical Protestants such as Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, and Owen Strachan advocates this view. They affirm that a distinction exists between the persons of the Trinity and that the persons all enjoy full deity. However, they add that the distinction is not in terms of origin (i.e., paternity, filiation, and spiration) but authority and submission. The Father is distinguished in terms of eternal authority over the Son and the Spirit, the Son in terms of eternal submission to the Father and authority over the Spirit, and the Spirit in terms of eternal submission to the Father and Son.

137

Walter J. Hollenweger, “Priorities in Pentecostal Research: Historiography, Missiology, Hermeneutics and Pneumatology,” in Experiences of the Spirit, edited by Jan A.B. Joneneel, Conference on Pentecostalism and Charismatic Research in Europe at Utrecht University 1989, 16-18. Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang, 1999. 138 Cartledge, “Empirical-Theological Models of the Trinity,” 141. 139 Swain, The Trinity, 77.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

89

“Heresy” in the early Church The discussion in this chapter explains the diversity of opinions that the early Church held about the identity of Jesus. Since the fourth century, the Church has referred to these Christological theories as “heresies.” Among others, it consisted of adoptionism, the view that Christ was a man, but not God; docetism, the view that he was God, but not a man; and separationism, the view that the divine Christ and the human Jesus were distinct beings.140 However, Bart Ehrman explains that the concept of “heresies” needs to be complicated.141 The first three hundred years saw a diversity of religious practices, ideologies, and theologies that were not replicated again. The classical view of heresies was founded on the histories of early Christianity produced during the early period itself. The most important of these was undoubtedly Eusebius, the fourth-century Bishop of Caesarea and the socalled “father of Church history,” who set the tone for Christian historiography for many centuries with his Ecclesiastical History.142 He used a providential view of history that sees God’s hand directing all events within history in order to realize the divine goal. Heresies (literally, “choices”) he defined as any teaching that did not conform to “orthodoxy” (literally, “right opinion”), the original and apostolic teaching of the Church’s vast majority, that the “Church” quickly and efficiently overcame. All heresy was inspired, like evil, by the devil and his cohorts of demons. In 1934 Walter Bauer published a ground-breaking book about orthodoxy and heresy in the early Church.143 He explains that “heresy” was only defined as such when the majority at last supported “orthodox teaching.” The established Church then effectively destroyed the alternative teachings; the only explanations we have left were in their quotations from such works.

140

Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Bart Ehrman, The Barth Ehrmann Blog, 2022-08-10. https://ehrmanblog.org/heresy-and-orthodoxy/; accessed 2022-10-17. 142 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998). 143 Walter Bauer, Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (Tübingen: JCB Mohr), 1934. 141

90

Chapter 3

In 1945, with the discovery of the library of Gnostic writings uncovered near Nag Hammadi, some of the original documents were recovered.144 For that reason, orthodoxy and heresy can no longer be used in their traditional sense to designate the true or original faith on the one hand and secondary aberrations from it on the other. Ehrman then concludes that today’s labels can only describe social and political realities, quite apart from their theological connotations, of the group that eventually attained dominance within the Christian tradition and the multiplicity of groups it overcame. “Looked at in sociohistorical terms, orthodoxy and heresy are concerned as much with struggles over power as with debates over ideas.”145 What should be clear by now is that different perspectives on who Jesus was and his relationship with the divine characterized the church of the first three centuries CE. Scholars should again regard the study of these different perspectives since the publication of the Nag Hammadi manuscripts. Some of these Nag Hammadi manuscripts and some of the Berlin texts are related to Gnostic thought.146 However, among them are also distinguishable differences. It is possible to identify four groups of tractates. They form identifiable collections and reflect particular approaches to spirituality and schools of thought associated with the Gnostics. These groups of texts include Thomas Christianity, the Sethian school of Gnostic thought, the Valentinian school of Gnostic thought, and the Hermetic religion. It excludes many texts from the classification, such as the Gospel of Thomas, because they only represent an incipient Gnostic point of view.147

144

For an introduction, see Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Vintage, 1989) and for a good translation, Marvin Meyer and James M. Robinson (eds.), The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts (New York: Harper-One, 2007). 145 Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 16. 146 Meyer and Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, 777 is correct when they decline to refer to “Gnosticism” although Ireneaus of Lyon said that some religious groups, particularly Sethians (or Barbelognostics) and followers of Marcellina, referred to themselves in that way. They limit their discussion to Gnostics and their emphasis on knowledge (gnosis or manda, Mandaic for “knowledge”). 147 Meyer and Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, 778.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

91

Emperor Constantine’s resolution of the differences of opinion: Council of Nicaea Alexander I (250-326 CE) was the patriarch of Alexandria and the nineteenth Pope. He responded unequivocally that Arius was wrong in his theological assertions, but several of the other bishops were confused. The debate spread across the Christian world and compelled the Roman Emperor Constantine I (c. 275-337) to call a universal synod. The meetings started in May 325 CE, and an estimated 250 to 318 Church leaders attended the meetings. Most bishops who participated in the Council held at Nicaea came from the East, with only five or six representing the Western Church. At the Council, Athanasius argued extensively that the Father and the Son are the same being, a view that the Council approved. The Son was declared “of the same substance” (homoousios) as the Father, as reflected in the Nicene Creed.148 The creed used the language of fourth-century Hellenistic philosophy to express the convictions that mattered most to the Christians who framed it.149 It states, “We believe in one God…We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God…of one being with the Father.”150 The key term the Council coined was homoousios, affirming the unity of the Son with the Father. Because of the potential of the word being interpreted in modalist tones, some theologians preferred the slightly different form of homoiousios, “of similar substance.” However, this term may be interpreted as that the Father’s and Son’s identities differ, which is the heart of consubstantiality. Consubstantiality was based on the words, “from the substance (ousia) of the Father.” In other words, the being of the Son is identical to the being of the Father.151 Subsequently, the Council banished the Arian leaders and like-minded believers from the Catholic Church for what was considered to be their heresy. 148

K. Kilby. “Trinity,” in Cambridge Dictionary of Christian Theology, edited by I.A. McFarland, D.A.S. Fergusson, K. Kilby et. al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). 149 Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 6-7). 150 K.R. MacGregor, Nicene Creed: Document Analysis ca. 325 CE, in Milestone Documents of World Religions: Exploring Traditions of Faith Through Primary Sources, edited by Grey House Publishing, 2nd ed. (Pasadena, CA: Salem, 2017), 7. 151 Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 34.

92

Chapter 3

The question Arius’ assertion put to Eastern Christians was, how can a savior who is only a creature help human beings to be elevated to the divine life, in the light of Eastern Christians, view of salvation in terms of deification and divinization (theǀsis)? No creature can save; only God can. In conclusion, the First Council of Nicaea (325 CE) responded to the challenges posed by Arianism by insisting on the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. It states in full, “We believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father.”152 The Council established that the Father, Son, and Spirit are equal, and only the Son became incarnate as Jesus Christ. The Nicene Creed distinguished the properties of the Father and Son on the assertion that Jesus was begotten out of the being of the Father by a continuing act of begetting. Logically, it implies that the attribute of the Son’s self-existence is an attribute essential to the deity.153 In recent times, this led to a heavily debated discussion.154 Arius and his followers declined to sign the original Nicene Creed supported by twenty canons, and Constantine banned them from the Church and state. Constantine later recalled him and the others exiled by the Council of Nicaea in the winter of 327 CE. However, the controversy did not cease. Many of the bishops were still confused about the matter. The debate continued until the Council of Constantinople was called by Emperor Theodosius in 381 CE. At those meetings, the Council affirmed that the Father and the Son are one and the same being. The Council also decided to extend the Nicene Creed to include the deity of the Spirit, stating that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father” (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed). It states that the Holy Spirit is “the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father; he is worshiped and

152

http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0325-1965,_Concilia_Oecumenica, _Documenta_Omnia,_EN.pdf; accessed 2021-12-07. 153 Sanders, “The State of the Doctrine of the Trinity in Evangelical Theology,” 160. 154 There is not room in this discussion for relating the contents and conclusions of the debate and it would not serve the purpose of the present study.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

93

glorified with the Father and the Son.”155 Only now had the concept of God as the triune God originated in reality. The Church now confessed one God who exists in three distinct ways as persons. It ended a long, complicated controversy that divided the Church, but it took several years before the Creed enjoyed widespread acceptance by believers. In later generations, it became the orthodox position of the Catholic (in the sense of “general”) Church.

Athanasius: the Son is “the totality of God” Athanasius of Alexander (293-373 CE), the twentieth Pope of the Church, further developed the implications of the Council decisions. He stated that Arianism undermined the Christian doctrine of God because it did not view all of the Divinity as eternal. For that reason, it eventually and inevitably ends in polytheism. He asked what sense it would have to be baptized in the name of the Son and the Father and address prayers to the Father and the Son if the Father and the Son are distinguished in terms of Arian thought. He also asserted that Arianism undermined the Christian idea of redemption in Christ because its redeemer is a human being who cannot re-establish fellowship with God. Instead, he argued that whatever is in the Father is in the Son, implying that the Son is the “the totality of God” (holos theou). Therefore, he who looks at the Son sees the Father. He writes, “And this is what is said, ‘Who being in the form of God,’ and ‘the Father in Me.’ Nor is this Form of the Godhead partial merely, but the fulness of the Father’s Godhead is the Being of the Son, and the Son is the totality of God. Therefore also, being equal to God, He ‘thought it not a prize to be equal to God;’ and again, since the Godhead and the Form of the Son is the Father’s, this is what He says, ‘I in the Father.’ Thus ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself; for the propriety of the Father’s Essence is that Son, in whom the creation was then reconciled with God. Thus what things the Son then wrought are the Father’s works, for the Son is the Form of that Godhead of the Father, which wrought the works.’”156

155

Kilby, “Nicene Creed.” Athanasius of Alexandria, “Four Discourses against the Arians,” (Discourse 3: Against the Arians).

156

94

Chapter 3

What do the distinctions between the three entities of the deity consist of, and what role does the Spirit play in the deity? Athanasius based the distinctions on the principle of relationality (“the Father cannot be Father without the Son”). In addition, the Cappadocian fathers, Basil the Great, his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa, and a close friend, Gregory of Nazianzus, developed the argument further and explained how the relations define the distinctions. The Cappadocians followed the rule and norm in the Eastern church to make the Father the source and principle of deity, implying that the Spirit and the Son are dependent on the Father, but not vice versa. At least the Cappadocians “elevated” the Spirit to the same status as the Son, even though both were regarded in some way or another as “inferior” to the Father, who was the source. Athanasius responded to the Tropici (tropicii), a group of theologians that did not accord the same divine status to the Spirit as to the Son. Athanasius was firm in his conviction that the Spirit is in Christ in the same way that the Son is in the Father, affirming the deity of the Spirit and equality with the Son. The Spirit is fully divine and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. The Spirit’s role is to sanctify believers. As a part of the triad, the Spirit is immutable, omnipresent, unique, eternal, homogenous, and indivisible like the Father and Son.157 The Nicene Creed of Constantinople I, which was formulated in 381 CE, confirmed the consubstantiality of the Spirit, advising that the Spirit should be worshiped and glorified together with the Father and Son.

Conclusion: consensus of trinitarian doctrine? The end of the fourth century CE saw a consensus emerging that accepted the three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, in one God. The Western Church used the words “one substance in three persons” (Latin: una substantia, tres persona), while the Eastern Church expressed it as “God is one being with three persons” (Greek: mia ousia, treis hypostaseis”).158 The different grammar and use of keywords between the Latin and Greek Churches forebode the eventual difficulties in understanding each other, which eventually resulted in the schism between the two Churches in 1054 CE, 157

Athanasius, Serapion 1.20-27; 3.7. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806054.htm; accessed 2022-05-17. 158 Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 37.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

95

referred to as the Schism. Eastern and Western theologians found it challenging to define the key terms that the Councils used in their own language. As if that were not enough, they also disagreed about the meaning of those terms, although they used related terms. Their different languages excluded the nuances of such key terms that the other language presupposes. An example of such a term was hypostasis. While the Greek Church used hypostasis and ousia as synonyms, the Western Church considered hypostasis equivalent to the Latin term substantia (essence). The implication is that when the East refers to one ousia with three hypostaseis, the West finds that it represents tritheism. By understanding hypostasis and ousia as the same words, Nicaea’s homoousios statement implies that the Father and Son cannot be distinguished from each other, as modalists such as Praxeas, Noetus, and perhaps Sabellius asserted. In 1054, the Eastern and Western Churches’ paths eventually parted over whether the Spirit proceeded from only the Father or the Father and the Son (the filioque issue). The two Churches originated from two schools or orientations that emerged at the end of the second century CE, partly due to language, cultural and geographical differences, and differences in spirituality. In contrast to Rome in the West, Constantinople, Alexandria in Egypt, and Antioch in Syria served as leading centers of Eastern authority and theological labors. Eventually, it led to distinct Greek and Latin Christianities long before the 1054 Schism. Eastern theology is characterized by apophaticism which avoids positive statements containing exact and defined terms about God and prefers to use suggestive and elusive terms because of their view of the incomprehensibility of the Divinity. Eastern Christians think of God in terms of infinity and ineffability. For instance, Origen explains that the nature of God is such that it cannot be comprehended by human intelligence. God is invisible to human eyes and reason because the divine essence falls outside anything humans know. Chung-Hyan Baik refers to Gordon Kaufman’s statement that we have no access in the history of revelation to the internal structure of this innermost essence, and anything said about it is pure speculation.159 159

Chung-Hyun Baik, The Holy Trinity: God for God and God for us: Seven Positions on the Immanent-Economic Trinity Relation in Contemporary Trinitarian

96

Chapter 3

He agrees that we should reject any attempt to speak of the inner-Trinitarian relations, that is, the immanent Trinity. The immanent Trinity is accessible to us only as the economic Trinity. God is much higher than anything human intelligence can conceive. God exists beyond every definition of essence.160 In developing alternative views of the Trinity in the last two chapters, this insight will resurface as a necessary vital contribution to all God-talk. Even the most significant Western theologian, Augustine, admitted that it is easier to say what God is not than what God is. He warned that if anybody thinks they understand God, they should realize they are not speaking about the true God. It is impossible to say anything substantial about God because God does not have attributes like ours. The Divinity exists beyond the substance category.161 God falls outside the dimension in which we find ourselves imprisoned. However, that did not prevent Augustine from writing extensively about God and the divine essence, using propositional statements to define what he sees as valid doctrines based on the Bible, as though he knew so much about the divine self and not only about the divine self-revelation. Western theology follows in his tradition and traditionally prefers the kataphatic method of analyzing and endlessly distinguishing between different aspects of the divine.162 The apophatic and kataphatic modes of thinking can also be observed in how philosophical developments in the East and West differed. Alexandrian theology, and later the Eastern church, emphasized soteriological questions. It expressed salvation in terms of deification or divinization, consisting of unity between the divine and human. These terms are anathema for Western Christians, especially the several branches of Calvinism that emphasize the total depravity of human beings and their inability to contribute anything to divine grace to save them. The main focus Theology, Princeton Theological Monograph Series 145 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011), 181. 160 Origen, First Principles, 7.38. 161 Augustine, Sermon 117.5; http://www.augnet.org/en/works-of-augustine/writings-ofaugustine/his-sermons/2150-about-his-sermons/; accessed 2022-01-21. 162 Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 48.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

97

among Eastern Christians was on the divinity of Christ; in reality, they practiced a “one-nature” Christology rather than the way Western Christians emphasized the interrelationship between the divine and human natures in Jesus. Eastern believers noted that to exist as God is to be the Father who begets the Son and breathes forth the Spirit. It is impossible to define the divine essence in itself or by itself. They saw the “persons” (hypostasis) and “being/essence” (ousia) as related to each other in a mutual, perichoretic way. In contrast, the Western Church understood divine unity as something separate and behind the triad of Father, Son, and Spirit, as though divine essence is something apart from the triad. Western Christian theology conventionally began with the Bible’s statements about the divine relation of the Trinity in terms of the divine economy of salvation (ad extra). It then proceeded to speculate about the essence of the immanent life of the Divinity (ad intra).163 Finally, they accepted that the divine self-revelation in the economy of salvation accurately portrays the inner life of the Trinity. In the twentieth century, the influential Catholic theologian Karl Rahner stated unequivocally that “the Trinity of the economy of salvation is the transcendent Trinity and vice versa.”164 Amos Yong refers to it as Rahner’s Axiom.165 The economic Trinity is the transcendent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the essential Trinity. The statement became a fixture of contemporary trinitarian theology, and Pentecostal theologians like Amos Yong, Steven Studebaker, and William Atkinson have readily adopted this principle.166 This study denies that such an identification is preferable and argues that Pentecostals deny their ethos and distinctive God-talk when they apply the Rahner axiom to attempt to contain the uncontainable and ineffable Divinity in their certain theological statements of “fact” and

163

Baik, The Holy Trinity, 180. Karl Rahner, “Remarks on the Dogmatic Treatise ‘De Trinitate,” in Theological Investigations 4. Translated by Kevin Smyth (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1966), 89. 165 Amos Yong, “Oneness and the Trinity: The Theological and Ecumenical Implications of Creation Ex Nihilo for an Intra-Pentecostal Dispute,” Pneuma 19, no. 1 (Spring 1997), 81-107 (81). 166 See especially discussion in Studebaker, “Trinitarian Theology.” 164

98

Chapter 3

“truth.” It is true that the work of God in redemption derives from the “immanent identities of the triune God, who is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Studebaker’s words).167 However, to limit the Divinity to the divine work of redemption is to do injustice to the creator God who exists outside our reality and frame of reference. What do we know is that God exists in eternity, holiness, and glory, terms explained in chapter 5. Today, both Eastern and Western Churches confess the revised NiceneConstantinopolitan Creed that the Council of Constantinople defined in 381 CE, illustrating a shared consensus. Their view of the triad is fully consubstantial: Jesus is “consubstantial (homoousion) with the Father.” What it adds is the confession about the deity of the Spirit. The Constantinople Creed states, “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who is worshipped and glorified together with the Father and Son, who has spoken by the prophets.”168 That the Spirit is called kyrios implies the full deity of the Spirit, to be worshiped as God. It must be remembered that many believers in the early Church had reservations in referring to the Spirit as “God.” In contrast to the dominant view, they saw the Father as the Source of the Son; later, the Western Church’s insistence that the Spirit comes from the Father and Son (filioque) would divide the two traditions, as related above. The idea that relational mutuality defines the distinctions between the three entities is missing in the Creed. Therefore, while Western Christians emphasized that God is one being who exists as three persons, the East noted that the Divinity is three persons who are simultaneously one undivided being. The West ignored a significant aspect of Eastern thinking about the three entities, the perichoretic mutuality between the three. The Western Church also defined the order of the three persons, the divine taxis: from the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit. The relations cannot be reversed. The Father is the Father of the Son because the Father begets the Son, and the Son is the Son of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father who aspirates the Spirit.

167

Studebaker, “Trinitarian Theology,” 190-191. https://www.stpauls.w-berks.sch.uk/attachments/download.asp?file=84&type=pdf; accessed 2021-12-07.

168

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

99

Medieval Contributions The patristic consensus reached at the end of the fourth century CE represents a significant milestone in the sense that it united, at least to a certain extent, the Western and Eastern traditions and their teaching of the three triads of the deity. Of course, one cannot speak of the opinion of the undivided Church since various factors, among them linguistic ones, complicated the communication between East and West, as discussed above. Nevertheless, traditional theology through the ages accepted that the patristic tradition represents the universal church’s doctrine of the Trinity. What is essential for the argument here is to note that the Church reached the consensus at a late stage and had to utilize extrabiblical terms with loaded philosophical connotations to express their views. It is further essential to be reminded that the consensus did not preclude other ideas; instead, it shadowed them in time. The end of the fourth century did not terminate the discussion about the divine. The Church still faced several challenges, including the differences related to diverse contexts, spiritualities, and languages that divided the Eastern and Western Churches and the theological differences that eventually ensued from these doctrinal differences. The profound differences between the liturgies of the two branches of the Christian Church also illustrated the differences in their spiritualities and theological approaches. It results in the question of whether the two branches confess the same view of the divine. In other words, do their differences show any differences of opinion or belief? Another outstanding issue is the place and function of the Spirit in the divine triad. Is the Spirit the love between the Father and Son because God is love? The West saw the rise of communion theology going back to Richard of St. Victor. Eventually, the divisions between East and West culminated in the filioque debacle about the derivation of the Spirit. The East firmly confessed that the Spirit comes from the Father, while the West added that the Spirit also comes from the Son. For the Eastern Church, which stayed more faithful to the perspectives of the early Church, it was critical to affirm the unity and

100

Chapter 3

sovereignty of the one God. The difference eventually led to the official schism between the two when the Western Church excommunicated Michael Cerularius, the patriarch of Constantinople, on 16 July 1054 from the papal church based in Rome.169

Do the East and West believe the same about the Divinity? The first question post-Constantinople medieval times had to answer was whether the Eastern and Western Churches shared the same view of the Divinity. It was difficult to answer because of the diversity that marks theological literature and thinking in both segments that formed the Christian Church. As explained, Greek theology emphasizes its study of the Divinity on the triad of entities (hypostases) that constitute the Divinity since it viewed any speculation about divine essence as impossible to realize. In contrast, Latin theology emphasized the divine essence in favor of the three persons., as illustrated by the example of Augustinian theology discussed above. It implies that the East begins with the three-ness or economy of God in the divine revelation to human beings and limits its God-talk to the divine economy. In contrast, the West focuses on the unity of the divine essence and discusses it in terms of the divine economy. Therefore, it requires further focus on Augustine before attending to the filioque issue.170

Augustine Post-patristic developments in the West were triggered by the contribution of Augustine (354-430 CE), writing in the first part of the fifth century. To understand Augustine’s view, Alister McGrath argues in his 2014 Boyle Lecture that it is necessary to notice Augustine’s view that theology is not concerned with reasonable explanations of God.171 Instead, its purpose is to expand the human intellect’s vision to grasp as much about God as possible and not reduce God to the intellectually manageable. Hence, the human 169

Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 44. See also discussion in next part of John Zizioulas, a prominent Eastern theologian. 171 Script of lectures can be found at https://www.bethinking.org/apologetics/newatheism-new-apologetics; accessed 2021-12-21. 170

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

101

understanding of God can best be described as a mystery, something no human mind can grasp in its totality. One hears the same kind of language in Eastern theology. It is not possible to comprehend the mystery that is God. The only way to approach knowledge about God is in the events of the divine self-revelation of compassion for humanity. For instance, Gregory of Nazianzus of the Eastern Church warned believers who attempt to pry too long or deep into the mystery of God that they would be stricken with madness.172 He says that theological knowledge aims to discover the internal logic of faith, not in its own terms but in terms of divine self-revelation. Although scholars disagree on their interpretation of Augustinian theology, many agree that Augustine emphasized the unity of the divine essence without necessarily attending to the distinction between the three persons in any remarkable way. Instead, he affirmed the consubstantiality between the three persons (homoousion), depicting the Father as the primary person or beginning of the Divinity.173 He viewed the Spirit as a communion between the Father and Son in the love they share. The Father is the lover, the Son is the beloved, and the Spirit represents the mutual love between them. However, the question should be asked whether “shared love” can be a “person” in a sense defined by the ecumenical councils. And can “spirit” signify a person or only a part of a person? Augustine’s analogy presents insurmountable challenges to his assertion of the Divinity existing in three persons. For Augustine, the incarnation of the Christ (“Messiah”) was a unique event that formed the main artery of Trinitarianism.174 He viewed the incarnation as the permanent assumption of humanity in a real union of two natures. Augustine also upheld the view of Athanasius that the distinctions between the three persons are based on the mutuality of their relations. He used the image of the mind, the mind’s knowledge of itself, and the mind’s love for itself to illustrate how the Father is being, the Son is consciousness, and the 172

Quoted in Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Cambridge: Lutterworth, 1991), 56. 173 Augustine, On the Trinity 5.11.12 (93); 15.27.50 (226–27). 174 Augustine, Letters 169.2.5–9.

102

Chapter 3

Spirit is love, based on the idea of humanity as created in the image of God (Gen 1:26–27). However, if that analogy is seen logically, it illustrates a modalist understanding of the three entities that form the Divinity. In answering whether the Eastern and Western Churches believe the same things about the Divinity, it is imperative to remember that the hypostatic distinctions among Father, Son, and Spirit were significant in the East. They referred to the “concrete particularity of Father, Son, and Spirit,” viewing the Father as the source of the Deity with the Son and Spirit proceeding from the Father from eternity. At the same time, the West tended to follow Augustine’s lead in emphasizing the unity of the divine essence. They attended more to the divine being/substance/essence from which the personal distinctions derive, emphasizing the joint working of the three in the world. The East was challenged by tritheism because of their emphasis, and the West by modalist thinking. In general, the East was also more pneumatologically oriented, while the West attended mainly to Christology.

Thomas Aquinas Thomas Aquinas, an Italian friar and priest living in the thirteenth century, was so influential that the Western Church honored him with the titles Doctor Angelicus, Doctor Communis, and Doctor Universalis. He worked in the scholastic tradition, a medieval philosophical school that was supposed to go back to the apostle Thomas and employed a method of philosophical analysis based on theism. Theism is also referred to as classical theism, Christian theism, and occasionally Thomistic theism. He argued that the Divinity consists of four relations: fatherhood, sonship, procession, and spiration. These relations that arise out of the divine processions are real and identical to the divine nature. They also define real distinctions, since although fatherhood and sonship are identical with divine nature, they also imply real distinctions, with one being Father, and the other being the Son. David Griffin describes Aquinas’ theological presuppositions in a relevant way for the present discussion. He argues that Aquinas built on patristic ideas, especially Augustine’s theology. He stated that God exists “outside temporal existence that characterizes the universe, in timelessness, implying

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

103

that God is distanced from world events.”175 In God, no potentiality exists, implying that God is pure actuality. God is immutable and impassible, capable of neither changing nor suffering. God’s “essence” is the divine existence, implying that God does not consist of different “parts.” God cannot not exist, indicating divine necessity, because God cannot be anything other than God. God is omnipotent and omniscient – that is, God can do everything and knows everything. It seems that Aquinas was knowledgeable about the essence of God, a characteristic retained in much of the Western theology which followed. While love is the most important category for speaking sensibly about God for Augustine, it is intellect and will for Aquinas. Aquinas defined “person” as “an individual substance of rational nature.”176 He argued that the word “person” refers to someone most perfect in the world because of its rationality, making it fit as a term to apply to God in an analogical sense. Three subsistent persons belong to the Divinity. Fatherhood and sonship belong to Father and Son, and spiration belongs to both Father and Son because the Spirit comes from both. Finally, he equates persons with relations, arguing that believers better understand divine relationality and mutuality. Aquinas challenged the Church to answer the vital question of whether the Trinity is a matter of faith and revelation alone or if it can be inferred with the help of human reason. Traditionally, the Church responded by regarding the Trinity as a matter of faith. Still, Aquinas argued that although revelation is needed, human reason can elaborate on it based on revelation. Most theologians of the Reformation would later respond to Aquinas’ assertion that the Divinity can only be known by revelation, as clarified in the Bible. Therefore, the divine self-revelation in the Bible alone can speak about the Divinity. In contrast, the antitrinitarians during the Reformation, such as Faustus Socinus, stated that any human discussion of the Divinity is limited to the divine economy since it is impossible to say anything about the inner 175

David Ray Griffin, God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1976), chapter 7. 176 Aquinas, “First Part: Question 29,” in Summa Theologiae, 2nd ed. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 1920). https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1029.htm; accessed 2022-05-17.

Chapter 3

104

life of God. The contemporary economic trinitarians, such as Oneness Pentecostals, speak about the Father, Son, and Spirit but refuse to speculate beyond economic terms. Earlier forms of Oneness Christianity include the Unitarians, Hussites, and Quakers. This discussion is continued in chapter 5. The Western emphasis on unity at the cost of the three persons led to a marginalization of the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine was perceived in theological terms, consisting of abstract speculations concerned with God’s “inner life.” For instance, as a sign of marginalization, Kärkkäinen refers to Friedrich Schleiermacher’s 800-page magnum opus published at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It contains only ten pages devoted to the topic. Hence, Kant’s observation was that the doctrine does not have any practical relevance; in any case, no one understands it.177 In their consideration of the doctrine, only Martin Luther and John Calvin would turn their attention away from abstract philosophical speculation to return to biblical exposition in line with creedal and patristic traditions.

Perichoresis It is submitted that believers in the Western Church needed a complex philosophical explanation before they could accommodate their concept of the Trinity. For instance, traditionally, at least since the time of John of Damascus (675/6 – 749 CE) and his De Fida Orthodoxa written in the eighth century, the solution to the complex problems that the Trinity necessarily raised was to refer to perichoresis (or circumincessio). The term describes the necessary being-in-one-another (or circumincession) of the three persons of the Trinity because of their single divine essence. The eternal procession of the Son distinguishes the three persons: the Son from the Father and the Spirit from the Father, and (through) the Son. These three persons are distinguished from each other solely by their opposition relations. John of Damascus wrote that the three persons of the Trinity “are made one not so as to commingle, but so as to cleave to each other, and they have their being in each other (perichoresin) without any coalescence or

177

Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 55–56.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

105

commingling.”178 This term is used to make sense of the concept of “threein-oneness” while also recognizing the unity of the divine essence. In contemporary times, several voices raised concerns about the description of relationality apart from mutually shared being. For instance, Jürgen Moltmann emphasizes in his social doctrine of the Trinity the “relational, perichoretically consummated life processes” of the three Persons who “cannot and must not be reduced to three modes of being of one and the same divine subject.”179 He opines that their unity “cannot and must not be seen in a general concept of divine substance.”180 Initially, the social doctrine of the Trinity was espoused by the Eastern Church fathers, following John of Damascus, especially in the theological endeavors of the Cappadocian fathers, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. It views the unity of the Divinity in the Father but also in the idea that each person coinheres the others. They used the term perichoresis to refer to the three persons’ interpenetration, reciprocity, and mutual indwelling. In more recent times, some Western theologians applied the concepts in their attempt to retain the mutual indwelling of the three as the primary category in relation to unity. This should be distinguished from the divine substance. They argue that the coinherence of the three persons is a dynamic event, and each of the persons’ beings are constituted by it. Therefore, the one God exists as a community of persons, “beings in relation,” that constitutes one divine community. It refers, inter alia, to John 10:30, 14:11, and 17:21 to justify the viewpoint of functional modalism consisting of communion among three equals. In contemporary times, several theologians base the idea of the Church as a community on the notion of a communal God; it is even applied to the larger society. In such a community, equality and participation of all, contra hierarchy and domination, consist as primary values. For instance, Miroslav Volf brings

178

Quoted in Randall E. Otto, “The Use and Abuse of Perichoresis in Recent Theology,” Scottish Journal of Theology 54, no. 3 (August 2009), 366-84. 179 See discussion in Joy Ann McDougall, “The Return of Trinitarian Praxis? Moltmann on the Trinity and the Christian Life,” The Journal of Religion 83, no. 2 (April 2003), 177-203. 180 Otto, “The Use and Abuse of Perichoresis in Recent Theology,” 371.

106

Chapter 3

this view of God in relation to ecclesiology and the character of social agents and their relations.181

The filioque discourse that divided the Church It should be clear by now that the Bible does not clarify how Father, Son, and Spirit stand in relation to each other. The New Testament also provides ambiguous evidence in answering the question of where the Spirit proceeded from. The author of John’s Gospel ascribes to Jesus the saying that he will send the Spirit (John 16:7; called paraclete) who proceeds from the Father (15:26). However, according to the same Gospel, Jesus asks the Father to send the Spirit (14:16), explaining that the Father will send the Spirit in Jesus’ name (14:26). The Western Church concluded that the Spirit proceeded from both the Father and Son (filioque: “and from the Son”). The Eastern Church rejected the addition. They argued that the monarchy of the Father serves as the only source of Divinity. The Western debate should be understood in terms of its historical response to Arianism by claiming that the Spirit also proceeded from the Son. This was one more way to defend consubstantiality (homoousion), a term that David Yeago states the ancient theologians themselves admitted is neither found in the New Testament nor deduced from the passages.182 While the East viewed the Father as the source, the West made the Father primary in the Deity. The West stated that the Son proceeded from the Father and the Spirit from the Father and Son. However, it is submitted that relations between the Trinity should instead be explained in terms of mutuality rather than origin. The Western Church may also consider accepting an alternative to filioque with “from the Father through the Son” that the Christian East would accept. 181 Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity (Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998); Miroslav Volf and Michael Welker (eds.), God’s Life in Trinity (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2006). See also discussion in chapter 5 about the dangers of the hierarchical views that underlie the Bible. 182 David Yeago, “The New Testament and the Nicene Creed: A Contribution to the Recovery of Theological Exegesis,” in The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Classic and Contemporary Readings, edited by Stephen E. Fowl (Oxford: Blackwell, 1977), 152-166 (157).

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

107

Richard of St. Victor, a Scottish theologian and philosopher who lived in the second part of the twelfth century, continued discussing the relational aspect, culminating in his communion theology and social Trinitarianism. He viewed the divine in terms of the plurality of persons in God, beginning with God as supreme goodness and love. Because self-love is not the highest love, another person is needed, the one who receives the love. It is mutual love. However, Richard argued further that sharing love between two persons is selfish because it implies that the motif of giving love normally expects a return. Hence, love between two is less perfect than three, necessitating a third person. The divine movement is from self-love (of the Father) to mutual love (of the Father and Son) to shared love (between Father, Son, and Spirit). In this way, he explained the divine need for existing as a Trinity. Richard approached the Trinity in terms of love, implying that he was thinking about the Trinity in terms of personal encounters. For Richard, love is the essence of the divine being. Only in modern times would his ideas receive further theological reflection when some theologians anew appreciated the significance of the personality of Trinitarian persons and their communion. Social Trinitarianism continued to define “person” in terms of relationality, viewing God as love and making communion/community the way to define the Trinity. Today the Orthodox theologian, John Zizioulas, the current Metropolitan Bishop of Pergamon and Patriarch of Constantinople, states that personhood can only exist in communion within a relationship, in contrast to “individuality.” His theology is so far-reaching and enriching that it is discussed in the next part, along with Karl Barth, a proponent of the Western tradition. Because the Divinity exists as the community of the Father, Son, and Spirit, divine encounters always include all three divine entities. It defines relationality, unity-in-diversity, and communion as essential to understanding the Trinity. Today these approaches are widely employed in studies in ecclesiology, theology of religions, political theology, feminist theology, and process theology.183

183

See, e.g., S. Nadar, “‘The Bible Says!’ Feminism, Hermeneutics and Neo-Pentecostal Challenges,” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 134 (2009), 131-146.

108

Chapter 3

The Contemporary Scene It is impossible to discuss the full scope of contemporary theological discussion because of its breadth, as was also the case in referring to medieval theology. Therefore, in this section, attention is instead concentrated on two individuals representing the Western and Eastern Churches in terms of relevancy for this study, the Swiss Calvinist Karl Barth and the Greek Orthodox Bishop John Zizoulas. Barth is arguably the most influential theologian on the topic of the Trinity in the Western tradition in the twentieth century, and Zizioulas is in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. The discussion closes with a short overview of current trends in trinitarian theology. A remark of Fred Sanders demonstrates Barth’s influence in Western theology in considering the contributions of evangelicalism to the trinitarian debate. He shows that no original theological trinitarian discourses saw the light of day for an extended period.184 Only Barth and those who followed in his footsteps, like Karl Rahner, Jürgen Moltmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Hans Urs Von Balthasar, Robert Jenson, and others, published original standard works on the subject of the Trinity. Following this, not much happened in the late twentieth century in the West. Meanwhile, a renaissance of trinitarian theology took place in other traditions such as the Eastern church. Before considering the perspective of the two influential theologians identified by this study as relevant for Pentecostals’ consideration, more should be said about the distinctions between the three persons of the deity. Scott Swain emphasizes that their mutual relations are relations of origin that are mutual (he refers to “common predications”) and asymmetrical (he calls them “proper predications”). The Father does not originate from anyone. The Son originates from the person of the Father. In contrast, the Spirit originates from the persons of both the Father and the Son (in distinction from Eastern Christianity, which limits the Spirit’s origins to the Father alone). The Father is the Father because he begets the Son in eternity (Ps 2:7; John 1:18; 3:16; Heb 1:5); the Son was not involved in the Father’s 184

Sanders, “The State of the Doctrine of the Trinity,” 153-175.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

109

origins. The Father and the Son eternally breathe forth the Spirit (John 15:26; 20:22). The Bible uses the personal names of the Trinity to distinguish the persons, employing their “relations of origin.” Various titles or illustrations illustrate these relations of origin. The Son is the “Word” of God (John 1:1; Rev 19:13), the “image” of the invisible God (Col 1:15), and the “radiance” of the Father’s glory (Heb 1:3). This illustrates that the Son is the one God in common with the Father and indicates what distinguishes the Father from the Son within the one God. While the Father is the eternal source of the person of the Son, the Son is the one who reveals God. Swain concludes that the divine relations of origin are relations of “from-ness.”185 An interesting analogy is found in the work of John Montgomery and Gerald Bray. They argue that the Trinity can be explained in terms of theoretical physics.186 Subatomic light possesses wave properties [w], particle properties [P], and quantum properties [h]. These characteristics are incompatible in that particles cannot diffract, while waves can and do. Physicists model an electron as Pwh to do justice to the observed data. They argue that believers do the same when they speak of God as “three in one.” In both cases, the purpose of the model is to consider all the facts.

Karl Barth Karl Barth (10 May 1896–10 Dec 1968) was a Swiss theologian who worked in Basel in the first half of the twentieth century in the Calvinist tradition. He became well-known after publishing his commentary on the book of Romans in 1959 and his multi-volume Church Dogmatics, still unfinished at his death in 1968. During Hitler’s Dritte Reich, his involvement in the Confessing Church (Bekennende Kirche) led to his coauthoring of the Barmen Declaration. The document defined the Christian opposition to any interpretation of Christianity based on racial theories. Barth’s discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity influenced Western

185

Swain, Trinity, 33. John Montgomery, How Do We Know There is a God? and Other Questions Inappropriate in Polite Society (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship, 1973), 1415; Gerald Bray, Creeds, Councils and Christ: Did the Early Christians Misrepresent Jesus? (Dublin: Mentor, 1997).

186

110

Chapter 3

Christian theology in the twentieth century extensively, arguably more so than any other theologian of this period. His neo-orthodox theology is dialectical in reaction to the pervading influence of rationalism on the prevailing theological scene of classical liberalism. Rationalism asserted that one could know God extensively by one’s own reasoning using the scientific methods developed during and following the Enlightenment era, which led to the invention of a new world of scientific discoveries. Barth argued that when one applies such reasoning to theological endeavors, it necessarily results in contradictory conclusions about who God is. For instance, Barth’s liberal theological teachers referred to a humanlike God in all respects.187 However, in the process, they emptied the Bible of its life-changing power. Their theology and God were immanentist and this-worldly; in response, Barth responded with a theology of God as the “Wholly Other” (as the translation for “holy”) due to the application of using concepts and terms devised by human beings to describe the reality that they find themselves in.188 Barth argued that theology must give way to a faith that awaits God’s word. Without the divine word, it is impossible for any human being to say anything sensible about God. The revelation of God contained in the Bible becomes God’s word when the Spirit works in the minds of those who read or listen to it. Barth refers to this event as “a miracle” that can only be explained by faith.189 The next chapter shows that classical Pentecostals also believe that the Bible contains and becomes the divine word only to the extent that the Spirit reveals it to them in their particular situation. They agree with Barth that there is only one word of God, the eternal Word of the Father, which for our reconciliation became flesh like us, has not returned to the heavenly abode, and is present in the Church through his Spirit.190

187

It should be conceded that there is no other way to talk of God than by using concepts and terms devised by human beings to describe the reality they find themselves in. 188 Kärkkäinen, The Doctrine of God, 93. 189 Karl Barth, “Scripture as the Word of God,” in Karl Barth: Selections from Twentieth-Century Theologians Edited with an Introduction and Notes, edited by E.J. Tinsley, 67-72 (London: Epworth, 1973), 68. 190 Barth, “Scripture as the Word of God,” 70.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

111

Brevard Childs adds to this perspective by stating that using human language to depict God in the Bible necessarily interprets God in a human form and through human terminology. It is not possible to use any other perspective. In other words, humans must accommodate the Divinity in their limited understanding of the “Wholly Other.” Human language may contain a truthful reflection of the divine free decision to identify with God’s creation in human form and yet retain belief in His divine status.191 Therefore, it is vital to keep the limitations of human language in mind in all God-talk. The problem is that theological language attempts to make definitions in a sphere where it is impossible. Augustine responds to this challenge by stating that Christians need to be careful about their God-talk, non ut diceretur sed ne taceretur (“not in order to define but because it is not possible just to say nothing”). Christians may not keep silent because God has broken silence in Christ and has spoken to humanity in him.192 Barth already developed his doctrine of the Trinity in the first volume of his Church Dogmatics, where he defines his view of divine revelation. In later volumes, he unfolds his doctrine of election and redemption. First, Barth argued that God can be known but only to the extent that God gives the divine self to humans in the Word as a real object. The initiative remains in the divine hands. The next question is whether humans can speak sensibly about God, given their language limitations. Barth responds that human words can describe the transcendent God but only to the extent that God “elevates” humans’ words, giving them the truth.193 Barth’s doctrine can be called revelational trinitarianism because of his emphasis on the fact that humans can only know God through the divine self-revelation in Christ (Barth calls it God’s “direct impartation”).194 Scott 191

Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Language of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflections on the Christian Bible (London, SCM, 1992), 358. 192 Quoted in E.J. Tinsley, “Introduction to the series,” in Karl Barth: Selections from Twentieth-Century Theologians Edited with an Introduction and Notes, edited by E.J. Tinsley, 11-36 (London: Epworth, 1973), 12. 193 See the discussion of D.J.A. Clines (“The Image of God in Man,” Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968), 53-103) about Barth’s concept of the image of God in human beings that includes that human beings’ language can be elevated to speak something that is true about God. 194 Barth, “Scripture as the Word of God,” 67.

112

Chapter 3

Swain agrees with that view when he argues that to come to a knowledge of the divine requires as a condition the divine self-revelation. “The revelation of the Trinity is a matter of divine self-revelation, divine self-presentation, divine self-naming.”195 In words ascribed to Jesus, no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him (Matt 11:27; see also John 1:18; 1 Cor 2:10–11). God-talk refers to what belongs to the “inside” of God’s life. If God exists as a Trinity, it implies that the only way to acquire knowledge about the persons of the Trinity would be by way of “insider knowledge,” so to speak, or then knowledge known to outsiders only when insiders make it known to them. There exists an essential incompatibility between humanity and God, and only God, in divine love and freedom, may and can breach the divide between the divine and the human. For this reason, Barth’s theology is also referred to as “dialectical theology” or “theology of crisis” to illustrate the divide between a holy, transcendent God and sinful, fallen humanity that always remains in a dialectical tension. Barth’s theology is neither conservative nor orthodox; he called it “neoorthodoxy” because his view of the Bible was a radical deviation from tradition. Traditionally, the knowledge of God was seen as an innate capacity within human experience or nature, leading to the analogy of being between God and humanity. Barth proposed an alternative, an analogy of faith that implies that faith in and knowledge of God are possible only because and when God graciously gives them.196 “God reveals Himself. He reveals Himself through Himself. He reveals Himself.”197 The self-revelation, called the word of God by Barth, realizes among human beings in three interrelated forms: the preached word, consisting of the proclamation of the church; the written word, that is, the Bible; and the revealed word, Christ. The last, the revealed word, is and must remain the basis of the other two forms.

195

Swain, The Trinity, 38. Kärkkäinen, The Doctrine of God, 94-95. 197 Karl Barth, The Humanity of God. Translated by Thomas Wieser and John Newton Thomas (Louisville: John Knox, 1960), 39-40. 196

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

113

It led to Barth’s Trinitarian formula, foundational to his doctrine, that God reveals the divine self through the divine self.198 The only way to know anything about God is through the revelation of Christ, as realized through the Spirit in the proclamation of the Church and the Bible. The root of the doctrine of the Trinity is that God reveals the divine self.199 Trinitarian theology consists of nothing more than an analysis of divine selfrevelation.200 Humans can understand God’s essence only as far as the divine economy or energy reveals something about the divine essence. It is impossible to know anything about God that God did not reveal to human beings, and what God revealed was never intended to satisfy human curiosity about the divine essence, the means of creation, evolving life, or other scientific matters that human beings investigate. God is revealer, revelation, and revealedness at once.201 Barth speaks of the three modes of the divine being evolving from one another. They represent the three different moments of one event of revelation. The Son proceeds from the revealer, the Father, as the divine self-revelation. The Spirit proceeds from the Son, and therefore from the Father, as the revealed-ness that proceeds from the revelation and the revealer. The unity of the Trinity consists of the unity of one single revelation event, which results in the offer of salvation to human beings. Pentecostals, as a rule, find a close connection with Barth’s theology of the word of God. However, their hermeneutical presupposition adds that God reveals the divine self also through extrabiblical means, ascribed to the work of the Spirit in the daily lives of believers. Like Barth, they emphasize that it is not possible to hear the divine word of revelation in Scripture without the work of the Spirit. The word of God only occurs when God reveals the divine self to human beings. Still, the intervention and involvement of the Spirit do not end when believers close the Bible. They believe the same Spirit that revealed God to human beings in biblical times is at work, 198

Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1, 340. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol. 1: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 2. Translated by Geoffrey William Bromiley, Thomas F. Torrance (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2000 [1938]). 353. 200 Barth, Church Dogmatics, I/2, 354. 201 Barth, Church Dogmatics, I/1, 344. 199

114

Chapter 3

defining their continuationist stance against the cessationism accepted in different forms by most Protestants, including Barth. As a result, Protestants are people of the Book, unlike Pentecostals, who are people of the Spirit and Book (in that order). Pentecostals presuppose that knowing the Bible is not the same as knowing God, loving and revering the Bible is not the same as loving and revering God, and reading the Bible does not mechanically represent hearing the divine voice.202 Barth emphasizes that a close connection exists between the divine essence, the being-of-God-in-the-divine-self or the immanent Trinity, and the divine energy of the being-of-God-in-relation-to-us, the economic Trinity. The one God reveals the divine self to human beings in Jesus; there is no other God “behind” God.203 God the revealer is identical to the act of revelation and the divine revealed-ness.204 The same God reveals the divine self through the Son, the word spoken to human beings, and the Spirit. At the same time, however, Barth does not identify the immanent and economic Trinity to such an extent that the immanent is subsumed into the economic Trinity, as Jürgen Moltmann would later do. It is submitted that it is a principle that the transcendence of God means that the immanent Trinity surpasses the economic, even though they are harmonious. However, it is equally valid that God’s activity and hence revelation in the economy of redemption corresponds to the triune identity of God.205 The transcendence of God means that the immanent Trinity surpasses the economic, even though they are harmonious.206 Theology can in no way access the immanent Trinity – only God’s works among humans can succeed in achieving that feat. The implication is clear: God’s activity in the economy of redemption is the basis of all theological reflection. Theology is limited to considering God’s economic work that forms the

202

Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993), 187. 203 Barth, Church Dogmatics, I/1, 548. 204 Barth, Church Dogmatics, I/1, 340. 205 Rahner, The Trinity, 22. 206 David M. Coffey, Deus Trinitas: The Doctrine of the Triune God (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 151.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

115

“starting point of theology.”207 God exists apart from human beings, implying that God is not dependent on the revelation of the Son or Spirit to human beings. For that reason, it is possible to distinguish the divine essence as such and the divine energy of God as self-manifesting. Barth accepts that Christ is the eternal Word of the Father, in which God thinks of the divine self or expresses the divine by the divine self.208 Jesus is also the self-revelation of God, implying that Jesus and God are identical. The Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and Son from all eternity, justifying the Western Church’s addition of filioque to the creed. The Spirit and Christ represent the revelation of God’s subjective and objective realities. Christ’s incarnation is objective because humans necessarily need to accept Jesus as their Lord, while the Spirit represents the subjective reality, allowing humanity to accept the revelation in Christ. If the Spirit does not work in the human heart, no person can accept Christ as the divine revelation and savior. The Spirit can only conceive of sin based on the objective reality of Christ’s atonement on the cross. Because Christ is the objective reality of revelation, Christ takes the upper hand.209 Although Barth infrequently assigned personhood to the Father and Son, he hesitated regarding the Spirit. Barth was aware of the dangers of subordinationism, relegating the Spirit in comparison with the Father and Son. Nevertheless, he understood the difficulties of referring to the Spirit as a person. Therefore, instead of using the term “personhood” in referring to the Father, Son, and Spirit, he chose to use Seinsweise, the German word for “ways of existence or being,” a term that proves difficult to reproduce in English. The preferred English equivalent is probably “modes of being;” it suggests modalism, a viewpoint that Barth did not accept. However, Barth correctly perceived that referring to God as three persons implies a tritheism.210 Instead, he considered the existence of three divine ways of 207

Luis F. LaDaria, The Living and True God: The Mystery of the Trinity. Translated by Evelyn Harrison (Miami, FL: Convivium, 2009), 49. 208 Barth, Church Dogmatics, I/1, 499. 209 Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 71. 210 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol. 2: The Doctrine of God, Part 1. Translated by Geoffrey William Bromiley, Thomas F. Torrance (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2004 [1957]), 297.

116

Chapter 3

being that coexist in unity with God; the three distinctions respond and correspond to the divine self-revelation. It is unclear whether Barth would have applied the term “personhood” to the one unified God, but at the same time, modalism does not seem to fit his thought scheme about the divine. Barth acknowledges that God is love, and he suggests that it refers to love within the Trinity as well as love needed to have fellowship with human beings. In other words, divine love presupposes relationality but also diversity and difference within the Divinity, implying that differences and distinctions occur in the divine.211 It implies that Barth’s doctrine is socially and relationally based, rather than modalistically. According to Barth, the Father’s love for the Son demonstrates such diversity. Kärkkäinen argues that Barth’s contribution to the trinitarian discourse in the Western Church was to save it from the speculative theological approaches found in the liberal theology that preceded him.212 Using salvation history as the frame of reference for a discussion of the Trinity also defined the dialectic of God as simultaneously transcendent and immanent. Instead of classical liberalism’s tendency to limit God-talk to human experience, Barth concentrated on the God who revealed the divine self in the word, Christ. Barth also defined the Christian God in terms of the Trinity by linking the Trinity directly to salvation history and the divine self-revelation it entails. The discussion in the last two chapters will show much affinity with several aspects of the Barthian theological doctrine of the divine essence.

John Zizioulas John Zizioulas is the Bishop of Pergamon in Greece, representing the Eastern Orthodox Church’s mystical, apophatic tradition. Apophatic theology describes God in negative statements by explaining what God is not. For example, God is “beyond being, beyond divinity, beyond goodness,” in words used at the beginning of the Mystical Theology of

211 212

Barth, Church Dogmatics, II/1, 462. Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 73-74.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

117

Dionysius the Areopagite.213 It functions in contrast to cataphatic theology, which describes God in positive statements, using propositions that intend to disclose the divine revelation and character.214 Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen calls Zizioulas, along with Timothy Ware and Vladimir Lossky, the “most well-known contemporary Eastern Orthodox spokespersons” for that tradition in the West.215 They are engaged in “apophatic theology,” which literally means “negative theology.” It refers to a religious tradition that argues that it is not possible to say anything positive about God’s essence due to the human incapacity to understand God. The same is not true of divine energies describing divine selfrevelation to humanity. Knowledge of God can never be intellectual knowledge, but rather a mystical ecstasy, because God is inaccessible to us in the divine essence; God is only present to humanity in the divine energies. One can only state what God is not. Even in saying God is love, apophatic theology adds that God’s love is not like the love humans practice, not even in its purest form. God’s goodness and perfectness also surpass any human experiences and should therefore also be couched in negative terms. We can say what it is not; it is not like any experience that a human might experience as the perfect example of love, perfectness, or goodness. Knowledge about God is characterized by total ignorance. Rather than wasting energy attempting to understand God, one can only find real knowledge of God in mystical ecstasy. The only way to “know” God is to experience the divine presence in an encounter orchestrated by the divine Spirit. Knowing God consists of an “experience of the absolute, divine nothingness” that swallows up human beings.216 God is, as such, not accessible to human beings, but the divine presence realizes in human experience due to the divine energies, the

213

Panagioti Kantartzis, A Christian’s Pocket Guide to Eastern Orthodox Theology: An Evangelical Perspective (Fearn: Christian Focus, 2021), 9. 214 Kantartzis, Christian’s Pocket Guide to Eastern Orthodox Theology, 9. 215 Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 99. 216 Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, 44.

118

Chapter 3

revelation of Father, Son, and Spirit. The divine essence is, however, inaccessible to human beings.217 For anyone exposed to Pentecostal hermeneutics, it will be clear why some Eastern theologians were chosen as conversation partners in this study. Their perception of the accessibility of knowledge about God is supported by the experience of Pentecostals, that the Bible introduces readers or listeners to God but does not, itself, contain God. The only way to meet God is through a personal encounter with the divine presence and power through God’s Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. Zizioulas links with the West in his trinitarian theology; his deliberate exposure to Western theology allows him to view and criticize his own tradition positively, creatively, and objectively. The primary source of his theological enterprise is the tradition of the Cappadocian fathers and reading later Eastern theological tradition critically in the light of that tradition. His work is also primarily influenced by three prominent contemporary theologians in the Eastern tradition: Vladimir Lossky and Sergius Bulgakov from Russia, and Dumitru Stanisloe of Romania. Zizioulas accepts that the divine exists in one nature (or essence) and three entities or persons (or energies). Therefore, divine identity and divine diversity exist absolutely. Here, he responds to the way Eastern theology starts, with divine threeness and how Western theology begins, with a divine unity. For Zizioulas, it is vital to combine unity and diversity in the attempt to discuss the divine. He follows the lead of Lossky and believes that the West goes astray in its trinitarian theology when it views the impersonal

217

For a further discussion about and advancement of the apophatic tradition in Africa, refer to Conradie, “South African Discourse on the Triune God,” 6; Ernst Conradie and T.C. Sakupapa, “‘Decolonising the Doctrine of the Trinity’ or ‘The Decolonising Doctrine of the Trinity’?” Journal of Theology in Southern Africa 161 (July 2018), 37–53; and T.C. Sakupapa, “The Trinity in African Christian Theology: An Overview of Contemporary Approaches’, HTS Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies 75, no. 1 (2019), a5460. The article of Sakupapa in particular is significant for its discussion of the application of African names of god, symbols, and cultural customs to the Christian God and religion.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

119

divine essence or origin as the Trinity. It should rather be seen in the monarchy of the Father. For Zizioulas, it is vital to emphasize that God exists in communion, like all human beings, and the being of God could only be known through personal relationships based on the sharing of two lives and love; life means communion.218 The implication is clear: the event of communion between God and humans can only be realized as an ecclesial fact and not as an intellectual achievement. He approaches the subject from the perspective of personhood and communion, as demonstrated in the title of his magnum opus, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and Communion (1985).219 Like God, a human person can only exist when that person is standing in relation to others. Without communion with another person or persons, it is impossible to exist as an “individual in itself.” Communion defines a person, necessitating what Zizioulas calls ekstasis, referring to the ongoing act of opening oneself by opening up to another. The communal existence of human beings, especially the Church of Christ as a communion of people, reflects the divine being’s communality and relationality.220 In becoming a Church member, the image of God is restored in a person, resulting in a believer becoming the way God is. The communion of believers with one another, other people, and God is the closest image of the divine available on Earth. The divine essence or substance consists of communion, implying that personhood in itself is the essence of being found in communion. Through ecstasy, defined as the movement toward communion, a person moves to transcendence. An individual living without ecstasy (as qualified by Zizioulas’ ekstasis) can never become a person. In the Greek language, the word “person” refers to the masks that an actor utilizes in the theater to convince the audience of the different characterizations or personalities portrayed by the actor, as discussed earlier in the chapter. 218 John Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997), 16. 219 Zizioulas, Being as Communion. 220 Zizioulas, Being as Communion, 15.

120

Chapter 3

The implication is that “person” is not one’s true essence (or hypostasis in Greek).221 In attempting to answer what it means when one states that God is Father, Son, and Spirit, Zizioulas identifies personhood as the essence of a person-in-communion. It implies that, for him, the divine existence as Father, Son, and Spirit is not added to the divine essence or substance. Still, the Divinity’s existence is defined as being-in-communion, a mutual relationship of love. God as a person is defined by communion. That is what the Bible means with the statement that God is love. Love is not a property of the divine essence; love constitutes the divine essence. Love makes God what God is, the one God.222 It is not possible to know the divine essence; it is only possible to know the divine energies of three persons in communion. In other words, one can only know God through communion with the divine. God can only be approached from the Son and the Spirit because the Divinity exists as a person in the community of the three entities. God’s being coincides with God’s communal personhood as three energies.223 The biblical God is not “first” only one before He is three persons; instead, the only way to describe God is as Father, Son, Spirit, the one God. The energies or the persons’ difference within God exists not in different qualities but in the simple affirmation of being who God is.224 Therefore, one can know God only in a personal relationship defined by love. Personhood (contra selfish individualism) is defined as ekstasis and hypostasis, ecstasy and essence or substance. Ecstasy represents the movement toward communion and the only one that leads to the transcendence of the self and selfishness, making one free to become a person. That freedom constitutes an individual to become a person.225 Through communion with the divine, a believer participates in the divine energies, the existence of the divine as personality. The result is the divinization, deification, or illumination (theosis) of the believer, a vital 221

Zizioulas, Being as Communion, 22-23. Zizioulas, Being as Communion, 46. 223 Zizioulas, Being as Communion, 19. 224 Zizioulas, Being as Communion, 106. 225 Zizioulas, Being as Communion, 408. 222

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

121

term in how Eastern Orthodoxy understands salvation. In many cases, Western theology shies away from this concept. In Eastern theology, theosis is based on the belief that humans can have real union with God in their communion with the divine and eventually become like God (theosis) because they participate in the divine nature. Eastern believers see theosis as the goal of their relationship with God.226 It does not imply that believers merge with God and lose their identity or consciousness; intrinsic divinity can never become a human possession. Human beings may never be confused with God; they can never share the divine essence because it is incomprehensible. However, in communion with God, believers know God through the divine energies representing the way God reveals (and keeps on revealing) the divine self in creation, providence, and salvation. Believers meeting God experience sanctification, a process of growth to perfection in holiness, to theosis. To assist in that process, some believers leave society and enter the monastic tradition to assist in the process of sanctification through ascetic devotion. The purpose of the devotion is to mortify the flesh or put sin to death in their lives.227 Pentecostals, as a rule, reject the concept of “divinization” (theosis) as unacceptable. There is no way that human beings can become divine in essential terms. However, when the term theosis is correctly interpreted, as Eastern Orthodox Christians use the term, then the concept is agreeable with Pentecostal history, ethos, and experience. With their roots firmly in the precedent holiness movement, Pentecostals accepted that mortification is implied as a necessary human contribution to the sanctification initiated and managed by the Spirit. Probably because of the different expectations of the way sanctification realizes, some in the holiness movement (and early Pentecostalism) experienced and proclaimed instant sanctification as a necessary and conditional element of Spirit baptism, while others referred to a gradual process of sanctification. It is submitted that most Pentecostals would accept the theosis concept as taught and practiced by the Eastern Church.

226 227

Zizioulas, Being as Communion, 50. http://ww1.antiochian.org/content/theosis-partaking-divine-nature; accessed.

122

Chapter 3

A feature of Zizioulas’s theology is that his trinitarian theology emerges out of the eucharistic context of the worship service. To be true to itself, trinitarian theology needs to be, and can never be anything else than, a doxological response to the divine. Theology is not concerned with acquiring knowledge apprehended by the mind. In the Orthodox mind, theology is a participation in the truth that can only be attained through prayer and the liturgical life of the Church.228 To know God, the believer should not concentrate on knowledge about the three energies or persons but should see God as the divine appears in worship. It is impossible to enter into the truth through rational engagement. The only way to do so is through prayer that verbalizes “inarticulateness,” attained through the silence.229 It is necessary to return to this insight when developing an alternative theory of the Trinity.

Conclusion The long and chequered history of the Church’s development of God-talk received some attention. It became clear that the first three centuries saw the most differences of opinion and developments in trinitarian views. However, it is not clear what the extent of the diversity of opinions among early believers was. The winner writes the history, and for that reason, only the “orthodoxy” eventually established by the synods and their creeds of the fourth to sixth centuries can clearly be distinguished. The “other” voices mostly became lost when what eventually grew into a majority extinguished them, deliberately destroying their documents and warning believers against it to “defend” the Church against “heresy.” However, the second part briefly discussed some developments in medieval times to get an idea of the “consensus” that the Reformation movement inherited in terms of the doctrine of the Trinity. Finally, the last part directed attention at two theologians from the Eastern and Western Churches. Both discussions proved useful in rethinking trinitarianism from a Pentecostal hermeneutical perspective. 228 229

Kantartzis, Christian’s Pocket Guide to Eastern Orthodox Theology, 9. Kantartzis, Christian’s Pocket Guide to Eastern Orthodox Theology, 10.

A Short Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Christian Church

123

However, before turning to that subject, it is necessary to explain what Pentecostal hermeneutics consists of and what distinguishes it from the hermeneutics practiced by other traditions. It is followed by two chapters revisiting Pentecostal trinitarian doctrine. Some attention is also given to post-Barthian theologians’ work on the doctrine in order to compare and contrast it with the Pentecostal hermeneutical perspective.

CHAPTER 4 PENTECOSTAL HERMENEUTICS Introduction Why do most Pentecostals apparently accept the traditional view of the Trinity that the church defined in the fourth century, while also considering the changes introduced in the fourth century as the beginning of the deterioration and corruption of the Church that led to the degeneration that distinguishes the Christianity of the early Church from the Christendom that ensued and lasted until it was interrupted by the Reformation? This chapter proposes alternative ways of thinking about the doctrine based on what we now know about the differences of opinion among early Christians and subsequent theological deliberations. However, it looks at the Trinity from a Pentecostal hermeneutical angle. Therefore, it is first necessary to explain the elements that comprise Pentecostal hermeneutics in distinction from the hermeneutical endeavors of other Christian traditions.230 In what way do Pentecostals interpret the Bible differently from others? The condition for understanding Pentecostal hermeneutics is that one should know what role theology has been playing within the movement. From the start, the movement accepted an anti-intellectualist stance. The reason for the negative evaluation of theology and theologians is what they perceived to be why worship in the established mainline Churches became formalized and “dead.” They ascribed it mainly to the well-trained reverends these Churches called to lead their worship services. They believed that theology concerned with acquiring knowledge and sermons that provide information about God without leading to life transformation are unprofitable. Instead, they emphasized the importance that people should meet God in person and 230

For a fuller discussion of Pentecostal hermeneutics from an African perspective, see the publication by the author, Marius Nel, An African Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Distinctive Contribution to Hermeneutics (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2019).

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

125

learn to know the Divinity rather than acquire theological knowledge. As a result, a general lack of grounded theological training marred most Pentecostal pastors’ ministry and preaching. In fact, at the start, they had no professional ministers but only “anointed” members who guided their congregations. Later, their emphasis was on the pastor’s need to be filled with and anointed by the Spirit. That served as the only condition for participating in the worship service, this practice and theoretical stance has been continued by many Pentecostals to this day. The movement qualified a hostile animosity toward theology and theologians based on their emphasis that encounters with the Spirit was the condition for saying anything about God. At the same time, many Pentecostals also perceived the negative effect of the historical-critical theological tradition on some theologians and their belief in God. Their anti-intellectualism implied that their hermeneutical presuppositions functioned unconsciously and not deliberately. They never verbalized their hermeneutical angle. One can justify the animosity to some extent. As many lecturers at Pentecostal theological seminaries and colleges can testify, some of their students lost the “innocence of their faith” when exposed to critical textbooks written by authors who do not hold a high view of the Scriptures. Some students (and believers) experience an eroding of their faith in the Bible and the God of the Bible when they hear that different traditions exist within the Hexateuch and the histories of the Deuteronomist and Chronicler; that biblical historiography is, rather, historical ideology; or that the biblical text is characterized by many factual mistakes and contradictions, some of which can be seen in the prevalence of variants of (especially New Testament) texts. As a result, one finds several hermeneutical traditions within Pentecostalism, resulting predominantly in a schism between scholars and the rest of the Church. Most Pentecostal leaders and believers accept that all words and passages are placed on the same level and hold the same authority because the Spirit inspired them. However, some scholars have developed a more nuanced hermeneutical stance. Gabaitse proposed a distinction between what he calls an unarticulated and an articulated Pentecostal hermeneutics to describe the distinctive

126

Chapter 4

hermeneutics of most leaders, members, and scholars.231 He suggests that unarticulated hermeneutics is found among most Pentecostal members and (mostly untrained or less qualified) pastors. It determines their way of thinking about God and the Bible, the songs they sing, their sermons, and how they pray. Their testimonies, an integral element of their meetings, also display it and illustrate Pentecostal spirituality’s oral nature. Significantly, postmodernity also emphasizes orality because of the new post-literacy,232 which might partly explain why many people with postmodern worldviews and values connect with the sentiments in Pentecostalism.233 Simon Chan adds another element. He argues that the strength of Pentecostal traditioning lies in its powerful narratives.234 Testimony and narrative serve as a primary means of this traditioning, expressed in testimonies, songs, trances, inspired teaching, and dance. Pentecostal oral communication involves an oral liturgy, relating testimonies of encounters with the divine, maximum participation at levels of prayer, spontaneous participatory worship, reflection, the inclusion of dreams and visions into personal and public forms of worship, liturgical dance, and prayer for the sick and needy.235 It is difficult to compare a postmodern and Pentecostal worldview with each other because of the difficulty in defining such a worldview in movements as diversified as postmodernity and Pentecostalism. Therefore, Margaret Poloma speaks of the Pentecostal worldview as an anomaly.236 The worldview maintains a tension between the “rational and cognitive” and 231

Rosina Mmannana Gabaitse, “Toward an African Pentecostal Feminist Biblical Hermeneutic of Liberation: Interpreting Acts 2:1-47 in the Context of Botswana” (DPhil diss., University of KwaZulu-Natal, 2012), 77. 232 Martin, Lee R. “Hearing the Voice of God: Pentecostal Hermeneutics and the Book of Judges,” in Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Reader, edited by Lee R. Martin, 205-232 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 231. 233 It should be remembered that ancient cultures, including the Semitic and Jewish culture, were tuned to hearing the spoken word. Few people could read; narratives and information were mostly conveyed by means of the spoken word. 234 Simon Chan, Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition (Sheffield; Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 20. 235 Walter Hollenweger, “The Pentecostal Elites and the Pentecostal Poor: A Missed Dialogue?,” in Charismatic Christianity as a Global Culture, edited by Karla Poewe, 200-216 (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, 1994), 201. 236 Margaret M. Poloma, Assemblies of God at the Crossroads: Charisma and Institutional Dilemmas (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1989), 8.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

127

“affective and experiential,” reflecting the diversity of movements that preceded it. For example, the premillennial, healing, and holiness movements of the nineteenth century and earlier Anabaptist movements influenced the young movement differently. Amos Yong asserts that Pentecostals, as a rule, see the relationship between God and the world from a pneumatological perspective. He calls the Holy Spirit the most fundamental symbol and most appropriate category of referring to God’s agency in the world.237 He defines the world in terms of its capability to perceive the actions of God in the world in divine presence and activities through foundational pneumatology that results in universal rationality and grammar.238 The heart of Yong’s foundational pneumatology is relationality, based on his integration of an Irenaean model of Spirit and word as the two hands of God with an Augustinian model of the Spirit as the bond of love between Father and Son, establishing a pneumatological perspective on the relationality of all reality and being. In this way, Yong also opens up new ways to consider the trinitarian doctrine. Early Pentecostals presupposed that the Holy Spirit was a central and essential part of the early Church as a whole as well as individual Christians, as portrayed by the New Testament. In time, the status of the Spirit was diminished in the Church, only to be revived in the pneumatological emphasis the Pentecostal movement (claimed it) brought in the twentieth century by recognizing the need for the Spirit’s presence in their midst. Is this view correct? Did the Church, through the ages in general, betray the Spirit? To answer this question, John McIntyre taxonomically analyzes various accounts of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit that represent diverse cultures and traditions over many centuries.239 On the grounds of his historical study, he admits that, through the ages, the Church has not entered into the entire 237

Amos Yong, An Amos Yong Reader: The Pentecostal Spirit, edited by Christopher A. Stephenson (Eugene, OR: Cascades, 2020), 1. 238 Amos Yong, “On Divine Presence and Divine Agency: Toward a Foundational Pneumatology.” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 3, no. 2 (2000), 167–88 (175). 239 John McIntyre, The Shape of Pneumatology: Studies in the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 235–236.

128

Chapter 4

strategy of the Holy Spirit or adequately attempted to implement the Spirit’s tactics.240 However, he is unwilling to admit that the Church betrayed the Spirit or the Spirit’s work, and this study supports his contention. The church never ceased to refer to and expect the Spirit’s work. However, it neglected to give it the same attention as the early church probably did, given the significant influence the events on the day of Pentecost exercised in its origins. McIntyre admits that the early Christians saw the Spirit’s involvement at every point of their lives. They expected the Spirit’s participation when making decisions, as Acts 15 illustrates. They perceived that the Spirit cooperated with them when they planned evangelical missions, solved interpersonal conflicts, preached, baptized, or made moral decisions. The official Western Church clearly did not enjoy the same effects of the Spirit’s work. However, that does not imply that the Spirit was not involved, although not necessarily in the same kind of extraordinary phenomena that the book of Acts relates. Whatever the case, the Church expect to encounter the Spirit in any way the Spirit may choose.241 Another vital element that needs to be emphasized is that most Pentecostals accept the experiential orientation that influences their epistemology and the doctrinal and experiential appropriation of this in the Spirit baptism, highlighting, among others, tongues-speaking and other spiritual gifts.242 As a result of the emphasis on the experiential, Pentecostal doctrines are not abstract speculations but living facts, experimentally known and described narratively in the form of testimonies. They do not base their beliefs primarily on cognition but on life-transforming comprehension. Doctrinal “truths” are also not to be viewed as absolutely orthodox and unchangeable. It can be challenged and may require to be overturned. As most fundamentalists argue, the central emphasis is not on absolute teachings that one must accept, but on a direct relationship with God that can hold many surprises over time.243 Kenneth Archer’s focus on combining orthodoxy with ortho-praxis implies that the daily praxis should support beliefs and 240

McIntyre, The Shape of Pneumatology, 285. McIntyre, The Shape of Pneumatology, 285–286. 242 Jacqueline Grey, Three’s a Crowd: Pentecostalism, Hermeneutics, and the Old Testament. (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011), 15. 243 Scott A. Ellington, “Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 9 (1996), 17. 241

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

129

ortho-pathy.244 Instead of theory proceeding to provide the foundational rationale for practice, underlying much of the Western philosophical tradition, they see theory as the reflective moment in praxis, uniting them into the same activity. Not all agree with the theses that Pentecostalism began with experience and that its essence can be found in its experiential angle in Bible reading practices. For instance, Lee Chang-Soung argues that the essence of Pentecostalism is not experience but theology.245 His argument is as follows: he asserts that the Pentecostal movement starts with and is perpetuated by Bible study for a specific theological theme. That implies that Pentecostalism started with theology. Only from experience introduced and induced by the Bible study did early Pentecostals’ experiences follow. In other words, the movement is perpetuated with a process consisting of theological Bible study (e.g., to answer the question, “What is the biblical evidence of Spirit baptism?”) that leads to the extraction of a theological hypothesis from the study (in this case, speaking in tongues). Then, the experience follows (they spoke in tongues), confirming the hypothesis. In other words, Pentecostalism established its principles through the experiences of what the Bible teaches. The implication for him is clear: theology precedes experience for Pentecostals. Hence, theology has precedence or priority in the Pentecostal movement. In response, it should be noted that Chang-Soung does not acknowledge the custom among Pentecostals to interpret the Bible in the light of their experience of the Spirit’s presence and their past charismatic experiences. These two factors serve as the condition for Bible reading to qualify as Pentecostal. The Vorverständnis determine what they see and understand in the Bible and apply it to their lives. As in all Bible reading practices, they are “prejudiced” by their experience and expectation of the Spirit’s involvement in the process of interpreting the Bible. Therefore, Chang244

Kenneth J. Archer, “A Pentecostal Way of Doing Theology: Method and Manner,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 9, no. 3 (2007) 301-314 (309). 245 Lee Chang-Soung, “In the Beginning There Was a Theology: The Precedence of Theology over Experience in Pentecostal Movement.” The article was originally written in the Korean language, printed in the Journal of Yongsan Theology 32 (2014), 71-96, and translated by the author himself.

130

Chapter 4

Soung’s emphasis on the precedence of theology over experience in the movement cannot be accepted. The lack of theological depth among many early and current Pentecostal Church leaders proves Chang-Soung’s supposition false. The last observation is that Pentecostal praxis should be informed by the empathy with the poor, marginalized, challenged, and rejected people of society that characterized Jesus’ life. This was a characteristic of the early Pentecostal movement as well. Many of the earliest adherents, including the leaders, came from the ranks of drunkards, criminals, the poorest of the poor, the rejected and the marginalized of society. For that reason, it is critical that orthopraxy-orthodoxy be informed by critical reflections on other people’s suffering, moving theology into the community on the margins where poverty, famine, and suffering debilitate and ruin people’s daily lives.246 Only then can Pentecostalism live up to its status as a resistance movement against what early Pentecostals perceived as a cold, creedal, and cerebral Christianity that left no room for poor and hurting people or marginalized sinners that characterized many (or some) (Western) Christian Churches.

Unarticulated Pentecostal Hermeneutics During the 1930s and 1940s, many members of the second generation of Pentecostals got tired of the sectarian status of discrimination they experienced at the hands of mainline Churches. They started looking for ways to find acceptance by society and government structures. In the event, they cooperated with some Evangelicals.247 Many Pentecostals continued in 246

Archer, “Pentecostal Way of Doing Theology,” 310. It is acknowledged that it is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to define Evangelicalism because of its diversity. This study uses Larry Eskridge’s definition as an umbrella definition to include diverse Protestant groups. He describes contemporary Evangelicals as those who affirm some doctrines such as “conversionism,” an organic group of movements and religious tradition such as conservative Reformed Churches, Pentecostals, and Southern Baptists, and signifying also a selfascribed label for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) that served as a response to the perceived anti-intellectual separatist, belligerent nature of the fundamentalist movement in the 1920s and 1930s (http://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_Evangelicalism.html; accessed 2021-12-15). See Veli-Matti Kärkäinnen and William K Kay. “Pentecostals and the Bible,”

247

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

131

this tradition; they only added the distinct doctrine of Spirit baptism with its initial evidence of speaking in tongues. This view of Pentecostalism is still held by many. Archer is correct in saying that more Pentecostals interpret the Bible as conservative modernists (he calls them “academic nonfundamentalists”) than representatives of the new Pentecostal hermeneutics, as explained above.248 As a result, their movement did not represent a different theological tradition in and of itself. It is simply a part of the Evangelical tradition distinguished by its distinct emphasis on the Spirit baptism and tongues.249 For instance, in the USA, Pentecostals cooperated in establishing the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in 1942, which today consists of more than forty-five thousand different denominations and serves a constituency of millions.250 The same happened in many other countries. It eventually led to the “evangelicalization” of Pentecostals and the import of doctrines (and practices) like inerrancy and mechanic inspiration into their hermeneutical processes. In this way, they ignored their own ethos and tradition, all in the effort to gain acceptance in evangelical circles.251 However, ironically, since the 1960s, the circle was completed in a contrasting process within some established mainline Churches that led to the “charismatization” of their worship practices. It brought them into conformity with the early Pentecostals rather than the “evangelicalized” Pentecostals! Hence, it is called the charismatic movement. In this period, Pentecostals started to adopt uncritically theological methods, consisting of epistemological and theological perspectives that undermined their distinct spirituality and shaped their identity.252 Their general lack of theological acumen paved the way for the uncritical acceptance that Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 24, no. 1 (2004), 7183 (71-73). For further discussion of other reasons for the migration from an early Pentecostal hermeneutic to a conservative literalist Evangelical hermeneutic. 248 Archer, “A Pentecostal Way of Doing Theology,” 306. 249 Archer, “A Pentecostal Way of Doing Theology,” 303. 250 https://www.nae.org/; accessed 2021-11-25. 251 Kenneth J. Archer, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Retrospect and Prospect,” in Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Reader, edited by Lee R. Martin, 131-148 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 151. 252 Archer, “A Pentecostal Way of Doing Theology,” 306.

132

Chapter 4

compromised their ethos. It eventually led to internal conflicts that ended in schisms that characterized some of the larger Pentecostal denominations. Now, many Pentecostal denominations exchanged the inexpensive halls they preferred for their meetings for the standard concept of churches as qualified by mainline Churches. They also adapted the liturgy and order of worship of mainline Churches to accommodate their new alliance partners. They banned women from the ministry of men, and their hermeneutics also changed. Slowly, they started reading the Bible in the literalist and fundamentalist terms that characterized the more conservative Evangelicals.253 In this way, Pentecostals developed unarticulated Pentecostal hermeneutics. In Africa, it contributed to the expansion of African Indigenous Churches that formed a separate segment, the Spirit (or, in Nigeria, Aladura) Churches. It is submitted that Pentecostals denied their ethos by adopting an uncritical fundamentalist, literalist, and biblicist way of interpreting the Bible. Traditionally, they held a high view of the Bible as a faith value, leaving room for the Spirit’s revelation of its truths. Now, they readily accepted the reading practices of some conservative Evangelicals whose historical criticism resisted a fundamental faith-value treasured by early Pentecostals, the continuation of the supranatural activities as a restoration of the charismatic encounters that characterized early Christians.254 Most Pentecostals today support a form of supernatural theism, in contrast to panentheism defined by Karen Armstrong in A History of God, her epochmaking book. God is viewed as an exceedingly superlative, person-like, supreme being in supernatural theism. The Divinity created the world as something separate from the divine, implying God is “up in heaven,” “out there,” beyond the universe. This God intervenes at times in this world, demonstrated by the events reported in the Bible, especially in the

253

See the discussion about a Pentecostal hermeneutical evaluation of the fundamentalist doctrine of literal inspiration of the Bible in John W. McKay, “When the Veil is Taken Away: The Impact of Prophetic Experience on Biblical Interpretation,” in Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Reader, edited by Lee R. Martin, 57-80 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 62. 254 Grey, Three’s a Crowd, 39.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

133

incarnation of Jesus. Pentecostals believe God continues to intervene to this day, doing miracles in response to prayer.255 In contrast, panentheism does not see God as a person-like being “out there.” Instead, the Divinity is an encompassing Spirit in whom the world exists. The world is not separate from God, but in God. God is the one in whom “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). It is submitted that Pentecostals can benefit from reviewing their view of God, since their pneumatological worldview suggests that the Spirit inhabits their reality. Through the Spirit, they live in the divine Presence. Their God is not out there; the Divinity lives in them and works through them (see the last chapter for further discussion). In addition, the influential Pentecostal scholar Gordon Fee (like Robert Menzies also does) pleads (with some justice) with contemporary Pentecostals to adopt responsible exegesis by applying the historical-critical method of exegesis and the Evangelical hermeneutic of authorial intention critically. He argues that they are effective in providing the “plain sense” of the Bible and bridging the “hermeneutical gap” between what the Scripture meant in its original setting and what it means today for readers (what Fee refers to as the basis of hermeneutics).256 However, many scholars disagree with him. They do not accept Scripture’s “plain meaning” equation with authorial intention. Instead, they emphasize the limitations inherent to the historicalcritical approach because of its false presupposition that it can fully reconstruct knowledge of the past.257 Postmodernity recognizes the dynamic and multiple meanings in different readings of the biblical text, resulting from readers’ unstableness and diverse interests. Postmodernity originated because it disapproved of Modernity’s assertion that only what is historically and objectively true is meaningful. An excellent demonstration of Modernity’s claim to absolute truth is the existence of countless denominations among Christians, probably 255

Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 81-82. Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All it is Worth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982). 257 Grey, Three’s a Crowd, 41. 256

134

Chapter 4

as many as forty-thousand different ones, all based on the belief that they possess the “truth” as found in the Bible.258 Postmodernity argues that such positivistic constraints cannot constrict meaning. Pentecostal readers agree; they are interested in a passage’s meaning to appropriate and apply it to their lives. The historical location, origins, and “truth” are less critical. This implies that reading practices reflecting the Pentecostal ethos have more in common with postmodern values than traditional, conservative Evangelical notions. In this regard, Cargal additionally notes that critical methods provide essential information about the text, such as its composition and transmission history; however, they cannot provide any meaningful contribution to defining the meaning of the text.259 The elevation of historical truth in some Evangelical hermeneutics, reflected in the practice of many present-day Pentecostals, is further undermined by the results of higher criticism, where elements of the biblical narrative have been “proven” to be unhistorical. For that reason, we support Cargal’s suggestion that Pentecostal readers can instead utilize a postmodern approach, because it allows them to value and interpret the passage regardless of its historical “truth” (or lack thereof). Pentecostal “truth” is, in any case, not primarily concerned with what is historically “true” (if it was possible to define at all, given that biblical authors were not interested in writing history in the Modernist sense of the term, but mainly in a providential sense). Instead, they find it in the existential value and function of the passage in their daily lives. In biblicist thinking, it is crucial that biblical narratives should have happened exactly as it is described; it is unthinkable that the divine revelation to human beings could contain historiographical attempts that are not faithful descriptions. To clarify any descriptions of supranatural events as “myth” would be anathema in this approach. For instance, to argue that 258

For instance, near where I was staying in Pasadena, California while doing research for this publication at Fuller Theological Seminary was a church with the name, “The Church of Truth.” 259 Timothy B. Cargal, “Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy: Pentecostals and Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Age,” Pneuma 15, no. 2 (1993), 177.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

135

creation narratives functioned in and as a result of a world view that the Earth is flat, and God’s throne is situated above the sky, would be unacceptable. Biblicism requires that scientific theories about the creation of the world should conform to “God’s word” - otherwise, the scientific descriptions cannot be true and must be rejected. An unarticulated biblicism does not find passages in the Old Testament that are difficult to account for problematic because of its violent and nationalist tone. They “just read it and believe it,” in the words of Jacqueline Grey. Their response, says Grey, reflects the belief among the Pentecostal community that their reading processes are “simple” and faithful to the Scriptures.260 They believed the book of Acts was repeating itself in their lives and ministries. They read the narratives with eager anticipation and expectation that similar events would occur in their daily lives. They fervently believed that God would honor the divine word, act on their faith, and heal or deliver them. They believed that descriptions of biblical events were supposed to reoccur in their lives as Spirit-filled believers. Their belief was anchored in passages such as 1 Peter 2:21, that Jesus serves as our example; John 12:14, which states that believers would do what Jesus did and even greater things; and 1 Corinthians 1:11, which explains that believers have access to the Old Testament narratives that were given to them as examples for their admonition. Literalization among Pentecostals using an unarticulated hermeneutic occurred when they imposed and applied Modernist assumptions of truth and historiography, based on positivism, onto the ancient texts.261 However, as suggested above, “truth” for Pentecostals is more than literal truth; it is “truth-as-testimony,” in how Walter Brueggemann applies the term.262 It refers to subjective experiences of the transcendent revealed to the individual and faith community. In the same manner, Pentecostal hermeneutics asserts that the Bible’s truth claims are not in its declaration (or testimony) of “historical facts” (and dependant on the verity of its

260

Grey, Three’s a Crowd, 3. Grey, Three’s a Crowd, 146. 262 Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1997), 67. 261

136

Chapter 4

descriptions) but their testimonies of humans’ encounters with the divine. Brueggemann’s opinion concurs with the Pentecostal view that the central truth-claims of Israel in the Old Testament are not about historical truth, but the “truth” offered by the subjective testimony of witnesses.263 Therefore, the study of testimonies in the Bible should not primarily be interested in what happened in history, but in the authors’ testimonies of what they experienced. The emphasis then changes because the Bible as a narrative invites its readers to enter the text world and participate in what happened in it through their reactions to it. It forces the reader to adopt an ahistorical reading strategy that emphasizes the reader’s present rather than the text’s historical situatedness.264 The unarticulated hermeneutic found widely among Pentecostals is precritical in nature, finding the common sense of a passage that they read at face value and without recognizing the vital influence of the historical, social, and economic context and the needs and expectations of the first hearers, or considering the author’s original intent.265 Unarticulated hermeneutics represent what Marcus Borg refers to as the “earlier paradigm,” a hard approach where Christians anchor their faith in the authority of God, which is the authority of the Bible, making the Bible the substitute for God.266 It views the Bible as a divine product that originated from God. It consists of the unique revelation of God, the “Word of God,” “inspired by God.” The Bible is sacred because it comes from God, and its authority lies in being a divine product with a divine guarantee.267 In Borg’s differentiation, this “hard” approach emphasizes the flawless correctness of every word in the Bible, necessitating the literal reading of the Bible as a condition for understanding its meaning. In the Bible, God is talking. The only way to truth is found in the Bible and its God. Christian life is to be built on the Bible (and in Protestantism, the creeds are based on the Bible and accepted by several ecumenical synods). It interprets the Bible 263

Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, 68. Scott A. Ellington, “History, Story, and Testimony: Locating Truth in a Pentecostal Hermeneutic,” Pneuma 23, no. 2 (2001), 245-264. 265 Archer, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” 133. 266 Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 6-7. 267 Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 18-19. 264

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

137

literally by emphasizing that it is factually and literally true. That includes the descriptions of “supernatural” interventions and miracles as well as all facts concerning Jesus’ incarnation and ministry. The Bible’s infallibility implies that it is literally true. This view developed relatively recently and was shaped by the conflict with modernity. Since its development, it must be admitted that it has nourished millions of Christians. This functions in contrast to the “emerging paradigm,” a “softer” approach, as a reaction to the exclusive rationalistic Enlightenment (Aufklärung). It emphasizes living the gospel rather than formulating “propositions of truth.” A soft approach read the Bible as a compilation of ancient writings representing a diversity of perspectives on Israel’s God, based on an ancient worldview as the product of prescientific knowledge and reflecting timebound cultural, national, and gender prejudices. The divine Spirit guided its authors in such a way that it prevented them from making any serious errors that relate to anything that matters for humans’ salvation. As far as the restoration of one’s relationship with God goes, the Bible can be trusted. The softer form can thus, at the same time, allow for statements in the Bible that reflect archaic laws and an ancient worldview based on premodern “scientific knowledge.” For that reason, it accepts that the six creation days of Genesis 1 might be understood metaphorically, perhaps as geological epochs or as a narrative designed to emphasize the creative powers of YHWH without attempting to describe the creative processes in detail. Similarly, Jonah did not necessarily spend (and survive) three days in the belly of a big fish. The book may reflect a parable rather than factual history.268 Marcus Borg writes that biblical literalism that affirms the absolute character of biblical teachings, both doctrinal and ethical, leads to what he calls a “cafeteria” way of being Christian. He implies that believers can now “pick and choose” the beliefs and ethical teachings they prefer and support them with some biblical texts.269

268 269

Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 20. Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 20.

138

Chapter 4

In the words of Kenneth Archer, Pentecostals read the Bible with a “thoroughly popularistic, pre-critical, text-centred approach.”270 Their continuationist view of the Spirit’s work in the Church also requires an acceptance that the descriptions of miracles in the Bible are actual and supposed to be repeated in the latter days before the second coming of Christ. Most Pentecostals that their faith leaves room for the Spirit to continue Jesus’ ministry on earth, in such ways as healing, exorcism, and provision for daily needs, to name a few. Andrew Davies thinks that such reading practices can be called fundamentalist.271 “Fundamentalism” is defined here as a literalist reading of biblical texts required by the underlying theory of mechanical inspiration nearly akin to divine dictation of the text to biblical authors. It includes a belief that the Bible is verbally inspired and literally inerrant, as affirmed by the post-Reformation Christian confessions like Zwingli’s SeventySeven Articles, Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons of Dort. They read the Bible as if it fell from heaven; it was always there and handed down to the present generation without any alterations or changes. It presupposes that an original text exists that was handed down and translated, without giving an account for the many manuscripts of the New Testament which have as many variations as they do verses. Better informed believers using an unarticulated hermeneutic believe that the Textus Receptus, the Novum Instrumentum Omne of 1516, is the final authority to determine the text of the New Testament. The Textus Receptus is the text compiled by Erasmus (1466–1536) in his Novum Instrumentum Omne and printed by Johann Froben (1460–1527) of Basel, especially the 1633 Elzevir edition. Newer translations represent corruptions of the “original” text that the Spirit inspired.272 Biblicism rejects most attempts to reconstruct the original text in textual criticism. It rejects the discovery of 270

Kenneth Archer, “Early Pentecostal Biblical Interpretation,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18 (2001), 32-70 (67). 271 Andrew Davies, “What Does it Mean to Read the Bible as a Pentecostal?” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18, no. 2 (2009), 216-229 (219). 272 Their argument is based on the presupposition that a ground text of the Bible exists, something that has never been discovered and is unlikely, given the fragility of papyrus rolls on which the texts were written.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

139

many manuscripts in Greek that go back very early in the history of the development of the text, even in a few cases to the second century CE. For that reason, most Pentecostals exclusively accept the translations based on that text and the printed editions of the text before the Elzevir edition was published in 1633. Most Pentecostals in English-speaking Africa use the King James Version of 1611, initially sponsored by King James VI and based on the Textus Receptus.273 A further implication is that Pentecostals do not regard scientific, careful exegesis. There is nothing to interpret – it must only be believed as the Bible states it.274 Their simple hermeneutic believes that everything in the Bible should be taken literally, except where the text clearly uses imagery and metaphors. To provide a practical application, one should spiritualize and allegorize what is difficult to interpret. The passage serves as a devotional text applicable to the daily lives of believers, in effect leading to the establishment of a canon within a canon, with large tracts of Old Testament texts that are ignored for practical reasons. Many preachers do not use biblical commentaries or exegetical resources to unlock the different contexts reflected in biblical passages. Because it is not necessary to know, or because one is not informed, for example, that the different parts of the book of Isaiah reflect different periods in Israel’s history, preachers do not inform themselves about the contexts that influence the interpretation of the passage. In many cases, they look down on serious theological and exegetical engagement with biblical passages as nothing else than what Walter Hollenweger calls “unenlightened human understanding.”275 Kenneth Archer defines the unarticulated Pentecostal hermeneutics as the view that the Bible is the inspired word of God which is authoritative and absolutely reliable; it is the word of God and does not only represent a 273

The same is true for people speaking one of the youngest indigenous languages in Africa, Afrikaans. Afrikaans-speaking Pentecostals prefer the 1933 translation (revised in 1953) above the 1983 dynamic equivalent and 2020 direct translations of the Bible by the South African Bible Society. 274 Gordon Fee, “Hermeneutics and Historical Precedent: A Major Problem in Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” in Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism, edited by R.P. Spittler (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1976), 121. 275 Walter Hollenweger, The Pentecostals: The Charismatic Movement in the Churches (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1972), 394-395.

140

Chapter 4

witness to God.276 Therefore, they also do not see any historical distance between themselves and the text. They interpret the Bible, including the Old Testament, in an exclusively Christological manner, colored by their understanding of the “full gospel,” and the local pastor or preacher serves as the prime specialist interpreter of the Bible. As a result of their uncritical and fundamentalist-literalist Bible reading practices, for instance, these Pentecostals, in accepting the patriarchy and the principle of slavery underlying the most significant parts of the Bible, do not conform to the contemporary emphasis on human rights and do not recognize the dignity of women and LGBTIQ+ people. For instance, Pentecostals use the Bible’s patriarchal understanding of marriage roles and relationships that is consistent with the culture of the ancient Israelite community to advocate for the submission of women to men, a belief held by many Pentecostal men (and some women).277 Furthermore, they view people with alternative sexual orientations who practice their sexuality as sinful. The problem is that with the literalization of a text, they consider cultural customs in biblical times as normative and impose contemporary meanings of words or concepts upon the biblical text, directly influencing the interpretation and making it an invalid action. In contrast, early Pentecostals observed that the Spirit anointed women to the same extent as their male counterparts. The fruit of the evident anointing with the Spirit, such as conversions, healings, and other miracles, proved that a person’s ministry was Spirit-inspired. Female and male ministries showed evidence of these signs. For that reason, early Pentecostals treated women ministers as they did male ministers, providing them with the same acknowledgment and ordaining them to be pastors, evangelists, missionaries, and ministers, despite the “clear” indications of the contrary in the Bible (instead, limited to some of the epistles ascribed to Paul!).278 When Pentecostals accepted a new hermeneutic in line with their newly acquired Evangelical partners in the 1930s and 1940s, they followed the biblical guidelines in the same fundamentalist way. They ignored the clear signs that 276

Archer, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” 135. Grey, Three’s a Crowd, 136. 278 See further discussion on the issue of God’s maleness in chapter 5. 277

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

141

the Spirit uses both women and men in the gospel ministry and disqualified women from ministry. A consistent fundamentalist reading of the Bible requires acceptance of the biblical worldview. Hence, many Pentecostals subscribe to views that the earth is flat, with a firmament above the earth keeping the waters out. The sun and stars move around within the sky. The sun is behind the stars. In the middle of the earth is a hole that provides entrance into Sheol, the abode of the dead. The Earth is also six thousand years old, and God created the world in six days through divine words (although 2 Peter 3:8 does not state that one day as a thousand years applies to the creation narrative). There is also no such thing as outer space. Many fundamentalist Pentecostals accept conspiracy theories, such as that certain people and organizations, such as the Rothschilds and Freemasons ruling over the world, keep the correct views of the flat earth from citizens to serve their own interests.279 Also, no people ever landed on the moon! Fundamentalism is a phenomenon found widely among all religions. It is based on the fear of being threatened by unidentifiable powers. As a result, it polarizes and demonizes some people and groups contrasted to their own group. It is racist, sexist, nationalist, and preoccupied with conservative 279

Acceptance of the flat earth theory and the conspiracy to hide it from the masses has been increasing, according to research, due to the enormous influence of YouTube on this influential group (https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-humanbody/the-rise-of-the-flat-earthers/; https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speakingof-psychology/conspiracy-theories; https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culturefeatures/flat-earth-conspiracy-theory-podcast-1311262/; accessed 2022-03-23). In a survey conducted on 4 and 5 October 2017, YouGov found that only two-thirds of US millennials who participated in the survey believe the earth is spherical, implying that the rest are not sure (https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/61lofnxseb/Co nspiracy%20Theories%20-%20YouGov%20Results.pdf; accessed 2021-12-18). It should be kept in mind that only four percent of millennials expressed direct belief in a flat earth (two percent of adults share these convictions while eighty-four percent believe the earth is round (.https://www.sciencealert.com/one-thirdmillennials-believe-flat-earth-conspiracy-statistics-yougov-debunk; accessed 202112-18). In a BBC program interviewing flat earth advocates, it seems that YouTube played a prominent role in spreading these views (https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p07h3yc0/flat-earth-how-did-youtube-helpspread-a-conspiracy-theory-; accessed 2021-12-18).

142

Chapter 4

political issues rather than those concerned with justice, exclusivism, and combatting harmful ideologies. They see the “others” as the threat. They oppose any change and are passionate about maintaining traditional principles at all costs.280 It was suggested that, in practice, Pentecostals use a canon within the biblical canon. They do so because they read everything in the Bible on the same level but focus on some passages at the expense of others. They ignore passages which do not conform to their presupposed theological viewpoints. For instance, in their emphasis on the Deuteronomist theology of divine reward to the just and punishment to the sinners, they do not refer to passages that depict a reality of suffering for believers, because such passages do not conform to their views.281 For that reason, Pentecostals also do not apply the many laments and prayers over enemies that characterize the Church’s book of prayers, the Psalms. At the same time, they also ignore the Sabbath and Jewish feast regulations that Jesus and his apostles kept without explaining why. How many classical Pentecostals subscribe to the unarticulated hermeneutic? In the introduction, the assertion was that it is the majority of leaders and members of such Churches. William Kay did empirical research consisting of a postal survey of questionnaires of a representative number of Assemblies of God, Elim, and Apostolic Church of God clergy.282 He found that nearly all the ministers who participated believe that the Bible is the “infallible Word of God;” a much lower percentage supported the position that it is inerrant. Thirty to thirty-seven percent of ministers in each denomination do not agree with the inerrant position. In other words, these ministers distinguish infallibility and inerrancy. While other ministers think that these 280

Abel Pienaar, Die Dans met God (“The Dance with God”) (Tygervallei: Naledi, 2015), 85-86. 281 An instance of such a text is Psalm 73. The author believe that God is good to the upright and pure in heart. However, the pray-er confesses that their feet had almost stumbled when they became envious of the prosperity of the wicked and arrogant. As a result, the wicked do not experience any pain or trouble, and for that reason, they are proud, violent, and maliciously threaten people with oppression. At the same time, they set their mouths against heaven, jokingly asking, “How can God know?” 282 Kärkäinnen and Kay. “Pentecostals and the Bible,” 76-79.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

143

words, infallibility and inerrancy, are synonymous, some ministers make a clear distinction. They probably base their distinction on familiarity with their denomination’s fundamental truths. Whereas denominational documents use the term “infallible,” this is not true of “inerrancy.” Kay speculates that the reason is historical.283 At first, there was no debate about the accuracy of the biblical text, and biblical authority was axiomatic. They taught that the Bible was the “inspired Word of God.” Their attention was taken up by their apology for the contested doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit following the new birth. The research also showed that between ninety-nine and a hundred percent of ministers believed that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. In comparison, sixty-seven to seventy percent subscribe to the view that the Bible contains no verbal errors.284 An interesting difference between the inerrantist and infallibilist views is that adherents of the inerrantist view evaluate speaking in tongues more highly. They do not endorse equal opportunities for ministry to women. They also accept that women should obey their husbands. They are more authoritarian concerning Church activities and more insistent on Sunday evening attendance, tithing, abstention from alcohol, avoidance of gambling, and, for some, legalist Sabbatarianism. Their worship services are more structured, and many of them support the creationist viewpoint and endorse the nature miracles of Jesus as historical. They have firm and clear eschatological views, disagreeing that the Bible is unclear about the order of end-time events because these descriptions may be symbolical and metaphorical. They support the view that atonement for all believers includes physical healing. In other words, the inerrantist perspective forms a part of a worldview in which authority and the supernatural are cardinal points of reference.285 Panagioti Kantartzis refers to Billy Graham’s often-used words “the Bible says…” to explain the heart of the Evangelical ethos.286 The Bible and what the Bible says is the final argument, the ultimate authority, and the

283

Kärkäinnen and Kay. “Pentecostals and the Bible,” 78. Kärkäinnen and Kay. “Pentecostals and the Bible,” 81. 285 Kärkäinnen and Kay. “Pentecostals and the Bible,” 79. 286 Kantartzis, Christian’s Pocket Guide to Eastern Orthodox Theology, 15. 284

144

Chapter 4

discussion’s end. In other words, the Bible functions at the center of the Church’s life and faith. That is why the public reading of Scripture and preaching the Word is central to their worship service: sola Scriptura (“only the Scriptures”). The research supports the view that a cardinal part of classical Pentecostal leaders, pastors, and members support the conservative, literalist Evangelical hermeneutic. However, as Kay’s research demonstrates, not all of them verbalize their perspectives on the Bible similarly – but all of them support the fundamental hermeneutical viewpoint. The last remark is that the fundamentalist position functions sociologically and psychologically as well as theologically. Their conservative fundamentalist stance probably results from the suffering traditional Pentecostals experienced at the hands of mainline Churches who regarded them as sectarian. In attempting to stand against the consensus within society, classical Pentecostals needed a strong rationale. Therefore, they appealed to the authority of Scripture to motivate their doctrinal views about several vital biblical doctrines that were contested and supported by the church’s authority, using it as their leverage. This contributed to their ability to stay true to their doctrinal opinions. At the same time, however, the same ability led to dogmatism, rigidity, and an unwillingness to accept changes, justifying their conservative viewpoints regarding issues such as war, politics, vaccinations, etc.287

Articulated Pentecostal Hermeneutics Since the 1970s, Pentecostal scholarship slowly developed, concentrating at first on the history of the Pentecostal movement that was never systematically described. In earlier times, Pentecostals would never have considered compiling their history because they were convinced that the world’s end was too near to spend any time on such worthless activities. After several years of historical studies, scholars started concentrating on practical theological issues reflecting their pragmatic interests, betraying the existentialist sentiments that characterized the movement. Eventually, some 287

Kärkäinnen and Kay. “Pentecostals and the Bible,” 80.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

145

scholars developed interests in systematical theological matters. Next, since the 1990s, some of them have designed a Pentecostal hermeneutic that accords with academic rigor in distinction to the reigning fundamentalistbiblicist model. A significant part of the hermeneutic is their utilization of some of the insights of early Pentecostals to develop Bible reading practices that conform to their unique ethos and spirituality. Early Pentecostals’ ethos, emphasizing the immediacy of encounters with God through the Spirit, reflected how they interpreted the Bible. They used their experiences as Vorverständnis or pre-understanding, interpreting what they read of events in the Bible in the light of how they experienced God in their charismatic events. As a result, some theologians objected that Pentecostals are unbalanced in a pneumatocentric manner, by overemphasizing the significance of Spirit baptism and other charismatic experiences at the cost of other significant elements of the Christian experience. The response to that objection is that Pentecostals emphasize the Spirit as the divine love between Father, Son, and Spirit, and they view the Spirit as the Spirit of Christ. The Spirit reminds believers of Jesus’ words and intentions and empowers them to continue Jesus’ ministry in their world. The Spirit unlocks Jesus Christ’s presence for believers; the Spirit serves as mediator (paraclete) to Jesus while Jesus, in his death and resurrection, became the means of mediation with the Father.288 Therefore, Bradford E. Hinze and D. Lyle Dabney insist that a pneumatological interest does not represent a move away from the center of Christian worship and witness, which is Jesus. Hence, they emphasize the worship of Christ through the Spirit, a passion more in line with the New Testament’s emphasis on the work of the Spirit in the Church. They warn that Christocentrism should be replaced neither by pneumatocentrism nor Christological categories.289 The agency of the Spirit is to glorify the Son and the Father. The Spirit’s doxological activity is an intratrinitarian activity directed to the Son and the Father.

288

The argument is developed fully in Nel, “The Notion of the Holy Spirit as Paraclete.” 289 Bradford E. Hinze and D. Lyle Dabney, “Introduction,” in Advents of the Spirit: An Introduction to the Current Study of Pneumatology, edited by Bradford E. Hinze and D. Lyle Dabney (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2001), 11–34.

146

Chapter 4

Consequently, for Pentecostals, the eschatological role Spirit baptism plays in the books of Luke-Acts and the biblical drama of redemption serves as a significant point of orientation. Here they ground their pneumatology and all theological thinking. Spirit baptism has become the lens through which they read and understand Scripture, as the figure of Christ also serves as a lens to read some prophecies in the Old Testament. Their preference for Luke-Acts is based on the locus classicus of Pentecostal theology, the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. The Spirit’s identity and work are manifested most expressly as the Spirit of Pentecost, continued in the charismatic experiences of the faith community. The constitutional work of the Spirit refers to the role of the Spirit in creation and redemption, the liminal refers to the Spirit’s presence and activity at critical threshold stages in creation and redemption, and the consummative, or eschatological, refers to the Spirit’s role in fulfilling the divine goal of establishing the kingdom.290 It is certainly not unique that the unique character of a particular tradition of Christianity guides their approach to theology and Bible reading practices. Amos Yong affirms a Lukan hermeneutical approach as Pentecostals’ pneumatological framework and orientation in this regard. They approach the whole of Scripture through a part of the whole, as happens when Evangelicals define the essence of their faith as a personal relationship with Christ, determining their theological angle and Bible reading practices. Nevertheless, Yong acknowledges that no one, including Pentecostals, can be merely and thoroughly biblical in the complete sense of the term.291 In Steven Studebaker’s opinion, Pentecostals’ pre-understanding of charismatic experiences as the angle for their approach to Scripture and theological endeavors is not distinct from other theological traditions in a formal sense but only in a material one. At the same time, its starting point, the Holy Spirit, provides it with the ecumenical potential to speak to other

290 291

Studebaker, “From Pentecost to the Triune God,” 53–54. Yong, The Spirit Poured Out, 27.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

147

Christian traditions about their apparent neglect of the Spirit in their theological traditions.292

Early Pentecostals’ Bible reading As Lee Roy Martin explains, early Bible reading practices were characterized by several aspects. Some practices reflect contemporary Pentecostal hermeneutics developed by some scholars, while other aspects that defined the precedent movement cannot be utilized.293 First, the early Pentecostals viewed the Bible as a single unified narrative of the redemption plan. They summarized it in their fivefold Full Gospel, consisting of an emphasis on a dynamic Christ as savior, Spirit baptizer, sanctifier, divine healer, and coming king.294 Their continuationist Christology presupposed that Christ still saves, delivers, heals, and baptizes in the Spirit. In other words, they read the Bible from this Christological angle, including the Old Testament. Secondly, they viewed the Bible’s goal as bringing people into harmony with the biblical plan of salvation. To understand the Bible was to get saved and transformed into a new life. The Bible represented one grand, unified story for them. As a result, they read the Bible as though everything is on the same plane and with the same authority. In other words, they interpreted it intertextually but not contextually. That gave them the means to find themes that they considered to support their Pentecostal sentiment in nearly every book of the Bible. Where it was difficult to find such “hidden” meanings, they used analogy, anagogy, allegory, and typology to interpret

292

Studebaker, “From Pentecost to the Triune God,” 9. Lee R. Martin, “Introduction to Pentecostal Biblical Hermeneutics,” in Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Reader, edited by Lee R. Martin, 1-9 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 4-8. 294 The term “narrative” is employed here in the same manner as Kenneth Archer employs it (Archer, “A Pentecostal Way of Doing Theology,” 311-2), to refer to the understanding of the Bible as one grand meta-narrative, as a means to grasp and make sense of the whole of the Bible and that serves to define the theological centre of the Bible, and as a coherent and cohesive structure for articulating Pentecostal theology. 293

148

Chapter 4

the passages.295 Their interpretation consisted mainly of tracing hidden, spiritual meanings in the passage.296 They recognized the kerygmatic nature of many biblical passages, serving as the proclamation of the divine message to Israel and the Church. They also lived in the narratives and used them to verbalize their own charismatic experiences. In that way, they “entered” the biblical events, reading the Bible from the inside. The result was that the Bible shaped their grammar, worldview, theological assertions, and lifestyles. While much of the theological scholarship of their day denied that extranatural or supernatural events could have taken place in biblical times, Pentecostals defined their “truth” by those events. They found these events recurring in their own lives.297 They combined orthopraxy, orthopathy, and orthodoxy to deconstruct the Enlightenment myth and ideal of critical and passionless objectivity.298 Their gospel of signs and wonders claimed to be representative of the experiences of the early Church. Their experience of Pentecost altered their epistemology, and they lived in the miraculous world presupposed by biblical events. Their epistemology can be characterized as a form of mysticism, defined as “experiential knowledge of God,” or cognitio Dei experimentalis in Latin.299 God was an experiential reality for them; they

295 “Anagogy” refers to a way of interpreting the Bible in a mystical, spiritual fashion

that finds allusions to themes that interest the reader in texts without any such references. 296 McKay, “When the Veil is Taken Away,” 63. 297 Kenneth J. Archer (“Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” 132) calls the supernaturalistic worldview underlying the Pentecostal movement the very reason for its overwhelming growth. 298 Robert O. Baker, “Pentecostal Bible Reading: Toward a Model of Reading for the Formation of the Affections,” in Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Reader, edited by Lee R. Martin, 95-108 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 97. 299 See the interesting remark of Mark Amos, an evangelical and charismatic Christian, academically a philosopher, and pastorally part of the team of a wellknown church, that we can know God and know God now, meaning in present experience (in Mark Anderson, “God for Now: Theology Through Evangelical and Charismatic Experience,” Book Review. Journal of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity ahead-of-print (2021), 1-2. Pentecostals believe that Jesus is true, not only because the Bible says so, but because they have experienced him as the living Son of God who has given himself to be known through the Scripture and the Spirit.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

149

had first-hand knowledge of God.300 Their experience was, in William James’s terms, a “non-ordinary state of consciousness” marked above all by a sense of union and illumination, of reconnection and seeing anew.301 As a result of what they saw in the lives of the prophets in the Old Testament and the early Church (where prophets also functioned), they expected and experienced an extrabiblical divine revelation that extended their concept of theological truth. Although they did not deny that rationality is a crucial element of any God-talk and interpretation of the Bible, they also left ample room to be supplemented by personal experiences, as long as it is justifiable in terms of biblical descriptions. Rickie Moore refers to the “inseparable interplay between knowledge and lived experience, where knowing about God and directly experiencing God perpetually inform and depend upon one another.”302 It complies with the way ancient Israel and the Church viewed God, not as a subject or a description of God per se. Instead, they understood their God by the divine engagement with and on behalf of the object, the believers.303 Their view of the Bible as a guide to all doctrines about the Christian God is problematic. It presupposes that a careful reading coupled with a thorough and systematic classification of relevant passages can provide a complete picture of God and answer all questions that God-talk might ask. Velli-Matti Kärkkäinen correctly explains that the essence of the Bible does not consist of a “collection of ready-made doctrines but a compilation of testimonies about God and various people’s encounters with the divine reality.”304 For that reason, testimonies, narratives, chronicles, hymns, questions about and addressed to God, etc., form its contents. It is not the form that theological endeavors traditionally use to refer to God; the changes in styles should warn theologians that their theological labor does not represent a linear

300

Marcus J. Borg, Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary (New York: HarperCollins, 2006), 132. 301 William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (New York: Macmillan, 1961), 320, fn. 28; 328. 302 Rickie D. Moore, “A Pentecostal Approach to Scripture,” in Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Reader, edited by Lee R. Martin, 11-13 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 12. 303 Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, 125. 304 Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 9.

150

Chapter 4

development from the source. The Bible also contains narratives and other literature that represent a diversity of cultural and social customs and a plurality of voices and perspectives. Since it is not a homogeneous book, it cannot be used in a univocal way, with everything in the Bible viewed as though it exists on the same level. On the other hand, it must also be admitted that believers find a common core of shared convictions about YHWH in the Bible, implying that it does not represent a cacophony but a “symphony with numerous melody and harmony variations,” in Kärkkäinen’s words.305 However, at the same time, these testimonies are supplemented by “counter testimonies” that express ambiguity, confusion, fear, doubt, and complaint, sometimes picturing YHWH as an unpredictable and violent God of wrath.306 For instance, John Goldingay paints the Genesis YHWH with a similar profile to El, the fatherly creator heading the Canaanite pantheon, and the Exodus YHWH as a Baal, a warrior figure that acts aggressively, exterminating all enemies.307 The Bible developed and evolved over time, revealing differences in different authors’ perceptions. For that reason, it is a difficult book to interpret because large parts contain only hints and fragments about the primary Subject. Walter Brueggemann explains that it suggests that the elusive Subject cannot be comprehended in any preconceived categories.308 While most Protestants use the Bible to access theological truth, Pentecostals testify about their charismatic experiences of revelation found in the Bible and their experiences and then read the Bible through that lens. In other words, they do not concern themselves in the first place with defining theological propositions. Pentecostals who have experienced the Spirit cannot accept the Protestant focus on truth as a set of abstract cognitive absolutes. Their charismatic experiences and pneumatic encounters lead them to affirm that the biblical records are existentially true, not by way of a strictly intellectual consent but because they match their divine 305

Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 10. Brueggemann devotes the second part of his theology of the Old Testament to such countertestimonies. 307 John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1: Israel’s Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 617. 308 Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, 117. 306

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

151

encounters.309 Pentecostal non-cessationism (continuationism) cannot operate in the Modernist theological paradigm, a part of which is built on cessationism to help “defend” the Bible and its authority against attempts to undermine it from “liberal” theological quarters. Pentecostals hold that the divine self-revelation to Abraham and his progeny, Israel, and the early church is still continuing, that self-revelation did not cease with the last apostle’s death (o whatever event is supposed to indicate the end of selfrevelation. In the context where divine revelation ceased at the end of the first century with the last apostle’s death, no room can be left for further divine revelation to illuminate believers’ need for guidance, encouragement, and admonition. For Modernist believers, all they need they find in the Bible. God’s voice was effectively silenced when the Christian church accepted the New Testament canon, ruling out the divine voice and any direct extrabiblical divine intervention. The only voice heard in their practice was the voice of the biblical author, interpreted through the means of the reader’s rational abilities. As a result, the divine revelation became “manageable” because it could be studied at leisure. It could hold no more surprises for human beings; the only requirement to understand God’s will was to study the Bible carefully and apply its principles. Any recognition of direct interaction between the spiritual realm, consisting of the divine and the divine court with its angels and other heavenly beings who serve as divine messengers, Satan, and evil angels, disqualifies Modernist assumptions of cessationism with its exclusive emphasis on the physical-material realm. In contrast, as Kenneth Archer explains, the Pentecostal Bible reading practices are based on what he calls a popularistic paramodern understanding of the Bible and a paramodern understanding of God and Satan’s participatory interaction and influence.310 Such a perspective enables Pentecostals to read the biblical text as a narrative that becomes the divinely inspired word that transforms their way of thinking and living, and not only as a document that narrates events that individuals experienced in ancient times.311 Pentecostals claim to hear several voices in the biblical text, including those of the biblical author, the contribution of 309

Grey, Three’s a Crowd, 148. Archer, “Early Pentecostal Biblical Interpretation,” 38. 311 Archer, “Early Pentecostal Biblical Interpretation,” 37. 310

152

Chapter 4

their rational capabilities that interpret the text, and the Spirit illustrating the text’s meaning and application and providing insights into the mind of the listening believer. In this way, the relevance of the biblical text for the faith community is based on a reading model that is consistent with its values, ethos, and traditions, emphasizing that the impetus for reading the Bible for the Pentecostal faith community is to experience life-transformation in charismatic encounters. They do not read the Bible to compile dogma and confessions but find the empowerment to live in the divine reign. They are not attempting to amass knowledge for knowledge’s sake but from the desire to “know” God.312 For that reason, their theological formulations of doctrines only come after their charismatic experiences. Pentecostals realize that it is not possible and can even become dangerous if such encounters happen in isolation from the divine acts described in the Bible. They exist as part of the ongoing drama that started on the day of Pentecost and in which God interacts with and empowers the Church for its missiological task.313 For that reason, most Pentecostals emphasize the importance that the gift of the distinction of spirits should function in congregations to keep believers from fanatical and false teachings. Gordon Fee warns that an alternative danger also exists.314 While Pentecostals emphasize the personal reading of the Bible, the danger is that they read it poorly. They may read it often, but they seldom read it on its own terms. They do not leave room for the authors’ perspective and the vital role the historical context played in which it originated. They forget that the historical and social context, in many cases, co-determine a passage’s meaning and message.315 At times, they also do not regard the genre of a

312

Grey, Three’s a Crowd, 161. Grey, Three’s a Crowd, 155. 314 Gordon D. Fee, “Why Pentecostals Read Their Bibles Poorly: And Some Suggested Cures,” Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 24, no. 1 (2004), 4-15 (6). 315 They are not the only scapegoats. For instance, Sir Anthony Buzzard is a biblical linguist that published with Charles Hunting The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound [Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1998]). Buzzard’s argumentative style is informed by the scholarship of trinitarian biblical scholars. However, his quotes from their publications in many cases are also 313

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

153

specific portion of passage, reading narratives, ritual and moral laws, prophecies, epistles, Gospels, letters, etc., as though they can all be interpreted in the same way. It becomes even easier to forget that the text’s genre determines what the original hearers heard by fragmenting the text. For them, the Bible consists of some seven thousand propositions and seven hundred imperatives that all exist on the same level, with a few anecdotes to illustrate some of the propositions and imperatives. At the same time, they refer to individual passage verses without considering the context. As a result, they tend to forget that the original hearers received the whole message. Unfortunately, a sixteenth-century bishop decided to divide the passage into chapters and verses for easy and ready access. Later, every passage became a paragraph on its own in many translations. Now they read it as individual verses without considering the context of the original message. As a result, it became easy to read in a piecemeal fashion. Lastly, they read the Bible holistically, as the grand narrative of God’s dealings with humankind, especially for the sake of the Church in Christ.316 The result is that they ignore many individual parts. Additionally, Pentecostals read the Bible poorly because in the process that they read the Bible exclusively to “hear” what God is telling them, they fragment, atomize, as well as flatten it. While early Pentecostals read the Bible holistically, they applied a foreign scheme of Dispensationalism to interpret all biblical texts. Dispensationalism’s agenda and schedule fall outside the bounds of the Bible. It is based on a concern for modern Israel that may be commendable as long as the current abuses of the Israeli government against Palestinians are kept in mind. However, as a result, many Pentecostals today do not react by criticizing Israel when it attacks Palestinians without cause. Dispensationalism divides the Bible into seven dispensations that were ultimately eschatological and directed to the present day, characterized by the arrival of the new age by way of the return of Christ. What believers experience in world events malpresentations because he decontextualizes the quotations and ignores their real meaning. 316 Gordon, “Why Pentecostals Read Their Bibles Poorly,” 9.

154

Chapter 4

serves as “signs” of the end time. They forget that the promise of Abraham was fulfilled in Jesus, and now a new “Israel” is formed, consisting of believers of whatever race, including Jews. The Church is now the eschatological people. We are already living in the end times as believers have been for the past two millennia, stretching from the ascension to the return of Christ. Dispensationalism also teaches that God had two parallel programs, one for the Church and the other for Jews. Jews would receive the opportunity to accept Jesus as their Messiah. This teaching required a “secret rapture” of the Church so God could return to save the Jews. Unfortunately, they found only one passage in the entire Bible that supported their “rapture,” namely 1 Thessalonians 4:17 (that, importantly, forms a part of vv. 13-18). They read prophecies as though they were written for their day, as though the original authors ignored the millennia and centuries that divided their world from modern times and the need of the people they addressed, many times in crises that threatened their survival, to “predict” what would happen in the twenty-first century CE, and they read the genres of prophecy and apocalyptic as though they are the same. They did not understand the typical and prototypical enigmatic apocalyptic language of esoteric symbols and analogies. In many cases, these symbols are incomprehensible because their authors did not provide their meaning. Finally, acknowledging that newspapers are different from novels, they ignored biblical genres by reading the Bible devotionally and “spiritually.”

Pentecostalism as a religion of the Spirit? An interesting suggestion by Randal McNally, Richard Israel, and Daniel Albrecht is that the Pentecostal community can be described as a Ricoeurian “text” because Pentecostals read their community as another “text” while interacting with the biblical text.317 This implies that Pentecostal hermeneutics consists of the activity in which Pentecostals search for an understanding of

317

Randal G. McNally, Richard D. Israel and Daniel E. Albrecht, “Pentecostals and Hermeneutics: Texts, Rituals and Community,” Pneuma 15, no. 2 (1993), 137-61.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

155

themselves through their interpretation of biblical texts.318 In line with the theories of postmodernism, they define not only the biblical text but also themselves in an existential manner. In line with Ricoeur’s definition of the “first naiveté of uncritical acceptance of the text,” they continue to reach the stage of “critical consciousness of the second naiveté.” They move from an initial understanding through critical reflection to the culmination of understanding that makes sense of the text in terms of the audience’s interests and needs.319 This is in line with Derrida’s theory of deconstruction, implying the de-centering of the proposed “center” of the text by each individual reader by exposing the circular logic that underlies the semantic “gaps” characteristic of the text, because there is no objective, neutral, or innocent place where readers can observe the text except in their situatedness, requiring Pentecostals also to exegete their experiences. Pentecostals do (and must!) not deconstruct the text. They may “pull apart” the text but not leave their readings open-ended. For them, the Bible is the standard to measure and interpret their charismatic experiences. As explained, their primary interest is not to find information about God in the Bible but to meet with God in person. Their practice does not support the deification of the letter of the text.320 They find the authority of the Bible in the insights of the Holy Spirit when they read and interpret the Bible and apply it to their lives.321 This is reminiscent of Elaine Pagels writing about her experience with the Gnostic Gospels: “Each time we read them, the words may weave like music into a particular situation, evoking new insight.”322 Pentecostals find that the Spirit is at work experientially in the Bible and uses the Bible as the primary means of revelation for present-day believers. Regarding the interpretation of the Bible in the light of the Spirit’s guidance, they find the community invaluable in preventing subjectivist and harmful interpretations of the text that can occur when believers read the Bible exclusively individually. 318

Joseph Byrd, “Paul Ricoeur’s Hermeneutical Theory and Pentecostal Proclamation,” Pneuma 15, no. 2 (1993), 203-14 (213). 319 McNally, Israel, and Albrecht, “Pentecostals and Hermeneutics,” 139. 320 Ellington, “Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture,” 26. 321 Ellington, “Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture,” 36. 322 Elaine Pagels, Why Religion? (New York: HarperCollins, 2018), 178.

156

Chapter 4

Readers may not bring any experience into the text; it must be connected to or symbolized by the event in the text.323 Again, the problem underlines the Church’s need to test the individual reader’s interpretation against the faith community’s reading practices. Interestingly enough, postmodern theorists such as Ricoeur, Fish, and Iser also emphasize and relate the same values: experience and community.

Consensus of contemporary articulated Pentecostal hermeneutics It should be obvious that not all of these aspects are applicable to contemporary articulated Pentecostal hermeneutics. Scott Ellington324 and Chris Green325 explain the distinctive aspects of such a hermeneutic, as far as a consensus exists among Pentecostal scholars. Pentecostals concentrate on reading biblical narratives, and this forms a more significant part of interpretation than in the reading practices of many other traditions. Their habit is reflected in the theological descriptions they prefer, which tend to be more narrative than propositional. They prioritize narrative, literary readings of a passage against the historical-critical exegetical methods in vogue at the beginning of the twentieth century. Their readings are experience-based, implying that the interpretation is more dynamic than static. To “understand” the Bible is not their highest priority; they emphasize their characterization of the Bible as an invitation to encounter the divine in similar ways. They look for pragmatic life transformation and the reoccurrence of miracles, a truth that they can apply in their daily lives. They are not interested in describing propositional “truths.” Furthermore, the initiative of the Spirit’s interpretation of the Bible serves as a condition for Pentecostal reading. For that reason, if reading does not occur in the context of worship and prayer, interpretation can, by definition, not be true to the Pentecostal ethos. The ultimate objective of reading the

323

Grey, Three’s a Crowd, 127. Scott A. Ellington, “Locating Pentecostals at the Hermeneutical Round Table.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 22, no. 2 (2013), 206-225. 325 Chris E.W. Green, Toward a Pentecostal Theology of the Lord’s Supper: Foretasting the Kingdom (Cleveland, TN: CPT, 2012). 324

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

157

Bible is to know (in Heb. yada’) God and live in the divine presence.326 “To know” in the Semitic sense implies participation in an active relationship consisting of constant interaction between the knower and the known one. This view ignores the dualistic distinction in ancient Greek philosophical tradition that separated the knower and what is known as “subject” and “object.”327 “To know” implies that the Spirit cannot be tamed and domesticated in the interpretation process; believers cannot discern the divine voice without the Spirit’s initiative.328 The “aha!” moment of revelation is when the Holy Spirit illuminates a truth standing out when the reader studies the Bible.329 Saint Theresa referred to the divine internal voices as “locutions” and described them as words from the supernatural that enter the mind spontaneously. They offer divine consolation and guidance. On the other hand, Sigmund Freud referred to them in derogative terms as irrational and deserving neither trust nor attention.330 Pentecostals view the Bible as the divine address to contemporary people rather than abstract theoretical statements about the divine. Their readings serve confessional and devotional purposes and not primarily theological purposes, and they accept the overarching theme of salvation history as the hermeneutical key to interpreting the Bible. In the light of its history, Pentecostals should also respect the vast distance between the historical, philosophical, and socioeconomic worlds reflected in the different texts and the contemporary (even more diverse) contexts. Additionally, the Bible should also be seen as diverse theological and literary voices and opinions, and contradictions should be accepted and not explained away. An analogical and typological exegetical approach, typical 326

Cheryl B. Johns and Jackie D. Johns, “Yielding to The Spirit: A Pentecostal Approach to Group Bible Study,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 1 (1992), 109134 (132). See also their description of yada’ as an essential element of Pentecostal epistemology (Johns and Johns, “Yielding to The Spirit,” 112-115). 327 Ellington, “Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture,” 26. 328 Johns and Johns, “Yielding to The Spirit,” 131. 329 Grey, Three’s a Crowd, 116. 330 Elizabeth Gilbert, Eat Pray Love: One Woman’s Search for Everything Across Italy, India and Indonesia (New York: Penguin, 2007).

158

Chapter 4

of an early Pentecostal hermeneutic, cannot be accepted without a good reason. They should read and interpret the Old Testament as documents addressed to people living in the centuries before the birth of Christ. It can only be applied in Christological terms where applicable and only after attempting to hear the texts as the first listeners did. Interpretation should also be subjected to a consideration of each genre, with its own interpretation rules. The present study agrees with Green about the shared convictions of most Pentecostal hermeneutical systems that developed during the last three decades. However, it does not agree that a consensus exists that an articulated Pentecostal hermeneutic necessarily requires (and should require) that the authority and sufficiency of the Bible in its canonical form be accepted. A Pentecostal hermeneutic implies that although Pentecostals regard the Bible as the divine revelation of the salvation plan, salvation should be experienced before the Bible’s sufficiency becomes applicable. At the same time, Pentecostals accept further divine revelation, although never on the same level as the Bible. The Bible is the objective standard, measure, and criterion for truth.331 Biblical authority is also relativized in terms of the condition that the Spirit works in the act of reading or interpretation. The Bible, as such, does not have the authority; it is a function of the Spirit to accord it with divine authority in each case where the Spirit encounters the believing reader, and the passage’s authority is closely linked to its relevance to the community.332 The study suggests that the Pentecostal hermeneutic does not vest its authority in the Bible, but in the Spirit working in the Bible to reveal God’s word in such a way that it is applicable to the life of an individual or group. It accepts that the Spirit may also bring such revelation by other means. French Arrington explains helpfully how the reader of the Bible can rely upon the Spirit in the act of interpretation.333 Reliance is the product of a deliberate submission of the mind to the Spirit, enabling one’s critical and

331

Archer, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” 145. Archer, “Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” 146. 333 French L. Arrington, “The Use of the Bible by Pentecostals,” Pneuma 16, no. 1 (1994), 105. 332

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

159

analytical abilities to function under the guidance of the Spirit. It consists of genuine openness to the witness and the silent voice of the Spirit while reading the passage. It utilizes personal experiences of past encounters with God and expects another encounter in reading the passage, similar to what the passage describes. Then, Bible reading can end at its desired destination - the transforming call of the divine word that terminates in worship, prayer, and life transformation. Pentecostal interpretation highlights the charismatic experience in Bible reading. Jackie Grey explains that it is not simply a “personal” experience without any specific meaning, but a necessary “voice” in the conversation of biblical hermeneutics.334 In Lee R. Martin’s definition, Pentecostal hermeneutics aims to hear the divine voice.335 However, in many (or even most) instances, Pentecostals do it unconsciously, without recognizing the influence of their reading practices that utilize their charismatic experiences as Vorverständnis. As a result, they are not always aware of the risks of such subjective endeavors. Early Pentecostals evaluated critical biblical scholarship as “mutilating” the Bible and a “monstrosity inspired by the devil” that led to the pestilence on the pulpit that required to be purged.336 What should an articulated hermeneutic think about the critical scholarship? Pentecostal scholars must successfully steer the ship between the Scylla of extreme fundamentalism and the Charybdis of rationalism and materialism. They can do so by rejecting a Greek philosophical understanding of reality that sees the “knower” as the subject and the “thing known” as the object, establishing a dualistic view and separating the knowing subject from the object of knowledge that is known.337 Platonic duality asserts that there are two worlds, the visible, transient, and the invisible, consisting of eternal Ideas that constitute the real world. Proper knowledge about the world and 334

Grey, Three’s a Crowd, 5. Martin, “Hearing the Voice of God,” 230. 336 George Jeffreys, Elim Evangel 17, no. 6 (7.2.1936), 625. https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/elim-evangel/017-40_1936-10-02.pdf; accessed 2022-05-17. 337 Cheryl Johns, Pentecostal Formation: A Pedagogy Among the Oppressed, JPT Sup. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. 335

160

Chapter 4

humanity can only be obtained from the transcendent world of Ideas, not the material world. Early Pentecostals functioned with the duality of reality that Plato, living in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, established. Platonic duality asserts that these two worlds, the visible, transient, and invisible, consisting of eternal Ideas, constitute the real world. Pentecostals, however, did not apply the dualism of the “knower.” Instead, they accepted the necessity that the role of the Holy Spirit and religious experience should codetermine how they interpreted the Bible. The Pentecostal success and popularity among many can be ascribed to the perspective that the Spirit is restoring the early Church and still addresses people in the same way as in biblical times – that is, in ways that transcend human reason.338 Pentecostals expect the Bible as a word to become alive through the work of the Spirit by interpreting our lives, leading to existential knowledge of the divine, rather than the Bible as an object they should investigate to know more about God. Its interpretation can never be programmatic, final, and absolute, because the interpretation of the Bible may lead to some new surprises for its faithful and prayerful readers. Reading the Bible also implies that the reader, at times, waits on or tarries in the Spirit to clarify its meaning for them. They do not expect the Bible’s interpretation to be finished when the grammar or genre is understood; they await a divine word that would change their lives by employing encouragement, admonition, warning, or guidance. Reading the Bible consists of waiting on the Lord until the Spirit moves. The last observation is that it supports each believer’s priesthood (1 Pet 2:5, 9) and prophethood (Num 11:27-29; Acts 2:16-20), irrespective of gender, age or level of education. Each believer becomes a partaker in the divine word and is sent to become a bearer of the word to others, changing everyone into capable witnesses to edify their fellow believers and evangelize the lost effectively. It implies that knowledge of the “truth” is not the exclusive domain of a privileged elite, but that being a Spirit-filled member of the body of Christ qualifies a believer to be a repository for

338

Moore, “A Pentecostal Approach to Scripture,” 11.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

161

divine truth.339 They need divine truth to accept the responsibility Hebrews 10:25 refers to, where members encourage one another within the assembling of believers. Unfortunately, many of these aspects are overlooked in the popular unarticulated hermeneutics found among most Pentecostals. They have accepted other non-Pentecostal exegetical practices that conform to their generally conservative attitudes. A biblicist and literalist practice essentially undermines the Pentecostal ethos at the cost of losing its attractiveness for many interested people.340 It leads to Moore’s emphasis on the necessity of pursuing a distinctly Pentecostal approach to the Bible as essential for the original impetus of Pentecostalism to survive.341 Pentecostals need to align their hermeneutics with their ethos linked to their charismatic experiences.

Conclusion To sum up what was said about an articulated Pentecostal hermeneutic, it should be clear that many elements of early Pentecostal hermeneutical practices cannot be utilized in Bible reading practices. Additionally, an articulated Pentecostal hermeneutic notes that modernist historiography was based on positivism. This philosophical system recognizes as “truth” only what can be verified in scientific, logical, or mathematical terms. It rejected all metaphysical or theist claims of presenting the truth. However, such an 339

One of the prominent differences between an articulated Pentecostal hermeneutic and the hermeneutic operating in parts of the Neo-Pentecostal independent prophetic Churches is that prophets assume that they alone are capable of interpreting the Bible because they have been supplied with “revelation knowledge,” giving them the exclusive right to interpret the Bible. 340 Compare, for instance, the difference between the Gallup Poll in the United States of 1963, where almost two-thirds (65 percent) affirmed the biblical literalism embodied in the statement: “The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word,” and the results of a poll in 2001. Now only 27 percent of participants affirmed biblical literalism (quoted in Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 14-15). To state the obvious, biblical literalism is declining among Christians in North America. It explains the growth in popularity of Pentecostalism during the past few decades, demonstrating that the emerging way of being Christian welcomes this development, whereas the earlier way of being Christian views it as an abandonment of traditional Christianity. 341 Moore, “A Pentecostal Approach to Scripture,” 13.

162

Chapter 4

assumption presents two problems in terms of biblical hermeneutics, as Scott Ellington explains.342 In the first place, the Bible faces current readers with a seemingly insurmountable gap due to the very long time and distance between them and the world of the text. We suffer from a scarcity of corroborating source materials outside of the Bible that can affirm or reconstruct biblical history to clarify the context in which texts functioned. It makes it difficult at times to assess the text’s message. The second problem is that modernist historiographical methodology cannot account for direct divine participation in the biblical account. Such events cannot be explained in terms of positivism’s requirements for “truth” as scientifically and logically justifiable and demonstrable. It presents a challenge for Pentecostals with their experiential Bible reading practices. Biblical descriptions of human encounters with the divine fall outside the range of scientific explanations. As a result, modernist historiography described them as mythological explanations due to a lack of scientific expertise in ancient times. The implication is that any narrative that contains references to divine speaking, acting, and revealing that are not accessible to examination using conventional historical methods is considered ascientific and outdated. Pentecostal readers functioning in the oral world of testimony and finding corroboration of biblical events in their charismatic experiences cannot accept positivist historiography that limits the Bible in this way. Instead, they find a connection with some forms of postmodern historiography. The following section looks for an answer to the elements that form such hermeneutics. It is an important question that needs to be answered, because the focus of Pentecostalism has become hermeneutics. As a result, it has become imperative that Pentecostals reconsider the distinctive nature and function in which they see the Bible in relation to the Spirit, as French Arrington vividly explains.343

342 343

Scott, “History, Story, and Testimony,” 250. Arrington, “The Use of the Bible by Pentecostals,” 101.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

163

Elements of Pentecostal Hermeneutics The discussion has made clear that the vital elements of the Pentecostal hermeneutic are the Holy Spirit, the Bible, the immediacy of revelation, and the faith community.344 To illustrate the incorporation of these elements in a Pentecostal hermeneutic, John Thomas illustrates how the early Church depended on the Spirit to interpret the Bible’s perspective on a thorny issue using Acts 15.345 The author of Acts takes pains to demonstrate that the faith community participates in the decision-making, since all of them are Spiritfilled people. The process of interpreting started with the community’s experiences with the Spirit and moved to the biblical text. Their interpretation of the Bible occurred within the context of testimonies about God’s great works: they reported all God had done with them (v. 4). Some of the believers then argued “It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5). This led to the controversy for which the faith community gathered to discuss prayerfully. The community eventually discerned God’s will to address a problematic situation, where Jewish Christians keeping the Torah were confronted by Hellenistic believers’ needs and the requirements of the contextualization of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thomas concludes that any model of viable hermeneutics must take seriously the significant role played by the community in acknowledging the leadership and discerning the will of the Spirit.346 It can be questioned whether Thomas correctly asserts that what happened in Acts 15 can serve as a model for later Bible reading and interpretation practices. It is argued that Acts 15 is concerned about an alternative issue, where Church polity needed to be defined to keep the early Church from experiencing a potential schism surrounding the serious consideration of the 344

“Faith community” is defined as the local group of Pentecostal believers that a person belongs to but also in extended sense to the universal Pentecostal faith community of all believers. It is acknowledged that the link between the local and universal phenomenon of Pentecostalism is regularly obscured by the many different definitions and qualifications of doctrines and practices. 345 John Thomas, “Women, Pentecostals and the Bible: An Experiment in Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 2, no. 5 (1994), 41-56 (45). 346 Thomas, “Women, Pentecostals and the Bible,” 49.

164

Chapter 4

implications of the Torah for non-Jewish Christians. It should be kept in mind that the Torah did not only signify the most significant part of the Hebrew Bible for Jews, but that upholding the Torah’s requirements also probably formed the most vital identity-forming element in terms of Jews’ uniqueness as a nation. What may be considered is the outcome of the meeting when the faith community reached a decision. In their letter to the communities the apostles established, the meeting wrote that they “have decided unanimously” (v. 25) that certain representatives should carry the communication along with Barnabas, Paul, Judas, and Silas. The decision was: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell” (vv. 28-29). The role of the Spirit in the decision-making process was particularly emphasized. The implication is clear: the Spirit helped the community choose some texts from the Old Testament and interpret them in such a way as to formulate a decision ascribed to the Spirit.347 Thomas states correctly that the community could easily have found numerous examples in the Old Testament of prohibitions against the participation of non-Jews in the Jewish community and religious life unless non-Jews adhered to strict regulations. That the community referred to texts that valued Gentiles differently was ascribed to the guidance of the Spirit. French Arrington connects with this observation when he asks in what way the interpreter should be dependent upon the Spirit.348 He argues that readers and interpreters of the Bible should willingly and deliberately submit their minds to God. They should expect their critical and analytical abilities to be extended under the guidance of the Holy Spirit while reading. They should also remain genuinely open to their own spirit’s witness to insights that the Spirit generate while they read the text prayerfully, with open ears. Their own charismatic experiences should assist in informing the interpretative

347 348

Thomas, “Women, Pentecostals and the Bible,” 49. Arrington, “Use of the Bible by Pentecostals,” 105.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

165

process. Lastly, they should respond to the divine voice that transforms readers while immersed in the reading process. The direction of the reading process is also essential. As explained in terms of what happened in Acts 15, in contrast to most traditional exegetical models that move in the direction from the text to the context, the early faith community moved the other way around. It demonstrates that the authority of a biblical passage is directly related to its relevance for the community within the context of the Spirit’s guidance in the interpretation process, as an authentic Pentecostal hermeneutic asserts.

Authority of the Bible Thomas concludes his description of the early Church’s hermeneutic by stating that it illustrates that the Bible is not static. It functions in dynamic ways that transcend the cognitive so that the Bible is able to speak to later readers’ contexts and lived realities.349 What does it imply for the authority traditionally ascribed to the Bible by most believers? An unarticulated Pentecostal hermeneutic ascribes the highest authority to the Bible. In an articulated hermeneutic, the Bible is also central and normative, having the ultimate authority in matters concerned with the decisions and lives of believers. However, it does not view the Bible as a textbook of theological propositions to be used to compile a systematic theology of every important doctrine. Pentecostal theological endeavors are primarily limited to liturgy. They define their understanding of God in worship and preaching, where they share their interpretation of biblical texts.350 This implies that Pentecostal theology deliberately does not live up to the academic requirements of conceptual, rationalistic, systematic, and scholastic forms, the only acceptable scientific manner in “modernistic” terms. It is submitted that Pentecostalism will be surrendering its soul (and ethos!) to academic, rational theology if it should choose to follow the scholastic way.

349 350

Thomas, “Women, Pentecostals and the Bible,” 50. Grey, Three’s a Crowd, 8.

166

Chapter 4

The objection is sometimes made that Pentecostal theology is not well grounded because of the lack of production of theological treatises among Pentecostals. Indeed, their theology largely consists of oral communications. Instead of calling Pentecostal theology oral (as it mostly is), Macchia suggests it should rather be designated non-academic,351 while Kenneth Archer calls it “pietistic.”352 Archer defines it as academically sophisticated (in terms of more formal endeavors of Pentecostal theology). It consists of a personal, confessional extension of the theologians’ intimate relationship with God, shared with other believers. It is not limited to theologians; anyone empowered by Spirit baptism, as witnessed by the physical bestowment of the charismata, may participate in the liturgy.353 Like Pentecostal services’ predilection for testimonies, the most significant (and used) part of the Bible is its narrative parts, aside from the Psalms. It depicts the experiences of people who encountered God within their widely different contexts. It is concerned with salvation history, explaining the way humans were reconciled and had communion with God. The Bible does not serve as a site for doing serious critical exegesis for Pentecostals. It is not a book to be intellectually understood.354 Instead, it is the place for primary encounters with God that provides samples of what other people experienced when they encountered God. It provides language to describe contemporary encounters. Many Pentecostals’ testimonies testify to the influence of biblical language on their interpretation of their charismatic encounters. It requires that they read Bible intuitively within a context of prayer and worship, listening with the one ear to the words of the passage and the other ear for the sound of the sheer silence that Elijah perceived as the voice of

351

Frank Macchia, “Theology, Pentecostal,” in New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, edited by Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. van der Maas, 1120-1141 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 1120. 352 Archer, “A Pentecostal Way of Doing Theology,” 308. 353 See remark by Grey, Three’s a Crowd, 19. 354 Davies, “What Does it Mean to Read the Bible as a Pentecostal” explains this process in detail.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

167

YHWH (1 Kings 19:12). Pentecostals read the Bible for devotional purposes and not intellectual stimulation. Does that imply that the Bible as the word of God is inspired, inerrant, infallible, and immediate? These words are loaded terms and are not used in the Bible to refer to themselves. A Pentecostal hermeneutic agrees that the Bible is the reliable revelation of God. It relates to what the Holy Spirit intends to convey.355 The Holy Spirit, in revealing God, primarily uses the Bible. However, at the same time, Pentecostals testify to the experience that the interpretation of a passage they perceive to have received from the Spirit does not always conform to the passage’s literal meaning. In his monumental work on Pentecostal hermeneutics, Keener says “that we will not always understand exactly what the original point of some passages was.”356 Pentecostals also leave room for, and expect, extrabiblical revelations to occur. As a restorationist movement, it is a vital part of their DNA to view themselves as a continuation of the early Church, tasked with the same mission and characterized by the same urgency to carry the message of the good news to the ends of the Earth. A characteristic of revivalist movements is the urge to restore the early Church in all its glory, as far as possible. Pentecostalism grew out of the nineteenth-century revivalist movements of Pietism, the divine healing, and holiness movements, and justified its origins as a revival led by the Holy Spirit. The implication is clear. The Bible’s authority is seen in terms of its value related to the Spirit’s preference to reveal the divine self to people in diverse situations through the Bible. However, the Spirit’s revelation is not limited to the Bible. This practice holds specific risks for Pentecostals that they had been encountering since its early years. Therefore, they are convinced that all

355

Arrington, “The Use of the Bible by Pentecostals,” 101. Craig S. Keener, Spirit Hermeneutics: Reading Scripture in Light of Pentecost (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 121.

356

168

Chapter 4

extrabiblical revelations should be measured against the biblical revelation and the faith community’s discernment. On the one hand, fundamentalist literalists accept that all statements in the Bible are true, overlooking any contradictions. They assume that there are good explanations for such contradictions and that the Spirit placed it in the passage for a reason. Keith Warrington agrees that most Pentecostals concur with this view. They accept that the Bible contains historically reliable facts without imperfections, inaccuracies, or contradictions. Any inaccuracies they find they harmonize and/or spiritualize; the other option is to wait for the truth that will be revealed someday. They believe that any errors in the Bible are impossible.357 After all, the Bible was superintended by God!358 On the other hand, an articulated Pentecostal hermeneutic accepts that the Bible is the work of fallible humans. It emphasizes that all human language used to describe God is severely limited because it is confined to the human situation, and that no two persons mean exactly the same with the terms they use. Language is subjectively defined by the context of the person using it. At the same time, God exists in a dimension that falls outside our reality defined by time and space, occupying a dimension that existed before God created time. Therefore, it implies that God essentially exists outside of the human frame of reference. For that reason, no human description would ever be able to depict God ontologically in accurate terms. The logical conclusion is that the humanness of the Bible implies that no human can speak infallibly about God. Our God-talk can never be more than a human groping for words that describe the indescribable. An example of a biblical genre that accords with the idea that God is unknowable because the divinity falls outside the human frame of reference is apocalypticism. This genre is not well represented in the Bible; it is found 357

Keith Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter (New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 183. 358 H.D. Foos and L.P. Patterson, “The Revelation, Inspiration, and Inerrancy of the Bible,” in The Fundamentals for the Twenty-First Century: Examining the Crucial Issues of the Christian Faith, edited by M. Couch (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2000), 99 cited by Craig D. Allert, A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament (Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 148.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

169

in Zechariah 12-14, Isaiah 24-27, Daniel 7-12, Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, Luke 21, and Revelation. Apocalypticism is characterized by metaphors that clearly cannot be explained in literal terms. It depicts the end of the existing world and the introduction of a new world, which is accompanied by natural, political, and social catastrophes of such a nature that the metaphors used to refer to it sound unbelievable because it falls outside the human frame of reference, limited to the present world. In the same sense, God exists in a reality unknown to human beings and descriptions referring to the divine essence necessarily cannot be taken literally. This implies that the biblical reference to “Father” means that humans speak about God analogically. It predicates the same things of God’s fatherhood that human beings predicate of creaturely forms of fatherhood. Their voices are also not univocal. The same applies to “Son” and “Spirit.” But the divine Father, divine Son, or Spirit refer to unique and transcendent categories. That is why biblical authors predicated different things on God’s fatherhood (and sonhood) than on creaturely forms of fatherhood. At most, creaturely forms of fatherhood would resemble, at the best of moments and in some way, God’s unique and transcendent fatherhood without replicating it. In speaking analogically, these authors acknowledged both similarity and dissimilarity between God’s and humans’ respective roles of fatherhood. God’s fatherhood can never be more than a symbol known to human beings, used to speak of a specific perception formed of the divine and to refer to a specific aspect of the divine experience in the divine self-revelation. It remains impossible to make statements about the divine with any complete certainty, because the divine exists in a dimension unknown to human beings and their framework of reference.359 Elaine Pagels writes, “when we confront the unknown, any interpretation is provisional, necessarily incomplete.”360 When thinking about the Trinity from a Pentecostal hermeneutical perspective, the matter of the Bible’s ability to describe the essence of God will again receive attention.

359 360

Swain, The Trinity, 72-74. Pagels, Why Religion?, 138.

170

Chapter 4

Literalist Pentecostals abuse the Bible to justify their stance. For instance, they compelled women to wear hats to worship services until recently and forbid them to minister. In the same way, they justify their prejudices toward people of other races, cultures, and sexual orientations. Moreover, some Neo-Pentecostal prophets abuse believers by telling them to drink poison or handle snakes to demonstrate their faith in God’s word. In contrast, an articulated Pentecostal hermeneutic leads to the inclusion of women in the church’s ministry because it perceives that women receive the same anointing of the Spirit as men and confesses the equality and equal dignity of all people, irrespective of gender.361 They do this despite some injunctions ascribed to Paul (discussed more fully in the next chapter). Like early Pentecostals, they choose pacifism against participation in conflict and war despite countless examples from the Old Testament that picture God as a warrior and a violent God encouraging the chosen nation to “dedicate everything of the enemy to YHWH” by killing all “enemy” men, women, and children and destroying their cities and belongings. When literalist Pentecostals in South Africa supported the policies of apartheid of the former Nationalist Party government and participated in the atrocities that enforced participation in the armed forces implied, they also abused the Bible to justify their behavior. Many literalist Pentecostals using unarticulated hermeneutics accept the plenary verbal inspiration of the Bible. They believe the Bible is fully inspired, even in its choice of words and grammatical forms. God dictated the words to human authors and ensured they did not make any mistakes, not even spelling errors. At the same time, the Bible was handed down through all ages in precisely the same form, without any changes. Human biblical authors actually functioned like human word processors. The mostused passage to justify this viewpoint is 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which states that all of Scripture is inspired by God. This passage often inspires the belief that God literally breathed out the words that eventually formed the Scriptures. Just as human words require breath to be spoken, so did Scripture come to us on the winds of God’s breath and is still spoken to our

361

Anderson, Introduction to Pentecostalism, 226.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

171

hearts by this same breath, a figurative depiction of the Holy Spirit. Scripture is a product that comes directly from God. Mattias Becker is correct. The term “God-breathed” or “inspired” appears only once in the New Testament.362 Nevertheless, it became central in countless Christians’ notions about the nature of Scripture. As part of the free Churches, the Bible’s inspiration stands foremost in the minds of these Pentecostals. They see it as an insurmountable rock of belief; the validity and truthfulness of their faith rest upon it. The doctrine establishes and upholds a confident trust in the Bible that provides the guarantee that believers can get a grip on “God’s word” (implying “God”). However, when the Bible becomes the object of faith, it takes attention away from the One biblical authors were referring to. It can even have fatal effects on the believer’s relationship with God, replacing God with an object that witnesses to God. Adolf Schlatter (1852-1938) already explained that the Bible itself might never become an object of faith; instead, it should point to God, Christians’ object of faith.363 A belief in the Bible must be judged by the relationship Christians have with God and not their knowledge of the Bible.364 An interesting notion of Mattias Becker is that one can understand access to knowledge about God through the Bible in two ways, a matter that received some attention above.365 The Greek way is to read and study the Bible to find an understanding of God. The Greek word for “know” or “understand” is oida, a word etymologically linked with the word for “to see.” For Greeks, knowledge is linked with seeing because something that is seen is known. The observation of the respective object is a crucial element in Greek epistemology.

362

Mattias Becker, “A Tenet Under Examination: Reflections on the Pentecostal Hermeneutical Approach,” Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association XXIV (2004), 30-48 (30). 363 Michael Bräutigam, “Adolf Schlatter on Scripture as Gnadenmittel: Remedy for a Hypertensive Debate?” Scottish Journal of Theology 69, no. 1 (February 2016), 81-94. Schlatter focused on Scripture, not only as a means to know God (Erkenntnismittel) but primarily as a means to receive God’s grace (Gnadenmittel). 364 Becker, “A Tenet Under Examination,” 36. 365 Becker, “A Tenet Under Examination,” 38.

172

Chapter 4

In contrast, the traditional (Hebrew) approach views the Bible as a place to know God, not by seeing God. It was impossible within Jewish perceptions to see God. They expected to meet and experience the divine presence as a condition for knowing God. The Hebrew language for “know” is not concerned with diagnosing and observing to classify what is known from a distance. The word for “to know” or “understand” in Hebrew is yada, and it refers to “to conceive, know, experience, get to know, receive knowledge, come to understand, or recognize,” implying personal knowledge. It is not only mentally grasping a fact or mentally knowing an object; the object is practically and physically known.366 For that reason, the same term is also applied to refer to intimacy and sexual intercourse. It includes intimacy between two persons because it is a relational term. One cannot know someone or something without continuous intimate dealing with them. It has been emphasized repeatedly that in Pentecostal hermeneutics, it is essential that the Bible serves as a means to enter into a relationship with God to practice what one has heard from God. The unarticulated Pentecostal hermeneutic regularly refers to the Bible’s inspiration as verbal inspiration. It implies that the divine word found in the words of the Bible does not only possess human characteristics. It is entirely the divine word, in every letter the word of God. In other words, there can be no mistakes, imperfections, gaps, or variants in the biblical text.367 It relies on a saying of Jesus that only occurs in Matthew’s Gospel, betraying the narrator’s audience as Jewish: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees,

366

James Swanson, “know,” in Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Aramaic (Old Testament) (Oak Harbor, Was: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997) 10313. 367 Becker, “A Tenet Under Examination,” 41-42.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

173

you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:17–20). The implication is that even the tiny pronunciation signs unique to the Hebrew language are inspired. In contrast, in the words of Ernst Würtheim, the Bible is the result of many generations of copyists and translators.368 For that reason, it contains many mistakes that occurred while copying. For instance, it was written down by hand while listening to someone reading it and, as a result, has wrongly read texts, misheard words and phrases, and incorrectly copied texts. It might also be that the original was in a poor state. There are also intentional changes that occurred in the textual tradition to support the views of the copyist or translator. This holds several implications for an unarticulated hermeneutic. The most serious is that such a hermeneutic does not acknowledge that the Bible originated in entirely different times and reflects contexts and cultures widely different from ours. The Bible was written long ago, implying that contemporary readers are in a different situation. A vast gulf separates them from recent times in terms of time and distance. By ignoring this chasm, contemporary readers disqualify themselves from understanding what the author intended the first hearers to realize in their situation. The Hebrew Bible was also written in foreign languages that have not been used for an extended period. For example, the koine Greek used in the New Testament differs from contemporary Greek in many ways. At the same time, the Hebrew language was not spoken for twenty-one centuries before the newly established Israeli government reintroduced it as the official language in 1948. The translation of the ancient texts also requires ongoing attention because it is not easy to evaluate the connotations of many words in the biblical text. Associations of words in contemporary languages also change over time, and new archaeological discoveries shed light on some obscure terms in the Bible. An unarticulated hermeneutic usually uses only one older translation. In the process, it implicitly ignores the discovery of many manuscripts of the texts

368 Ernst Würthwein, Der Text des Alten Testaments: Eine Einführung in die Biblia Hebraica von Rudolf Kittel (Stuttgart: Bibelanstalt, 2009), 116.

174

Chapter 4

that contain variants and, in some cases, at last, provides alternatives that make sense of the text. It necessarily leads to a limited understanding of the text. A further implication is that such a viewpoint ignores human agency’s vital role in the Bible's production. The last problem is their notion that no one may ever question anything written in the Bible. For instance, if the Bible pictures God as violent and vengeful, it means that such a perspective needs to be accepted. Finally, it leads to ethical problems, e.g., where domestic abuse against women and children can be justified because the God of discipline expects husbands and fathers, as divine representatives, to represent divine visitation on any sign of lack of submissiveness and deference in the family, including their wives. How should 2 Timothy 3:16-17, then, be interpreted from an articulated hermeneutical view? Craig Allert provides a part of the solution when he explains that even though the Greek word (theopneustos) may literally mean “God-breathed,” it is not necessary to understand it literally. The term is used within the larger context of the passage, and only by considering the context can the implied meaning become clear.369 “Scripture” refers to and limits itself to the first-century Jewish canon of the Old Testament. Further, in the context in which the text appears, the author writes about the persecution Christians may expect. “…all who want to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (v. 12). He encourages the reader to persevere, like the author, in faith, patience, love, and steadfastness. At the same time, wicked people and impostors will try to deceive the believers, and for that reason, readers are encouraged to continue with what they have learned and believed because they can trust those from whom they understood it. They may rest assured that it is based on sacred writings. In this way, they can become knowledgeable about salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Pentecostals add that the inspiration of the Bible mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the contribution of the Spirit to the initial origin of the biblical books. However, it also implies the necessity of the Spirit’s involvement in any attempt to interpret the millennia-old text in a relevant and applicable way.

369

Allert, A High View of Scripture, 148.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

175

An articulated Pentecostal hermeneutic describes the purpose of the Bible to provide a history of salvation to introduce later readers to ways of reconciliation with God. In that sense, the Bible is God-breathed: because it explains the way of salvation. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 explains what Pentecostals experience: the Bible is “useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.”

Immediacy of the Bible An articulated Pentecostal hermeneutic qualifies the infallible and inerrant qualities ascribed to the Bible by the plenary verbal view. Additionally, it views the immediacy of the Bible as one of the distinguishing elements of Pentecostal Bible reading practices. Pentecostals reject cessationism in favor of continuationism. They argue that God revealed the divine self through ages in the history of the patriarchs, Israel, and the early Church continues the practice of self-revelation. Therefore, they hold the immediacy of the Bible as God’s revealing word as a strong value.370 As a result, Pentecostalism is experiential and praxis-oriented in terms of reading the Bible. Pentecostals’ practice is “agendad reading,” in Andrew Davies’s terms.371 He explains it as reading with an intended result and goal in mind, illustrated by the questions readers bring to the text. These are typical Pentecostal questions that may differ from other traditions, concerned as they are with the work of the Spirit in believers’ lives. They intend to find answers to their present challenges in the Bible. They experience biblical events and words as their present; what happened then will happen now because Jesus is the same through the ages (a well-known Pentecostal “slogan”). They make no distinction between the pre-Easter Jesus and the post-Easter Jesus. The pre-Easter Jesus refers to Jesus before his death, and it is not possible to know what he said because he did not leave any heritage in 370

W. Ma, “Biblical Studies in the Pentecostal Tradition: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,” in The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel, edited by M. Dempster, B. Klaus and D. Peterson, 52-69 (Irvine, CA: Regnum 1999), 63. 371 Davies, “What Does it Mean to Read the Bible as a Pentecostal,” 228.

176

Chapter 4

writing. Only the early Church’s narratives and interpretations about him remained. Their narratives are based on the post-Easter Jesus and what he became for them after his death. The post-Easter Jesus is the Jesus of Christian experience and tradition.372 Jesus continued to be experienced by his followers after his death, and his influence extends to present times when disciples encounter the divine through the Spirit’s work. The post-Easter Jesus is thus an experiential reality instead of a historical figure.373 The present-ness with which they read the text results in Pentecostals’ appropriation of the word revealed to the ancient faith community as if God is revealing it to them.374 The focus is on the meaning of the text for today. They perceive it as relevant for the new context. As a result, Pentecostals expect miracles to happen, even greater than those narrated in the Bible. They quote John 14:21 to substantiate their expectations, which states that Jesus teaches the disciples that they will also do the works that he does and will do greater and more wondrous works than these when he has gone to the Father. However, their view of immediacy can easily result in a literalist interpretation of the Bible, denying the critical influence of the ancient authors’ and hearers’ context. In reading the passage as if the authors address them without considering the chasm that separates them from the world of the passage, they literally and rigidly apply it to their widely different situations. The last implication is that Pentecostals fall in the trap of proof-texting, defined as the practice of using selected biblical verses to support arguments regardless of the context. They view chosen passages as sufficient to portray God’s mind and will on a particular issue, potentially leading to offensive and discriminatory views.375

372

Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 99-100. Philip H. Wiebe, Visions of Jesus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997). 374 Ma, “Biblical Studies in the Pentecostal Tradition,” 55. 375 Gabaitse, “Toward an African Pentecostal Feminist Biblical Hermeneutic of Liberation,” 91. 373

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

177

Conclusion In conclusion, Pentecostals characterize the Bible in terms of cultural particularity, implying that one requires necessary background information to evaluate the passage, especially in cases of culturally conditioned ethical injunctions. Further, the different value systems and concepts of shame, justification, and other concepts necessitate the Bible reader to remain a student of the background. An articulated Pentecostal hermeneutic also values the Bible as the product of human beings testifying about their encounters and experiences with the God of Israel, who eventually revealed the divine self in the incarnation of the Son. It does not deny that inconsistencies, contradictions, inaccuracies, and imperfections occur in the Bible. However, for them, this does not subtract from the value of the Bible as the word of God. The humanness of the Bible might imply that some readers capitulate to the despair found in fundamentalism with its certainties or liberalism with its ambiguities.376 Fundamentalists responded to their fear of Modernist thought that did not leave room for supernatural and divine activities. Modernists described the world with scientific-materialist categories. Additionally, they responded to liberalism that emphasized the humanness of the Bible and the relativity of theological assertions. In contrast, Pentecostals associate with the humanness in the Bible because they see human language as inadequate to describe the divine ontological essence. For that reason, they prefer tongue-speaking (glossolalia) as a way to communicate with God to any human language, a point further developed in chapter 6. Pentecostals also acknowledge that tensions and ambiguities characterize many biblical texts. In discounting them, they find clues to the context behind the text, assisting them in eventually understanding more of the meaning. They acknowledge that it is impossible to find final answers to the

376

Gordon D. Fee, Gospel and the Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics (Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 1991), 33.

178

Chapter 4

meaning of many texts or define the author’s intention with the text in absolute terms. Lastly, Pentecostal hermeneutics connects the Bible’s authority to the book's usefulness in serving the needs of faith communities and people. When Pentecostals respond by serving their community’s needs in response to the urging of the Spirit and the task of their mission, they become a transforming factor in society. An articulated Pentecostal hermeneutic links to early Pentecostals’ Bible reading practices. It is not an academic exercise to acquire historical or theological information or a “textbook of theological or historical propositions” to be studied. Instead, the Bible is a narrative about the redemption that Jesus Christ bought by his death and resurrection, as applied by the Holy Spirit.377 In the words of Andrew Davies, the Bible is not, for Pentecostals, a site for doing critical exegesis to intellectually comprehend the things related to God. Instead, it is one of the primary places to encounter God. The Bible is also a trustworthy testimony of the revelation of who God is.378 They do not only study the Bible; they read, experience, believe, and obey it, and expect it to transform their lives to look like Christ’s.

Bible Reading and Spirit Where does the Spirit fit in when believers read the Bible devotionally? Rosina Gabaitse correctly asserts that Pentecostalism is a movement of the Holy Spirit.379 One finds the essence of the movement in the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the operation of the spiritual gifts. The Bible becomes nothing more than an old English novel, charismatic Baptist theologian Clark Pinnock explains, without the Holy Spirit.380 Interestingly, Pinnock, who became involved in moving the Southern Baptist Convention back to a conservative theological posture, believed at first that Baptists should 377

Warrington, Pentecostal Theology, 188. See Davies, “What Does it Mean to Read the Bible as a Pentecostal.” 379 Gabaitse, “Toward an African Pentecostal Feminist Biblical Hermeneutic of Liberation,” 92. 380 C.H. Pinnock, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 2 (1993), 2-23. 378

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

179

recover the conservative-evangelical doctrinal fidelity and a high view of Scripture that emphasizes biblical inerrancy. Gradually he became convinced that such purity alone would not result in the restoration of vitality in the Church. Now, he views the Pentecostal and charismatic movements as potential sources for such restoration. He writes that the New Testament Church was a charismatic community, functioning as the gifts of the Spirit manifest in people.381 The Church must agree that the Holy Spirit is a living power at work in the lives of individuals and the Church as a collective. The presence and work of the Spirit is the condition for the existence of the faith community because an encounter with the Holy Spirit is the only road to lasting personal transformation. The power of the Spirit is illustrated, for example, in wrecked marriages that are saved, alcoholics and drug addicts healed of their addictions, and in individuals’ selfish actions transformed into a life of service to others. As related already, the Acts 15 narrative tells that in their letter, the apostles wrote that it “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us,” implying that the Spirit also helped the community to choose the passages that were relevant for their situation and to interpret them, as Thomas suggests.382 Among various alternatives, the speakers chose specific passages and interpreted them specifically to indicate a solution to the challenge posed by the issue. The congregation eventually agreed, and their decision was taken unanimously. Acts 15 suggests that (some in) the early Church did not view the meaning of Scripture as static. Instead, the way they interpreted biblical passages functioned in dynamic ways that transcend the cognitive, illustrating the room left for the Spirit to guide the Church. For instance, James, the leader of the Jerusalem assembly, ended the arguments by referring to Amos 9:1112. YHWH will rebuild the dwelling of David so that all people may seek YHWH, including Gentiles over whom YHWH’s name has been called. It

381

C.H. Pinnock, “Baptists and the ‘Latter Rain’: A Contemporary Challenge and Hope for Tomorrow,” in Costly Vision: The Baptist Pilgrimage in Canada, edited by Jarold K. Zeman (Burlington, ON: Welch, 1988), 255–72 (266). 382 Thomas, “Women, Pentecostals and the Bible,” 49.

180

Chapter 4

implies that James equated the Church’s existence with rebuilding David’s house. Charles Pinnock finds some operational links between the reading practices illustrated in Acts 15 and Pentecostal Bible reading practices and experiences.383 In both, he finds the critical role that the Holy Spirit plays in interpreting passages. He calls it the condition that the Bible/Spirit will transform and change lives and criticizes hermeneutical practices that treat the Bible like a codebook that requires creative human activity to understand it.384 If no room is left for the supernatural dimensions of the Bible as the word of God, the Bible will not realize it as the word that reveals God. Pentecostals view the Bible not as a word about God, or even from God, if “from” implies a historical distance. Instead, it is a divine word directly related to their present experiences and situation.385 Warrington agrees that it is not possible to adequately explore the Bible exclusively through the lens of human hermeneutics, however valid and valuable the conclusions may be. He argues that discovering the Bible’s meaning through the Holy Spirit is superior. What is required to reach that goal is a combination of creative human activity and the unpredictable work of the Spirit for the Bible to become the revelation of God in a specific situation. In his thinking, this is essential to Pentecostal hermeneutics.386 As argued previously, the Holy Spirit makes the Bible authoritative in the context of the expectation that the Spirit offers personal and corporate guidance and grants discernment between the truth and falsity. It empowers believers to witness to their charismatic encounters, as Johns describes.387 It was argued that the Bible in itself does not contain authority; it is only when the Spirit interprets the Bible that (some of) its words become authoritative, as the revelation of the will of God.388 Without the intervention of the Spirit, 383

Pinnock, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics,” 8. Pinnock, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics,” 7. 385 Johns and Johns, “Yielding to The Spirit,” 118. 386 Warrington, Pentecostal Theology, 195. 387 Jackie D. Johns, “Yielding to the Spirit: The Dynamics of a Pentecostal Model of Praxis,” in The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel, edited by Murray W. Dempster et al., 70-84 (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999), 78. 388 Ellington, “Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture,” 24. 384

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

181

the Bible contains a series of words, gripping narratives, and historical artifacts of ages long past. The Bible only becomes authoritative when the Holy Spirit manifests transformative power.389 In other words, it is the Holy Spirit that is authoritative; the Spirit is prior and superior to the written word. In contrast, a rigid literalist way of interpreting the Bible, found in an unarticulated Pentecostal hermeneutic, relies exclusively on human efforts and denies the critical room for the Spirit to apply the Bible in new contexts. The Spirit, the inspirer of the Bible, is the only one who can illuminate it to become God’s words addressed to contemporary people. For that reason, it is non-negotiable that we recognize the Spirit’s contribution to the creation and transmission of the text in our reception and application of it.390 As readers, we need the same Spirit who inspired biblical authors for the inspiration to comprehend the meaning of the text for today’s situation.391 Pentecostals’ experience of prophetic proclamation in the words of the preacher and prophet, still valued highly in the Pentecostal community, disqualifies Pentecostals from accepting the fundamentalist view of literal, mechanical inspiration, as though God had precisely dictated every single word.392 Only in a continuum of inspiration do the words of the Bible become God’s words for today’s people. The Spirit alone can actualize the Bible as a revelation of God. The Spirit acts as a bridge across which believers may find the grace to reexperience what people in biblical times experienced in their life-transforming divine encounters. The bridge becomes the means people use to narrow the hermeneutical gap between the strange world represented by the ancient world and people in contemporary times.393 When readers experience life as a participation in the biblical narrative, the events described in the Scriptures will be repeated.

389

S. Land, Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom, JPT Sup 1 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 106. 390 Warrington, Pentecostal Theology, 199. 391 Pinnock, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics,” 4. 392 Grey, Three’s a Crowd, 147. 393 Janet E. Powers, “‘Your Daughters Shall Prophesy’: Pentecostal Hermeneutics and the Empowerment of Women,” in The Globalisation of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel, edited by M. Dempster, B. Klaus and D. Petersen, (Irvine: Regnum, 1999), 316.

182

Chapter 4

This insight is vital to enable readers to separate the question of the Bible’s inspiration and authority from the question of historicity, as required by fundamentalist thinking. It becomes possible to identify contradictions and unscientific descriptions in the Bible without undermining its authority and inspiration. Pentecostals read the Bible, not necessarily searching for “scientific truth” or “historical facts.” Like many postmodern people, they argue that they do not find truth exclusively in historical truth or “objective” data.394 The dynamic nature of their Bible reading practices tends to find meaning and value in the biblical text through the Spirit’s work rather than based on “what really happened.” They view the Bible’s claim as true for them, unconnected to its historical reference.395 Like postmodern people but long before their surfacing, they located truth in the functioning of the text rather than in its “historically verifiable” truth.396 In giving new meaning to ancient texts, the Spirit speaks in different contexts, as observed by Pentecostals. The Spirit can provide multiple interpretations and applications to suit different contexts. The Bible’s multilevel meanings are the product of the Spirit’s ongoing revelation, resulting in the intertwining of individual charismatic experiences and the text’s narrative.397 The condition that this will happen relies on the interaction of four aspects, as Ulrich Luz argues.398 These aspects are the Spirit’s illumination, the context of human lives, human intellect, and a text’s valid, faithful, and careful exegesis. The Holy Spirit’s illumination prefers the involvement and participation of the human mind, exegeting the text prayerfully and expectantly while waiting on the Spirit’s guidance. Defending the open-ended nature of biblical passages requires readers not to interpret passages literally. In some cases, the Spirit may suggest interpreting them metaphorically, implying that it is “more-than-literal” and “more-than-factual.” A metaphorical Bible reading practice is not so much

394

Grey, Three’s a Crowd, 150. Ellington, “History, Story, and Testimony,” 246. 396 Ellington, “History, Story, and Testimony,” 251. 397 D. Coulter, “What Meaneth This? Pentecostal and Theological Inquiry” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 10, no. 1 (2001), 38-64 (61). 398 Ulrich Luz, “A Response to Emerson B. Power,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 14 (1999), 19-26 (26). 395

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

183

concerned with the historical factuality of the biblical narratives but with their meanings for today.399 The last critique relates to the emphasis on the inspiration of the Bible without further relation to the Pentecostal experience found in the unarticulated Pentecostal hermeneutic. The result of this is that it takes attention away from the God of biblical witnesses. Instead, readers should emphasize applying the Bible in practice. How does it influence and change people’s lives according to God’s will and Jesus’ character? The Bible does not represent autographs. Instead of reading the Bible literally, Pentecostals should acknowledge the Bible’s primary role in the Spirit’s guidance of believers to incarnate the Christ to his body on earth. As Pentecostal theology is Christocentric with its four- or fivefold Full Gospel message, the Bible should be read in terms of the good news of Jesus’ incarnation in the lives of believers. The word of God became imperfect when fallible human beings penned it down. In the same way, the Spirit uses the Bible to penetrate believers’ minds to represent Christ, placing the kingdom once again into the hands of fallible human beings. It implies the improbability that our God-talk will be infallible while we see dimly, as in a mirror. This may change when believers see God face to face. For the moment, we know only in part, but then we will be fully known (1 Corinthians 13:12-13).

Subjectivity and the Community Pentecostal scholars do not (and should never) deny that Pentecostal hermeneutics can lead to non-rational subjectivist interpretations of passages because readers interpret passages with an open spirit and ear for the voice of the Spirit. Clark Pinnock calls it the risk of the possibility of drowning in a sea of open-ended subjectivity that faces Pentecostals.400 The other option is to find assurance in the words of the Bible in an invalid way, 399

Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 26. Clark H. Pinnock, “The Work of the Spirit in the Interpretation of Holy Scripture from the Perspective of a Charismatic Biblical Theologian,” in Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Reader, edited by Lee R. Martin, 233-48 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 233.

400

184

Chapter 4

as an unarticulated hermeneutic does. From the very early days, for that reason, Pentecostals emphasized the necessity that the faith community should protect the interpretation of individual passages by way of the spiritual gift of the discernment of spirits, referred to in 1 Corinthians 12:10. In discussing the role of the Pentecostal community in the hermeneutical process, and the dangers inherent in its capacity for self-deception, scholars suggest that the community has the final say in what a passage means, based on their theology and practice. The community establishes the ground rules for interpreting any biblical passage and offers a safe environment for inquiring about passages and their possible applications. They provide perspectives of balance and accountability, while simultaneously protecting members from the risks of subjective tendencies and the heresies that might flow from them.401 The risk of individuals’ passage interpretation without the faith community’s involvement is that interpretation can become stridently dogmatic and divisive. Ultimately, it can become fundamentally flawed, endangering the Church’s unity.402 The alternative is to unlock the meaning of biblical passages by using reason, employing the best scholarly, linguistic and other exegetical tools that are available. However, this excludes many ordinary believers from interpreting the Bible. The reasoning behind putting this limitation in Bible interpretation is that the Spirit had already fulfilled all obligations for inspiration long ago, when the divine self-revelation to them led to their authoring of the biblical texts. Now, readers need only to read the passages carefully, scrutinizing them with exegetical tools to bridge the gap between the contexts of the passages and theirs and trusting the Spirit to illuminate their rational faculties in formulating their meaning. Prooftexts for inspiration may indicate that this is the way the New Testament looked at inspiration. The quoted four favorite passages, including 2 Timothy 3:14-17 (as stated already). The passage functions within the context of wicked people and impostors misleading believers. The author emphasizes that Timothy should continue in what he had 401

Gabaitse, “Toward an African Pentecostal Feminist Biblical Hermeneutic of Liberation,” 98. 402 Warrington, Pentecostal Theology, 198.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

185

learned, presumably from the apostle himself, and that he affirmed the knowledge he had received since childhood by studying the sacred writings, referring to the Old Testament. These writings instructed people in the way of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. 2 Peter 1:20-21 provides further proof that the phenomenon of prophecy found in the Old Testament is not the result of the author’s own interpretation, because real prophecy resulted in God. “Prophecy” implies that people were moved by the Spirit and then spoke. It is important to note that the passage limits itself to the occurrence of prophecy, a minor part of the Old Testament. Sometimes interpreters apply it to the whole Bible, arguing that the Bible is the word of God and, for that reason, everything in it is prophecy. Such an argument becomes difficult to apply to passages where the divine voice, for instance, was claimed to promote violence and the total destruction of enemies and everything that belonged to them, including children and women. John 10:34-35 explains that in an argument about Jesus’ identification of himself with the Father, the Jews intended to kill him. Jesus then referred to the passage that calls all people “gods.” Why should someone be accused of blasphemy because he claims to be God’s son if all people are sons of God? Next, Jesus adds that Scripture cannot be annulled or broken, a proof text used by the exponents of verbal inspiration. Lastly, in Matthew 5:1720, as a part of Matthew’s rendering of the sermon on the mount, Jesus refers to the law (torah) and the prophets (nebi’im), the two most authoritative parts of the Jewish canon (tanakh) (along with the ketubim, the poetic books that Jews traditionally considered as the least authoritative).403 He states that he has not come to abolish the law or the prophets of which no letter or stroke will pass until heaven and Earth pass away, and all is accomplished. Therefore, no one should break even the least of the commandments or teach others to do so, limiting the application exclusively to the law, the first part.404 At the same time, it should be kept in mind that

403

Jews saw the main function of the nebi’im as to interpret the torah, and the ketubim to interpret the nebi’im, although in practice this did not always happen. 404 It has been argued that torah is used for the complete Hebrew Bible, although it should also be kept in mind that the Hebrew canon was only finalized in the second

186

Chapter 4

Jesus and his disciples broke several segments of the law, such as food laws, Sabbath laws, and holy days. The author remembers his early involvement fifty years ago in a classical Pentecostal denomination when a preacher made a controversial statement. Sitting together for that purpose, the elders would turn to each other and softly discuss it. After a while, it sometimes happened that one of the elders stood up, asked the preacher whether he might respond to the sermon, and then disclosed the elders’ decision about the statement. The same was true when someone purported to bring a prophecy, interpretation of tongues, or other word ascribed to the Spirit, and the elders would first discuss the issue among themselves. When the person was finished, it frequently happened that an elder responded to the word by either denying that it was Spiritdriven or encouraging the believers to respond positively to it. This was a practical demonstration of the practical functioning of the gift of the discernment of spirits among believers. The Pentecostal faith community provides the context for the production of meaning from the angle of the day of Pentecost and their continuationist experience of Pentecost. That experience, repeated in the lives of other believers, provided an alternative vision of God’s salvation plan and the part that the Church played in it, and that became the way Pentecostals interpreted the Bible (and continue to do so).405 New converts are encouraged to read the Bible in the hermeneutical way of the movement that emphasizes and relies upon the Spirit to explain the meaning of biblical texts in their application to current situations. According to Lee Roy Martin, at least four contextual factors altered the Pentecostal approach to biblical interpretation, supplementing standard Jewish exegetical practices: the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus; the gift of the Spirit poured out on the day of Pentecost, as promised by Jesus; the mission of spreading the gospel, and the urgency to complete the task “during this generation;” and the eschatological nature of the kingdom Jesus announced, giving birth to the expectation of Jesus’ century CE, or perhaps even later. However, no good evidence exists in the New Testament for such use. 405 Martin, “Introduction to Pentecostal Biblical Hermeneutics,” 1.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

187

imminent return.406 Kenneth Archer also refers to the Bible reading method of the early Pentecostals as the way the New Testament community read and interpreted the Bible. They searched the Bible for all biblical references to a particular subject and then synthesized the references into a theological statement supported by the community’s experience. This can be described as a harmonizing and deductive method.407 Archer argues that it is not a particular doctrine or exegetical method that makes Pentecostalism unique. Its uniqueness is instead found in its narrative tradition.408 Their narrative tradition arose from their experience of Spirit baptism and the charismatic experiences that followed it, resulting in a unique spirituality and Bible reading practice. They understand themselves and their place in the world in terms of their narrative tradition. Their narrative tradition serves as the hermeneutical horizon of their faith community and the way in which they articulate their identity. Their Latter Rain motif and how they interpret it as the restoration of the Full Gospel have become the primary plotlines of their narrative.409 Pentecostals derived their concept of the Latter Rain from the Palestinian weather cycle, with its heavy or later rain period following an earlier rain season. The latter rain introduces spring. Without the latter rain, it was complicated for farmers to survive in the harsh climates in the south of the country. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 served as the early rain that resulted in the early Church. Based on the charismatic manifestations they experienced, the Pentecostal revival served as the first drops of the latter rain. For that reason, Pentecostals trusted and prayed for the full manifestation of the latter rain that will be accompanied, they believe, by a great outpouring of the Spirit. It would serve as the preparation and introduction for the second coming of Christ and the realization of the kingdom of God on earth. They interpreted the ages between the early Church and the Pentecostal movement (the medieval period) as a great 406

Martin, “Introduction to Pentecostal Biblical Hermeneutics,” 2. Kenneth J. Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic: Spirit, Scripture and Community (Cleveland, TN: CPT, 2009), 99. 408 It should not be forgotten that they are not the only ones who have experienced the work of the Spirit distinctively; there are several Christian traditions with the same unique experiences and manifestations of the Spirit. 409 Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic: Spirit, Scripture and Community, 128–36. 407

188

Chapter 4

drought of the Spirit that the Church experienced.410 The new outpouring of the Spirit, the latter rain of the Spirit, will renew the Church. The latter rain also served to restore the Full Gospel.411 As discussed, the Full Gospel is a Christocentric paradigm of grace that consists of the five elements that define Jesus Christ’s ministry and mission as the one who saves, sanctifies, baptizes in the Holy Spirit, heals, and will soon return as coming King. Pentecostal identity consists of the belief that they have been commissioned to recover the Full Gospel as described in the New Testament, including the experiences of Spirit baptism, sanctification, and healing.412 Steven Studebaker criticizes Archer. He argues that Archer’s emphasis on the notion that Pentecostal theology arises from a peculiar Pentecostal narrative tradition limits the Spirit and confines the Spirit’s work to the faith community and the Bible.413 The same criticism is leveled at Pentecostals from the previously Pentecostal theologians and now turned Wesleyan, D. Lyle Dabney. He affirms the need to emphasize pneumatology because it has been marginalized in the historical traditions.414 However, he does not view Pentecostal theology as applicable to developing valid pneumatology (anymore) because they formulate their theological identity in the foreign categories of evangelical theology. He pleads with Pentecostals to return to their early roots and Bible reading method. He compares Pentecostals functioning in Evangelical mode with a David, who tried to participate in the fight with Goliath in Saul’s armor, disabling him from even walking properly. He argues that Pentecostals cannot provide a coherent theological account of themselves. Throwing off the dead weight of Saul’s armor requires that they discover their distinctive theological voice and realizing that goal requires that they discern and articulate the theological substance of their charismatic experiences.415 Like Studebaker, he rejects the idea that the essence of Pentecostalism lies in charismatic experiences rather than solid theology. As far as the unarticulated Pentecostal hermeneutic goes, 410

Whether this is the case, as Pentecostals perceived, was discussed earlier. Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic: Spirit, Scripture and Community, 150-56. 412 Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic: Spirit, Scripture and Community, 155. 413 Studebaker, “From Pentecost to the Triune God,” 37. 414 D. Lyle Dabney, “Saul’s Armor: The Problem and Promise of Pentecostal Theology Today,” Pneuma 23 (2001), 115–46. 415 Dabney, “Saul’s Armor,” 116-7. 411

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

189

this criticism is valid, as it attempts theological endeavors in a cessationist hermeneutical mode, while its practice and ethos are continuationist in God’s ongoing revelation. It should be kept in mind that Pentecostals were traditionally antiintellectualists, due to their concern that theological endeavors might smother the genuine work of the Spirit. Dabney does not deny the centrality of charismatic experiences to Pentecostalism. Instead, he calls it an “experience with a latent theology that needs to blossom.”416 At the same time, he emphasizes that Pentecostals should choose a solid theology based on their experiences because the Spirit alone transforms and empowers believers to be powerful witnesses. They should leave their decision to stay with an either-or option consisting of charismatic experience or theology and doctrine. Instead, they should combine the two aspects into a responsible theology. The experience of the Spirit points the way toward and requires a Pentecostal theology, a “theological tongue of the Spirit of Pentecost” that can enrich the ecumenical community. Most Pentecostals, I submit, support his view. Additionally, Archer emphasizes that the Spirit’s work depends on the community and the Bible. Although the Spirit has a voice, the voice can only be heard “horizontally” through individuals in the community interpreting.417 However, he does not distinguish clearly enough between the Spirit’s work and voice and the faith community’s practice of the spiritual gift of distinguishing between spirits. Although it is true that the discernment of the Spirit’s voice happens through both the Bible and the faith community, and that their narrative shapes their identity and Bible reading practices, Studebaker thinks that it lacks the necessary pneumatological content.418 His criticism seems to be valid. Studebaker proposes that it is not only charismatic experience that defines Pentecostalism. The essence of Pentecostal theology is not limited to a specific narrative tradition, however distinctive of Pentecostalism it may

416

Dabney, “Saul’s Armor,” 120–21. Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic: Spirit, Scripture and Community, 247. 418 Studebaker, “From Pentecost to the Triune God,” 37. 417

190

Chapter 4

be.419 He suggests that locating and limiting the essence of Pentecostalism in its narrative tradition does not serve as a valid pneumatological foundation for Pentecostal theology. He utilizes Hütter’s concept of poiesis and pathos to rethink Pentecostal foundations, because the experiences that led to the formation of the Pentecostal narrative tradition can be understood as deriving its pathos (the quality that evokes pity or sadness) from the Holy Spirit. They serve as poiemata (works) of the Spirit that actualizes the divine salvific-economic mission of Pentecostals. I submit that the Pentecostal narrative tradition should certainly inform their theological task. Nevertheless, it remains vital that all Pentecostal theological endeavors should occur in the field of the Spirit’s work. In this way, the process of theological interpretation and charismatic experiences will be pneumatologically conditioned.420 Clark Pinnock argues that Jesus illustrated the same idea when he interpreted the Old Testament for his audience.421 He refers to Jesus’ use of Isaiah 61:1-2, according to Luke 4:18-19. Isaiah 61 states that the Spirit of YHWH is upon the speaker because of the divine anointing, with the purpose of bringing the good news to the oppressed, binding up the brokenhearted, proclaiming liberty to captives, releasing prisoners, and proclaiming the year of YHWH’s favor, which is also the day of divine vengeance. Luke 4 relates that when Jesus visited the synagogue at Nazareth on the Sabbath, he was allowed to read from the prophetic books. He chose to read from Isaiah 61 (v. 17 explains that he found a specific place, implying that the scroll was not opened where it last was read). Jesus read the first part of the verse, but decided to leave out the part of verse 2 that refers to the day of vengeance of God. When he sat down, he added that this text had been fulfilled in the audience’s hearing. He presumably justified the lack of signs and wonders in his ministry in the area where he grew up by stating that no prophet is accepted or honored in the prophet’s hometown, illustrated by the prophet Elijah, who chose to survive the famine by staying with a nonIsraelite widow, and Elisha who healed a non-Israelite leper, passing by 419

Studebaker, “From Pentecost to the Triune God,” 45. See also Studebaker, “From Pentecost to the Triune God,” 45–46. 421 Pinnock, “The Work of the Spirit,” 235. 420

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

191

many lepers of his own nation. It seems that Jesus hinted that non-Israelite people would rather accept his message than his people, and it nearly cost him his life because it filled the listeners with rage. In this example, Pinnock finds that Jesus blended the original text with its contemporary significance for his hearers. Pinnock argues that Jesus could do that because he knew the will of God in this matter and at this time. He asserts that Jesus took liberties when it came to quoting the Bible and refers to Jesus’ words according to Matthew 5:38, where he set aside the “tooth for a tooth” maxim to explain that his disciples were “called to a higher level of ethical behavior.” In the process, Jesus distinguished between the original meaning and what texts mean for his context. The same is true of when Jesus answered a question about divorce (Mark 10:2), setting a higher standard or even setting aside the distinction between clean and unclean foods (Mark 7:19: “Thus he declared all foods clean”). In addition, the law allows one to swear an oath, but it was no longer permissible for Jesus’ followers. Clearly, Jesus did not look at all texts as being on the same level or having the same authority. Instead, he recognized that the meaning of texts was influenced by historical relativity and cultural determinedness. Pinnock concludes that Jesus set texts free to function as the word of God in new ways.422 In Jesus’ day, Jews applied several exegetical methods to interpret the Tanakh. However, most of these methods are not regarded as valid anymore. For example, some Jews interpreted the text by bringing out what they perceived to be its subtle insight. In contrast, others employed a midrash pesher that defined what they perceived to be the significance of the text for the present day. In other words, many other Jews also went beyond the literal meaning of a text in attempting to find its current significance. Pinnock, e.g., refers to Luke 12:54-56, which ascribes to Jesus the words that his followers should not only interpret the appearance of Earth and sky to predict the weather but should interpret their present time as well, illustrating that Jesus taught his disciples to interpret texts in terms of what

422

Pinnock, “The Work of the Spirit,” 236. He also refers to the same argument found in James D.G. Dunn, “The Authority of Scripture According to Scripture,” Churchman 96 (1982), 104-125.

192

Chapter 4

time it is.423 However, it does not seem clear from the context that Jesus applied his saying about the interpretation of the times to the interpretation of texts from the Old Testament, as Pinnock argues. Additionally, this is not only Jesus’ way of interpretation but that demonstrated by an example from the early Church’s interpretation of the Bible as well. According to Acts 15:28-29, the Jerusalem synod decided that it seemed good to the Spirit and themselves that non-Jewish Christian believers need not keep the Jewish ceremonial, sacrificial, and purity laws. All that is required is that they abstain from food sacrificed to idols, blood, and what is strangled, and fornication. The previous discussion showed that a sacred text that was binding in previous times may not be valid in today’s changed circumstances.

Shift in the early Church to become a religion of the Book By way of an interlude and to throw further light on the dangers of subjectivity within Pentecostal Bible reading practices, it is vital to discuss the early Church’s orality in terms of the lack of resources in remembrance of the life and ministry of Jesus. The early faith community was charismatic, implying their emphasis on directly hearing or sensing the divine voice. Instead of studying the New Testament (which, in any case, did not exist until the end of the first century), they relied on oral traditions supported by the witness of the original apostles and other eyewitnesses of Jesus’ words, death, and resurrection. At the same time, they found corroboration for the ministry of Jesus in the Old Testament, especially in the prophetic literature. In other words, theirs was not primarily a religion of the word or book, as Judaism would later become. It did not center around scribes, but prophets, as James Smith argues.424 Eventually, the early Church shifted to afford the New Testament text a privileged position, replacing, suppressing, and oppressing the original oral and charismatic way of functioning that marked its earlier days. Then, their

423

Pinnock, “The Work of the Spirit,” 236. James K.A. Smith, “The Closing of the Book: Pentecostals, Evangelicals, and the Sacred Writings,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 11 (1997), 47-71 (50). 424

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

193

emphasis on the Book mostly confined divine revelation to a past epoch. In this way, Pentecostals argue, the emphasis on the letter and the revelation’s scribal tradition eventually killed the Church’s charismatic way of functioning. They silenced the voices of contemporary prophets by their focus on the Book and, ultimately, the charismatic. To a certain extent, the Spirit’s direct influence on believers was ranked out of the Church. The pneumatological essence and emphasis of the early Church got lost, only to be regained effectively in the twentieth century with the birth of the Pentecostal movement.425 At the same time, fundamentalism completed the scribal tradition that characterized the Church by terminating in exclusive textual communities par excellence.426 The shift in status that the New Testament enjoyed occurred early in Church history. Previously, Christians expected to encounter a divine word through the prophets given to the Church (Eph 4:11), who occupied a privileged position in the Church, second only to the apostles (1 Cor 12:28). The Didache, or The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations, was written anonymously in Greek in the first or first part of the second century CE. The author still encouraged believers to receive the prophets in their midst “as the Lord,” as the community’s “high priests,” while it also emphasized the relevance of dreams, visions, oracles, and other means of revelation, implying that charismatic phenomena kept on occurring in the first two and a half centuries in the early Church. The prophets served as hermeneuts of the Gospel of Jesus, because they interpreted the kerygma of Jesus by word of mouth.427 The New Testament also illustrates the vital position of the oral and the aural in the ministry of Jesus. He proclaimed the Gospel’s good news and expected his words to be the opportunity for faith in his listeners. It is wellknown that Jesus did not leave any sacred writings as many others did who established religions. Was it, perhaps, because he expected the Spirit to lead the Church through guidance and insight after his departure from Earth? At

425

At least, this is the way Pentecostals perceive it! Smith, “The Closing of the Book,” 51. 427 T.W. Gillespie, The First Theologians: A Study in Early Christian Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 32. 426

194

Chapter 4

the same time, Romans 10:17 explains that faith comes by hearing, implying that someone should proclaim (and not read) the divine words. James Smith refers to Brian Stock’s research conclusions about the interdependence between orality and literacy to understand the shift from an oral to a textual community in Christianity.428 Around 1000 BCE, the text as a reference system for everyday activities and a means of giving shape to complicated explanations invaded the horizon of the oral.429 However, this does not imply that the community became textual in its essence. In that world, the word of the authoritarian political figure, whether it was a king, emperor, or pharaoh, was the authority. Around the eleventh century CE, a further shift occurred - texts were no longer understood mainly as records but as “sites” embodied by “facts.” As a result, the “nonliterates” turned into “illiterates.” Eventually, during the course of the Enlightenment, literacy was identified with rationality, and the illiterate turned into the uneducated and irrational, marginalized by society.430 Texts now became authoritative, replacing the spoken word as the authority of the political office-bearer. Literacy became the privilege of the elite bourgeois class, which exploited the illiterate, changing texts into weapons of conquest and tools of colonization and oppression. Evangelicalism originated as a textual community, one which would eventually marginalize Pentecostal orality. Pentecostals emphasized that glossolalia exists at the ends of language; the Spirit “sighs too deep for words” (Rom 8:26), and it resists literacy. This was magnified when Evangelical fundamentalism idealized the Bible as the sole authoritative divine revelation that the Church may accept, changing it into a book filled with theological propositions suited to all situations and needs. When many Pentecostals found a refuge from their sectarian status in the Evangelical sheep pen, the cost was that they eventually also turned into a textual

428

Brian Stock, The Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983). 429 Stock, Implications of Literacy, 3. 430 Stock, Implications of Literacy, 31.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

195

community, with nearly sole reliance on a given book. As a result, it afforded the Bible the authority that the Spirit deserves. Where the early Church organized its experiences and functions in terms of the charismatic, this community organized itself against the horizon of a text, the Bible. The norm, standard, or kanon for the community became a text. When Pentecostals accepted an unarticulated, fundamentalist-literalist hermeneutic, they disqualified themselves from the continuationism of the earlier generation that expected continuing revelation and prophecy. Acceptance of an Evangelic hermeneutic eventually destroyed their foundations and ethos, and their hermeneutic served as a contradictio ad terminis. While they prayed for and expected Spirit baptism and miracles to occur, they accepted in theory that the door to further divine self-revelation was closed finally at the end of the first century CE. Today, most Pentecostals (both those using an unarticulated and articulated hermeneutics) accept that prophecy may occur but add that it must be consistent with the divine revelation found in the Bible. In other words, it may never be put on a par with the Bible, and it can never contradict anything written in the Bible. The biblical text is authoritative, subjecting prophecy to its teachings. As Robeck explains, prophecy is particular, temporal, and subjective, while the Bible is universal, eternal, and objective.431 It is the only remedy for the dangers that subjectivity holds for charismatic activity. How does one reconcile this view with the continuing dynamic presence and work of Christ through his Spirit in the Church? Smith argues that conservative Evangelicalism presents a bibliology that is representative of bibliolatry (a worshiping of the Bible). The theology developed at Princeton Theological Seminary epitomized it.432 Such a bibliology makes it impossible for Pentecostals to reconcile with their view of the continued participation of the Spirit in divine revelation to the community of believers. The view that Pentecostalism, in its classic form, is one further appearance 431

Cecil M. Robeck, “Canon, Regulae Fidei, and Continuing Revelation in the Early Church,” in Church, Word, and Spirit, edited by J.E. Brandley and R.A. Muller, 6591 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 39. 432 Smith, “The Closing of the Book,” 59.

196

Chapter 4

of Evangelicalism cannot, for that reason, be accepted. James Smith reflects on the anomaly of a movement which places such strong emphasis on continuing divine revelation, keeping the door open for any intervention the Spirit might wish to take, while at the same time accepting the Bible as the final and absolute divine revelation that domesticates the divine voice, locating it in a text.433 It includes the fundamentalist perspective that restricts normative revelation to the past, beginning with the assertion that one can only hear the divine voice in the Bible and ending with declaring the Bible as divine.434 In such a view, the Bible cannot function as a vehicle of the Spirit, but as the topos of divine presence. However, Pentecostal bibliology is radically different from any other. For that reason, Pentecostal scholars revisited their hermeneutics since the 1990s, with the work of Donald Dayton and many others, to integrate insights from philosophers like Gadamer, Ricoeur, and Habermas into a bibliology and a hermeneutic based on the values and ethos of Pentecostalism that reflects the distinct identity of Pentecostals. In the battle between Princeton and Azusa Street, the birthplace of Pentecostalism, B.B. Warfield’s concept of the status of the biblical text is set up against William Seymour’s understanding of the Spirit at work as a condition for hearing the divine word, whether in the Bible or extrabiblical revelation. It contrasts a religion of the Book and a religion of the Spirit. In an oral community, texts function in the genre of testimony based on charismatic personal experiences. The texts serve primarily to remind their readers of God’s work in the world, and they are derivative, implying that texts cannot serve as locations of the divine presence. They are only the signals, invitations, and pointers to a face-to-face divine encounter. Their authority is based on the divine voice heard (if and) when the Spirit explicates them.435 Texts function, here in other contexts, like open doors for the Spirit to manifest divine revelation. In much the same way as in the early Church, normativity in the Pentecostal faith community is located in the living presence of Christ through his 433

Smith, “The Closing of the Book,” 49. McKay, “When the Veil is Taken Away,” 38. 435 Smith, “The Closing of the Book,” 67. 434

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

197

Spirit. The normativity for prophecy shifts accordingly, from the canon of the Bible to the guidance of the Spirit, presently at work in the faith community. Now, the kanon does not only refers to a fixed measure, regulatory principle, or authoritative standard, but includes another meaning implied in the Greek kanon: as something used to keep a thing straight, like a weaver’s rod or the crossbar of a cithara. The canon gives shape, frame, and support.436 The Church finds its canon first and foremost in the Spirit rather than in the Bible. This does not imply that the Church could operate without the Bible – that is unthinkable, since the Bible always serves as a counterpoint to subjectivity in sensing the Spirit’s guidance and voice – but the Spirit must exercise authority over the Church’s interpretation of the Bible and any extrabiblical revelation such as prophecy. Pentecostals must live out of the Spirit. Prophecy is not primarily subject to the standard of the Bible (always as interpreted by the church, implying its prejudices and presuppositions), but rather to the Spirit operating in the faith community. For this reason, prophecy may even diverge from the Bible in some exceptional ways; Smith finds such an example in Peter’s vision in Acts 10, when a heavenly voice commands him to eat unclean food.437 Christ, revealed by the Spirit, is the norma normans non normata of the Church, not the Bible. The presence of Christ in the faith community serves as the guarantee for normativity that shuts the door on both relativism and unbridled open-ended subjectivism, because when the Spirit speaks, the community of believers realizes that it is the divine voice as an intuitive response.

Pentecostalism as a religion of the Book? The early Church, like Jesus, was seemingly alive to the dynamic found in biblical texts. This was also the case with early Pentecostals.

436

P. Cox Miller, “‘Words with an Alien Voice:’ Gnostics, Scripture, and Canon,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 57 (1989), 459-83 (479). 437 Smith, “The Closing of the Book,” 69.

198

Chapter 4

Giving the passage’s literal meaning more respect than the spirit (Spirit) of the passage may imply that a current reader misses the intended meaning for people living in the changed context of our world. The truth is that a word intended for people living in Old Testament times may be destructive to apply in another context, as the motivation of some of the religious wars has demonstrated.438 The process of literally interpreting and applying passages found in the Old Testament to new circumstances, in a situation where believers lived in a context determined by the establishment of a new order, introduced with Jesus’ death and resurrection, can be illustrated by referring to the theological justification of the apartheid policy in South Africa. In his discussion of the issue, Robert Vosloo explains that many white believers’ interpretation of the Bible was determined by Afrikaner identity constructions and their experience of feeling beleaguered, isolated, and polarized.439 It did not leave any room for hybridity, ecumenicity, and reconciliation, as other Western fellow believers in the Reformed tradition required. Vosloo does not think that the proponents of the biblical justification of apartheid were immoral or evil, as their theological fruit also demonstrates. Likewise, the theologians that justified (or attempted to justify) the policy from the Bible were not necessarily bad exegetes. However, the phenomenon of such justification illustrates the extreme dangers that ideological distortions and abuses can exercise on the interpretation of biblical texts and the public discourse of the day.440 Undeniably, however, the policy of apartheid was immoral. It denied the dignity of millions of South Africans and subjected them to a life of poverty and hardship. The fact is that most members of the exclusively white Reformed churches in South Africa accepted and supported the policy of apartheid and the decisions of their Church synods to justify it. It is probably still the case that some whites support the policy, partly due to the Church’s 438

For a good introduction to the subject, see Karen Armstrong, Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence (New York: Anchor, 2015). 439 Robert R. Vosloo, “The Bible and the Justification of Apartheid in Reformed Circles in the 1940s in South Africa: Some Historical, Hermeneutical and Theological Remarks,” Stellenbosch Theological Journal 1, no. 2 (2015), 195-215. 440 Vosloo, “The Bible and the Justification of Apartheid,” 212.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

199

earlier justification, strengthening the racism found in some conservative circles. As explained, Pentecostal hermeneutics accepts that the Bible does not present a deposit of revealed truths that believers should mine, systematize, and then change into an idol they worship. God is not the Bible or in the Bible; unless the Spirit changes it into divine revelation, the Bible remains the work of human hands. As witnesses to the divine revelation, biblical authors became powerful (and primary) expositors of what God can and will do for humanity, but only when the Spirit applies the biblical words to the people living in a widely different context. Sometimes the application of passages may even differ from the literal meaning of the passages, but it would always demonstrate the spirit/Spirit of it. The Bible is something that believers can control.441 Although it has been serving as a guide for countless believers through the ages, its guidance is dynamic. It is a living guide, directly dependent on the work of the Spirit. An intellectual interpretation of its passages, driven by the excellent application of valid exegetical principles, may reveal the author’s intention (as far as is possible – and indeed if that is possible at all!), but the Bible’s life-changing and transforming potential is only realized when the Spirit reveals the divine power to meet people. It may never be forgotten that the purpose of the Bible is not to provide information but to transform people by restoring their relationship with their Creator. However, Pentecostals experience that a careful interpretation supported by valid exegetical methods provides a climate for the Spirit to work more readily than when believers interpret the Bible in sloppy and careless ways. At the same time, the literalism defining most Pentecostals’ Bible reading practices disqualifies them from hearing the living word that the present-day Church needs to be relevant in its situation. However, that does not solve the problem that subjectivism can characterize interpretation when it is not bound to the literal meaning of passages. What remains important is that believers living in the context of the continuation of the revelation of divine power manifested in experiences of conversions, 441

Pinnock, “The Work of the Spirit,” 236.

200

Chapter 4

Spirit baptism, healings, exorcisms, divine interventions, and works of power should remain open to the Spirit at all costs. Like Jesus, they should be available and open to a prophetic awareness of the changing situations they find themselves in and the voice of the Spirit interpreting it for them.442 The Spirit will not reveal any new doctrine or word that goes beyond what Jesus taught; it is not the Spirit’s work to guide the Church into “new” truth but to reveal “all” truth because the Spirit will not speak on the divine, but only what the Spirit hears. In this way, the Spirit will declare to believers “the things that are to come,” glorifying Christ in the process (John 16:1314). Remaining bound to what Jesus taught, the Spirit will lead the Church forward in history. That was what the early Church perceived when they had to consider the issues discussed in Acts 15: the Spirit, and what they decided about it (v. 28). Pinnock employs the image that the Bible is more like a wind tunnel than a pile of bricks and more like an orchestra than a solo instrument.443 The Spirit empowers the Church to rethink the biblical tradition in conversation with others. It brings things that were stated in earlier biblical times into their minds but now provides new light on them and new insights. Some Pentecostals, especially in the Word of Faith movement, refer to such insights found in the Bible as a “rhema” word, based on a supposed distinction between the Greek logos as a general, distant word and rhema as an immediate word addressed to an individual. In the process, they regularly take verses out of their literary and historical context and use them in ways that the biblical authors clearly did not intend. To begin with, their distinction between the two Greek words does not hold water. However, it is accepted that all believers anointed with the Spirit have all knowledge, as1 John 2:20 states, implying that it also enriches their interpretation of texts as well. Therefore, they do not need anyone to teach them because the Spirit teaches them all things (v. 27). The passage may be construed that believers are unteachable, something the early church clearly did not practice, as demonstrated by the significance given to the apostles’ preaching.

442 443

Pinnock, “The Work of the Spirit,” 238. Pinnock, “The Work of the Spirit,” 242.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

201

In addition, Grey emphasizes that the passage’s significance to the original community should provide boundaries of reasonable interpretation as another means to guard against open-ended, subjectivist reading practices. It involves that the reader keeps on asking questions about the significance of the passage to its original community (as represented in the passage) – a task that never ends.444 At the same time, this practice also keeps the reader from reading the passage in a literalist manner. It may not quench the dynamic nature of the interpretation of the passage. Therefore, applying the passage through their experience of salvation and other charismatic experiences remains vital while remaining in contact with the one who illuminates the biblical passage.

Protection in biblical interpretation How can the Church protect itself in its interpretation of the Bible? It is clear that the Church needs some checks and balances to minimize the potential effect of subjectivistic reading practices. To have persistently good, valid exegesis is indispensable if the reader is concerned with moving the horizons of the text and the present-day closer to each other. The reader must be seized by the text, understanding the text’s significance for the present situation. For that to occur, the Spirit, who alone can work and understand the depths of human hearts (1 Cor 2:10-16), needs to be the indispensable partner in the reading process. Reading that does not occur in the context of worship and prayer can never reflect the necessity of ears and eyes that can encounter divine revelation. Jackie D. Johns and Cheryl B. Johns find four interactive movements in Pentecostal Bible reading practice: they share their testimonies, search the Bible, yield to the Spirit, and respond to the call heard in the passage.445 This highlights the importance of biblical interpretation not becoming a solitary exercise. It leads to what Warrington explains is the Pentecostal community’s own unique comment on the passage. They base their interpretation on their belief in the dynamic nature of the Spirit and the

444 445

Grey, Three’s a Crowd, 124. Johns and Johns, “Yielding to The Spirit,” 133.

202

Chapter 4

experiential aspect of their faith.446 In the process, they collapse and fuse the distance between the original context of the Bible and the context of the reader.447 Therefore, a Pentecostal reading of the Bible requires participation in the Pentecostal faith community and continuing charismatic encounters.448 It should also adhere to the “Full Gospel,” a Christocentric confession of Jesus Christ as savior, baptizer with the Spirit, divine healer, and coming king (and those from holiness circles add, as sanctifier). Finally, the believer must identify overtly with the Spirit as the one who represents Jesus in the Church.

Valid Pentecostal exegetical skills From the previous discussion, the reader may understand that some Pentecostals read the Bible without any reference to the gains made in biblical sciences regarding the development of exegetical skills and the application of discoveries made by archaeologists, sociologists, and biblical theologians. Although Pentecostals emphasize the charismatic value of meditating on the Bible, they must also recognize the significance of such research for the valid interpretation of the text. On the other hand, the remark about the indispensability of persistent valid exegetical methods mentioned above may create the impression that Bible reading should be the exclusive domain of skilled people trained to apply such methods to the passage. While it is true that the training of potential preachers should include exposure to these methods and require testing their skills in interpreting the Bible, it should never presuppose that Bible reading should remain the exclusive domain of “professional” pastors. Early Pentecostals did not have access to or recognize such professionally trained people qualified in theological scholarship. Instead, they insisted that all Spirit-filled believers are anointed and empowered to interpret the passage. All believers are prophets and priests. Reference was made to 1 John 2:20, 446

Warrington, Pentecostal Theology, 198-199. Martin, “Introduction to Pentecostal Biblical Hermeneutics,” 3. 448 Kenneth J. Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty-First Century: Spirit, Scripture and Community (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 164. 447

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

203

which states that believers have all knowledge and do not need to be taught, a favorite passage among Pentecostals. Anyone equipped with some basic knowledge and skills is empowered to interpret the passage. For Pentecostals, it is crucial that believers be reminded of the purpose of reading the Bible: not to bring knowledge about God to readers, but to present God as the one encountering and transforming people living in contemporary times. For that reason, they should recognize that Bible reading should occur as a significant element of their conversation with the divine, leaving room for the divine voice to supplement their prayers. The voice of God is also seen in the proclamation of the Church, testimonies, songs, teachings, exhortations, and the practice of the charismata.449 Actually, prayer rightfully understood is not human beings informing God of the pressing needs of their present situation (as though God does not know what those needs are), but instead serves as a discussion with God about current needs and desires in order to listen to what God says about why the divine providence led to these needs. This explains why an open Bible is vital in any talk between a human being and God – to leave and establish room for the voice of the Spirit to explain the divine heart. Because the Spirit prefers to speak to human beings primarily by enlivening a biblical text, Pentecostal Bible reading can only exist in the sphere of prayer and the presence of God.450 Another essential principle has to do with the ethical awareness of believers. The patriarchalism and slavery that characterize large portions of the biblical text uncritically and normatively are morally unacceptable to present-day believers. Believers may also never qualify anti-Semitism by referring to Jews’ words, according to Matthew 27:25, who responded to 449

Daniel Albrecht, Rites in the Spirit: A Ritual Approach to Pentecostal / Charismatic Spirituality, JPT Sup. 17 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 229. 450 Many Calvinists teach that prayer should be addressed exclusively to the Father and not to the Son – rather, it should be in the name of the Son. However, as explained in chapter 2, prayer is addressed both to the Father “through Jesus Christ” in Rom 1:8 and to the Father and Jesus together in 1 Thess 3:11–13, both letters of Paul that are considered authentic. The rigid distinctions between Father and Son in neo-Calvinistic theology implies that clear divisions and boundaries exist between the “persons” of the Divinity.

204

Chapter 4

Pilate’s washing of his hands to declare his innocence in condemning an innocent man to death, that Jesus’s blood should be accounted to them and their children.451 At the same time, racism may not be justified at the hand of the creation narratives. Other narratives in Genesis and the Torah suggest that God created people in diverse ways, prohibiting any intermingling between them. God’s commandment that Israel, the elect people of God, should remain apart and separate from the other nations may also not be construed to justify the morally unacceptable practice of racism that defines people as “the other” because of their skin color. It should be recognized for what it is: a nationalist ideology established to justify and motivate the expulsion of other people from the “promised land.” In the case of homosexuality, Pentecostals should reconsider, despite “clear evidence” found in the Bible, what their attitudes toward and perceptions of LGBTIQ+ people should be, realizing that biblical references to same-sex orientation are ambiguous and may be culturally defined to certain practices that have nothing to do with relationships between such people in faithful relationships.452 The rule must be that morally unacceptable practices may never be justified by the words of the Bible, even when readers find “clear evidence” and justification for such practices. If this rule should be ignored, Christians should also act toward their enemies in ways prescribed by some Old Testament texts that annul their testimony as followers of the Christ of love. It must be kept in mind that cultural views and perceptions have changed over time and will probably further shift and refine in the future. The last chapter presents further discussions of these issues in the context of a proposal for an alternative way of thinking about God and the Trinity. It will reconsider the ethical challenges Bible reading may present to people living in the twenty-first century.

451

Again, this is a text exclusive to the Gospel of Matthew and betrays who the intended audience was: Jewish believers who were becoming alienated from other Jews because of their rejection by the established religion. 452 The author discusses these issues more completely in Marius Nel, LGBTIQ+ People and Pentecostals: An African Pentecostal Hermeneutic Perspective (Münster: LIT, 2020) and several articles published in accredited theological journals.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

205

Additionally, it is essential to read all biblical texts without exception in terms of their historical, social, and theological context. The abuses of texts taken out of their contexts and used to support one’s own viewpoint have been documented many times. Some aspects of prosperity theology influencing some classical Pentecostals, and most Neo-Pentecostals, illustrate this point. Readers should also keep in mind that cultural customs have changed over time. Previously, married women spent their lives establishing a home for husbands and children, providing for all their needs for sustenance. Women have been occupying the same positions as men in the contemporary world. Today, most adult women work away from their homes. Most churches now create the space for women to be equal members of the Church, serving in ministries in ways that do not differ from those of their male counterparts – something unthinkable not many years ago. Clear anti-feminist allusions found in the Bible need to be considered in changing times; disallowing women to enter the ministry because a “faithful” interpretation of some texts ascribed, e.g., to Paul, might betray a literalist mindset informed by fundamentalist principles. A Pentecostal hermeneutic recognizes that some biblical texts have a “surplus of meaning,” enabling current readers to engage with them in interaction with the changed and changing historical awareness of their communities and times. By remembering that the Bible is a human book limited by the fallibility that characterizes all human knowledge and language about God, Pentecostals view their Bible reading practices as a dialogue that requires multiple voices to make it sensible. The last remark about exegetical skills emphasizes the need for the difference in horizons between biblical texts and present readers. The horizon is determined by social, cultural, historical, and personal factors. Some biblical texts reflect in their horizons cultural and religious prejudices that may be unacceptable in our day, as discussed above. At all times, however, the reader must tread carefully in considering a passage, realizing that it presents a word about and message addressed to people in wildly different circumstances. Meaning can only arise between the fusion of the two horizons (that is, past and present). Although it is not necessary, and

206

Chapter 4

indeed not always possible, to bridge the gap, and it is challenging to evaluate one’s success in accomplishing it, the onus rests on the reader to carefully consider the historical situation the first listeners found themselves in, imagining what the message would have implied and meant for them. Only then can the reader attempt to reinterpret it in terms of the current situation, trusting the Spirit to bridge the gap between the original and contemporary readers validly. It is also necessary to remark about the popular and widespread Pentecostal perception that only older Bible translations, based on the Textus Receptus, represent the “word of God,” as discussed above. The fact of the matter is that while the Hebrew (and in the case of small portions of Aramaic, as in Dan 2:4b-7:28) text of the Old Testament was preserved primarily intact in a few manuscripts, illustrating Jewish carefulness through the ages in transmitting the text faithfully, even though hand-written, the same is not true of the New Testament. None of the autographs have survived; they may well have perished before the second century CE. However, scribes made many copies over the centuries. In fact, they represent copies of copies of the copies. Some 5,366 copies have been discovered in the Greek language alone, dating from the second century to the sixteenth century. Except for the smallest fragments, no two of these copies are precisely alike in all their particulars. It is impossible to calculate how many differences or variant readings occur among the surviving witnesses. However, according to Bart Ehrman, the textual variants must number hundreds of thousands.453 Some scholars estimate that 200,000 to 400,000 such variants exist, while others find up to 750,000 differences based on 5,700 Greek and more than 10,000 Latin manuscripts and quotations of texts from the Church fathers.454 Most textual variants are “accidental” and they can be ascribed to scribal ineptitude, carelessness, or fatigue. Other scribal blunders include misspelled words, accidental omissions of a word or line, and the meaningless repetition of a word or line. These early scribes were not professionally

453

Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 278. http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2015/12/how-many-variantsare-there-in-greek.html; accessed 2022-04-25,

454

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

207

trained – in many cases, they were not scrupulous or even ethical in their transcriptions. In some cases, it is clear that some of the differences between manuscripts are intentional. For instance, at a later date, a scribe appended an additional twelve verses to the end of the Gospel of Mark. We can only speculate about the intentions of scribal changes. In some cases, scribes harmonized the text with parallel passages, and in other cases, they eliminated possible grammatical inconcinnities, exegetical ambiguities, or embarrassments. However, they changed the text to align it with their own theological views in some cases. Perhaps they might have attempted to circumvent heretics’ use of the text to support what is, for the scribe, their aberrant teaching. Most of the manuscripts date from the fourth century and later, implying that it is impossible to infer much about the differences in binitarian views in the early Church. This debate raged before the fourth century. However, the oldest witnesses to manuscripts indeed display many variations, implying that the text existed in a state of flux for many years. It seems that the process of standardizing the text has only been occurring since the fourth century. As a result, there are more variants than texts in the New Testament. In conclusion, while many variants do not represent substantial disagreements, some represent contradictions or profound changes. Scholars published several editions of the Greek New Testament, with many of these variants reworked into footnotes. The scholars evaluate the variants’ validity and usefulness, and Bible translators use their suggestions to create a basic text for their different translations based on different philosophies. Such philosophies include either a “formal-equivalence,” “literal,” or “word-forword” translation, or a “dynamic-equivalence,” “functional-equivalence,” or “thought-for-thought” translation. Regarding the first kind, the translator attempts to render each word of the target language into the source language, seeking to preserve the original syntax and sentence structure as much as possible in the translation. For example, a problem with any translation of the Old Testament is that there are some Hebrew words that no one can clearly state what they meant. Regarding the second translation philosophy, the translator attempts to produce the closest natural equivalent of the

208

Chapter 4

message expressed by the source-text language in the target language, both in meaning and style.455 Pentecostals need to realize the need for translations based on the discovery of the many manuscripts and acknowledge the work of the compilers and translators of newer translations. They must reject the conspiracy theories that determine many conservative fundamentalists’ choice of a Bible translation. Instead, they should learn to trust Bible Societies and reputable publishers and that the translations of the scholars they employ are faithful and reliable, and understand each translation’s translation philosophy (mostly found as an introduction to the translation), as well as understanding the unique challenges and shortcomings that challenge all translation philosophies.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics and Experience Another aspect forms a vital part of Pentecostal hermeneutics in dealing with subjectivist interpretation. It has already been referred to several times, and it is unnecessary to spend much time discussing it. Pentecostals who interpret texts use their charismatic experiences that they interpret in terms of the New Testament narratives as preunderstanding. An acknowledgment is necessary that Pentecostal scholars are not in unanimous agreement about the role experience should play in interpreting the Bible and eventually relating doctrinal issues to these experiences. For instance, Stephen Parker disagrees that experience should play such a significant role for most/many Pentecostals.456 On the other hand, most postmodern theologians disagree and leave ample space for experience in formulating theology.

455

“Introduction to the New Living Translation,” in The Spiritual Growth Bible, edited by Martin Manser and Mike Beaumont (Carol Stream, ILL: Tyndale, 2021), xv, based on the New Living Translation. 456 S. Parker, Led by The Spirit: Toward a Practical Theology of Pentecostal Discernment and Decision Making (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 21.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

209

The Pentecostal experience begins with the sine qua non of remorse and repentance, followed by the baptism of believers and the baptism in the Spirit, with or without glossolalia as an initial sign. These experiences that continue in some form in the believer’s life serve as hermeneutical presuppositions necessary to interpret the Bible to reflect the Pentecostal ethos. Pentecostals, as a rule, do not repeat one of the ecumenical credos of the universal Church, although they subscribe to it. Therefore, the credo does not play a prominent role. It is not necessary to know what the Church believes about God; rather, it is necessary to experience God first-hand in encounters with the divine Spirit. The danger is that experience can begin to determine the perception of truth and eventually be reflected in the Church’s praxis. For that reason, Pentecostals need to develop a methodology that places experience in the right place, among the other aspects that are important in Pentecostal hermeneutics, such as a valid exegetical practice and the condition of the faith community’s approval of interpretation before its teaching can be accepted by the Church. All experiences must constantly be validated and tested by the faith community against the Bible and the witness of the Spirit within the community.457 Moreover, the experience may never be exegeted as normative for Pentecostal teaching and practice.458

Conclusion In conclusion, in order to combat the challenges that subjectivity may represent, Pentecostal hermeneutics may never lose the emphasis on the faith community as the final arbiter in determining the meaning of a particular passage for the current situation in conjunction with the Spirit’s guidance. The biblical enterprise may never remain an exclusively individual enterprise. All biblical interpretation should be tested and validated by faith communities and tested by other communities to ensure that it presents God’s will. This is the final safeguard against the 457 458

Powers, “Your Daughters shall Prophesy.” Fee, “Hermeneutics and Historical Precedent,” 121-122.

210

Chapter 4

subjectivism that has characterized many interpretations of passages by Pentecostals. Pentecostal hermeneutics also emphasize that more is needed than to understand the passage. In many cases, there are realities behind them. The Spirit is the inspirator of the original author and the only one able to unlock these realities. The Spirit knows what the passage originally stated and how to apply it to the present situation. Scripture invites its readers to dwell in its many narratives consisting of personal testimonies of encounters with God and use these narratives to inform their own narratives and provide them with the necessary words to describe such encounters. The Bible does not deliberately attempt to adapt the words addressed to people living in another age to the current situation. Still, it allows contemporary readers to make sense of their own reality within the purview of the promised new heaven and Earth. The biblical text realizes its goal and purpose when it transforms, shapes, and forms the reader, permitting and empowering the reader to promote the interests and progress of God’s reign in the world. It becomes an instrument of sanctification and discipleship when the Spirit applies its principles to readers’ lives. The Bible’s inspiration does not imply that the Bible contains the last and final word on “truth.” However, believers find that the Bible becomes a guide to daily living when it animates their lives due to the anointing of the Spirit. The Bible should never be utilized by readers to justify own prejudices. It can also never be controlled, not even by a knowledgeable theological scholar who has studied its words for many years. The Bible should instead be the living word of God. Despite abstract exegesis, preaching remains an academic, rational, and intellectual exercise instead of a life-transforming

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

211

encounter and dialogue with the living God until the Spirit animates the Bible.459 Without this, theology remains a fruitless academic enterprise. In reading the Bible, laziness is punished by interpretations that are not valid and life-giving. The reading process of words that may become God’s living word requires the utmost attention and the application all available skills and resources. Reading the Bible can be compared to learning to paint, sculpt, or drive a vehicle.460 It requires learning some basic skills, acquiring basic knowledge (readily available in many resources), and applying some analytical procedures. However, one should combine one’s efforts with a prayerful expectation that the Spirit will reveal God. Pentecostal hermeneutics is demonstrated each time believers share testimonies of their charismatic encounters because it is couched in the language they learned in the New Testament. The purpose of testimonies is to glorify God and affirm that miracles still occur as in the earliest Church days. There are certain shortcomings in answer to how the supervision of hermeneutical practices by the local and transnational faith community occurs. It can only be addressed if regional and international alliances of Pentecostal communities cooperate to address the challenges that subjectivist interpretations of the Bible present.

Implications of an articulated Pentecostal hermeneutic for trinitarian theory An articulated Pentecostal hermeneutic does not view the Bible as the revelation of God. Instead, it leaves room for the Spirit. In the revelation of the Spirit, Pentecostals experience the divine presence. They acknowledge that the Spirit primarily uses the Bible in divine revelation. They use the Bible to evaluate all divine self-revelation because the Bible is their kanon,

459

See also remarks in Davies, “What Does it Mean to Read the Bible as a Pentecostal,” 229. 460 Pinnock, “The Work of the Spirit,” 248.

212

Chapter 4

norm, or standard to keep themselves on the right path. The Bible shows them the way to find God, and through this they find the ineffable God. Pentecostals do not find God in the Bible. Until the Spirit changes it into divine revelation, the Bible remains the work of human hands. Biblical authors are primary expositors of what God can and will do for humanity; they witness the divine revelation. However, more than their witness is needed. What is crucial for contemporary people is that the Spirit applies their witness to our widely different contexts. In relation to the traditional trinitarian perspective, Pentecostals use the Bible differently than most other believers. They start with their charismatic experiences of an ineffable God. They stammer when they attempt to verbalize their encounters because of the “holiness” of the Subject they met, holiness characterized by moral excellence and an absolute difference from anyone else they have ever experienced. For that reason, they do not make definitive propositional statements about God’s essence, because they have learned the expediency of stammering rather than speaking in self-confidence of their encounters with the divine. In contrast, they testify about their charismatic encounters that reflect biblical authors’ experience of the divine economy. The following two chapters apply their hermeneutic to the Church’s trinitarian views.

Concluding Remarks This chapter distinguished between Pentecostal Bible reading practices, identifying an unarticulated and uncritical way of reading chosen by the majority of believers and a more articulated and thoughtful academic exercise developed by some Pentecostal scholars that connects with other exegetical academic practices – although it does display some unique features. At present, articulated hermeneutics is practiced chiefly by Pentecostal scholars and is largely rejected by members whose conservative leanings feed their fundamentalist sentiments of reading the Bible in a literalist fashion. Standard exegetical practices include that the genre of a text should be determined, it should be explicated in terms of the genre, the

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

213

historical context should be used to determine what the author wanted to say as far as possible, and close attention should be given to the grammar of the text. Other aspects of an articulated Pentecostal hermeneutic were also discussed. This included contemporary hermeneutics’ connection with some of the vital aspects that characterized the Bible reading practices of early Pentecostals. The role that the Spirit, as the inspirer of Scriptures, plays in illuminating it to present-day readers was emphasized. The immediacy of the Bible and the Bible’s authority as a function of the Holy Spirit was also highlighted. The Bible is authoritative and normative, but not in terms of systematic propositions of an “eternal truth” about God; it becomes normative as the word of God that reveals the divine will, and authoritative when the Spirit applies it to the lives and situations of believers. At the same time, the faith community should remain the guardian of all interpretive results. Without denying that charismatic encounters form a preunderstanding for reading the Bible, the risks of subjectivism can only be addressed when the faith community accepts responsibility for ensuring that Gospel truths are ensconced. Pentecostal hermeneutics also imply that Pentecostals have developed a perspective on divine involvement in people’s lives. It is submitted that it also creates room to think again about the God revealed through the Spirit to present-day believers. The following two chapters attempt to apply it to God-talk in terms of the trinitarian theory. An unarticulated Pentecostal hermeneutic, it was argued, suffers from several significant shortcomings of particular concern within the study of hermeneutics. Firstly, if it does not recognize the hermeneutical distance or gap between the reader and the text that acknowledges the historical and cultural differences and the “otherness” of the cultural and social location of the text, confusion and invalid interpretations arise. Secondly, the literalistic tendency to apply the biblical text without recognizing the original message denies the uniqueness and immanence of the original divine message.

214

Chapter 4

Pentecostal (and all other) readers hold worldviews, values, and interests that differ from those of the biblical world, a pre-modern, pre-industrialized society, which influence their interpretation. It is indeed impossible not to be influenced by one’s own context, assumptions, and social, political, and geographical location. Still, when one imposes one’s own context onto the text uncritically, it will necessarily result in misunderstanding and potential misinterpretation of the text; the text is recreated into one’s own image and can easily serve to justify one’s own ideas (especially “pet” ideas), resulting in affective fallacy. To prevent a premature fusion of horizons and the collapse of interpretation into readers’ own narrative biography, one must meet the text on its own cultural and historical terms.461 Only then can the text serve as an independent authority, or challenge its readers with prophetic integrity. We can unsuspectingly re-create the text (and God) in our own image to justify our own ideas, concepts, and theology. However, Pentecostal readers can avoid this “affective fallacy” (whereby meaning lies in the effect of the work upon the reader) by reaffirming the historical-cultural distance between their own horizon and the horizon of the text, recognizing that the meaning the reader brings to the text may not be reminiscent of the cultural and historical assumptions attached to the words and symbols of the text. The book’s next endeavor is to explore alternative modes of God-talk in terms of articulated Pentecostal hermeneutics.

461

Grey, Three’s a Crowd, 145.

CHAPTER 5 GOD AND TRINITY Introduction Following the discussion in the previous chapter about unarticulated and articulated hermeneutics found among Pentecostals, this chapter takes the argument back to the doctrine of the Trinity. The first issue to be covered concerns human attempts at God-talk, a necessary conversation before taking up the challenge to rethink an alternative Pentecostal hermeneutical consideration of the doctrine. Any God-talk is qualified by the Subject that warns humans that they are talking about the God who is indefinable and indescribable, because God is incomprehensible to humans. The most important point is that all God-talk is restricted and limited by its subject, the unknowable God. The temptation in all God-talk is to state confidently what one thinks without duly considering the topic. It is submitted that we can only navigate our human inability to comprehend God by comparing the divine essence and energies. While it is true that God revealed (something of) the divine self to human beings, they can only speak of their encounter with God in the divine revelation. The revelation is limited to the relationship God strikes with human beings without revealing the divine essence. Not all agree that it is impossible to discuss the divine essence. One argument is that God cannot lie. This implies that the divine self-revelation in the economy is the God that exists in essence. It is correct. We know from God’s self-revelation about the divine love and care for human beings. However, it is not possible to fully answer how and where God exists and the essence of the divine. Created beings can never comprehend the subject of the essence of the Creator in full.

216

Chapter 5

God lives in a dimension unknown to human beings, referred to by biblical authors as “eternity,” characterized by holiness and glory (the terms are defined in the chapter), that human beings cannot enter. Only the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, can facilitate humans’ entry to the divine presence because the Spirit represents Jesus, the revelation of the love of God for human beings. Next, the different way Pentecostals talk about God in trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostalism is compared, before both views are contrasted to contemporary theories of the Trinity. Finally, in the last part, some of the implications of the traditional Pentecostal view of the Trinity are discussed. In this way, the stage is set for the final chapter, which suggests alternative courses of God-talk that Pentecostals may consider. An ecclesiastical history marked (and marred) the Church with many heresies and more minor schisms. The most significant split between the Western Church, led by Pope Leo IX, and the Eastern Church, led by the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, was finalized in 1053 CE. From the time of the Reformation (the sixteenth century), when the Western Church split in two, the Bible became available in a translated form for all people to read. This facilitated the circulation of several, differing Christian doctrines. Moreover, it contributed to further divisions within existing structures, due to each denomination’s insistence on their own teaching as the only one that is “orthodox.” This diversity of God-talk accelerated even more until, in postmodern times, one gets the idea that any God-talk is acceptable, since all God-talk by definition is determined by and betrays its subjectivist roots, acknowledged as valid by postmodernism.462 This chapter attempts to simplify God-talk to a certain extent, by providing case studies of a specific classical Pentecostal tradition’s ideas of the Trinity in contrast to an opposite Pentecostal perspective, of Oneness Pentecostalism, before discussing an example of current God-talk in non-theistic, albeit non-

462

To define or characterize “postmodernism” is difficult, with all researchers providing each their own definitions. It may not even be valid to speak of postmodernism as a universal philosophical trend at all, but rather of many diverse philosophical trends showing some similarity but each existing independently of one other.

God and Trinity

217

atheistic terms in the next chapter.463 The traditional classical Pentecostal God-talk is also contrasted with other forms of contemporary God-talk to offer perspectives on essential aspects of the debate. It includes the distinction between the essence and economy of God, the maleness of God, the divine relations as communion, and the implications for believers existing and functioning as the body of Christ on Earth. Other issues are the implications of the existence of God as a Trinity for Christian believers’ involvement with society and the interfaith challenge. It is the submission that Pentecostal consideration of God-talk will benefit from a more widespread cognizance of these issues. The last case study is concerned with the publications of a member of the Jesus Seminar, Robert Funk, that contrasts with both Trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostalism, illustrating an alternative mode of God-talk. Before considering the doctrine of the Trinity, it is necessary to emphasize again the improbability of developing a comprehensive epistemology of God’s character and actions in more detail. The subject came up throughout the discussion in this publication. The first part of the chapter is dedicated to this discussion. In the next chapter, it is a critical factor when considering alternative ways of God-talk that accommodate Pentecostal hermeneutics, and it will be referred to again in this context.

Distinction Between Divine Essence and Economy The determining factor in all God-talk is that the divine essence and energy should be distinguished from one another. “Divine essence” refers to what God is – in other words, a discussion of God’s way of existence, characteristics, and personality – while “divine energies” refers to what God does, or the manifestation of divine power. A distinction is required because biblical people’s encounters with the deity always happened in the divine revelation of salvation. Moreover, we meet God in our world in mediated 463

The debate about the Trinity has several other aspects, such as the question of the hierarchy of authority within the Trinity with at least two camps, those supporting the notion that the Son and Spirit are eternally submissive to the Father and the other arguing that the three persons share in the authority. These aspects are, however, not important for the current research and attention is rather given to other relevant aspects.

218

Chapter 5

form, whether through the voices of prophets like Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and modern-day prophets, the incarnation of Jesus, or the sense of God’s awareness through the Spirit’s presence in our lives. The implication is that it is only possible to talk confidently about God’s energy in the divine self-revelation to Israel, the incarnation of Christ, and through the Spirit to the Church. In contrast, the divine essence implies that the divine is essentially permanently unknowable and inaccessible because of two characteristics. Firstly, divine holiness refers to the divine moral excellence that unifies all divine attributes and is expressed through the divine actions, setting God apart from all others, implying the absolute divine otherness and apartness.464 Secondly, divine transcendence refers to the form the idea of holiness has assumed within theism, which means that God is separate and detached from and independent of nature and humanity.465 In sharing divine energies with human beings living in the Church, the Divinity is knowable only to the extent that God reveals the divine self through the Spirit. Many Protestants argue that having a relationship with God only requires knowledge of the Bible, supported by repentance and the Christian practices of prayer, Bible reading, good works, church attendance, etc.466 Such a view denies any present mystical or charismatic experiences of the presence of God, explained in terms of the several shades in which cessationism functions. Moreover, it shows a lack of understanding of historical theology and the significant role that experience and emotions have been playing in the monastic tradition in the Western Church, the Eastern Church with its ascetical practices, mystical theology, and apophatic theology long before

464

Martin H. Manser, “Holiness,” Dictionary of Bible Themes: The Accessible and Comprehensive Tool for Topical Studies (London: BookBaby, 2009), 1065. 465 W. Donald Hudson, “The Concept of Divine Transcendence” Religious Studies 15, no. 2 (Jun 1979), 197-210. 466 Mark F. Tobias, “Is it Possible to Experience God? The Draw of Eastern Orthodox Spirituality to Twenty-First Century Charismatics and Pentecostals. Written from a Pentecostal Perspective Examining the Church Fathers and the St. Gregory Palamas-Barlaam Controversy of the 14th century” (MA dissertation, Balamand University Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, 2012), 24.

God and Trinity

219

the Reformation,467 and the Protestant revival traditions of which classical Pentecostalism forms one product. In these traditions, as in Pentecostalism, the divine is not merely a philosophical idea or human invention; faith is based on the personal experience of charismatic encounters with the deity. The supposition is that the only way to know God is to encounter God through the Holy Spirit. Without denying the importance of rational reflection and intellectual endeavors in faith, Pentecostal experience is that personal, real, and lasting life transformation, also referred to as sanctification, only occurs in the context of the individual’s repetitive charismatic encounters with God.468 With “divine energies,” Pentecostals refer not only to past divine revelation recorded in the Bible, but also to present-day meetings with God that convince them of the essence of God. Such a distinction between divine essence and energies is vital to Pentecostal God-talk. It implies that they do not deduce their view of God exclusively from what the Bible depicts, but also (and perhaps mostly) from their encounters with God, for hermeneutical reasons. In fact, in interpreting the Bible, they utilize their own charismatic experiences to make sense of the narratives. The benefit of such a view is that it supports the observation that the Bible presents several distinct views of God. This view does not challenge the Pentecostal hermeneutic, since their own experiences convince them of any view’s subjectiveness and resultant limitedness. The distinction between the divine essence and divine energies can be attributed to the Cappadocian Fathers, a view that Maximus the Confessor (died 662 CE) and the theologians of the Sixth Ecumenical Council or Third Council of Constantinople of 680-1 CE also held. The Church councils in Constantinople of 1341, 1347, 1350, and 1368 CE refined this further.469 In referring to the divine essence, biblical authors introduced a few terms that must be defined carefully. They include the divine eternity, holiness, 467

The ascetic practices were also exercised by the Western Church, demonstrated in their monastic tradition. 468 It is in contrast to another Pentecostal tradition that views sanctification as a onetime experience, in continuation of one of the traditions of the holiness movement. 469 John Meyendorff, St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs Seminary, 1974), 128.

220

Chapter 5

and glory. These terms both reveal and hide the divine essence. The term is related to the theological (and philosophical) concept of “transcendence” discussed above.

Eternity of God The first term is “eternity,” used by biblical authors to refer to the dimension in which God exists. As uncreated God and Creator of the universe, the Divinity functions outside of creation to an extent that human beings cannot know or imagine. The divine dimension existed before the creation of the universe and will also succeed it when creation is to be renewed at the return of Jesus. It is argued that divine existence, related to divine glory and eternity, consists of a frame of reference that falls outside human experience, implying its inaccessibility as a means to comprehend divine essence. At times, “eternity” refers to time without end. An example of such a definition is that a bird would sharpen its beak at a large rock once in a million years, and by the time the stone had been eaten away by the bird’s mouth, eternity would hardly have begun. However, this dimension should instead be defined in terms of human incapacity to state anything about it. It more probably refers to a state in which “time” does not apply, a state consisting of other components than the space and time that define our reality. It is worth considering the dimension that the Bible states God exists within. Ecclesiastes (Qoheleth) 3 is concerned with God and time. The first verse states that there is a season for everything and a time for every matter under heaven. From verse 16, the discussion centers on the eventual judgment of the righteous and the wicked in the divinely appointed time. That humankind is subjected to time constraints implies that there is no difference between human beings and animals. Both die and then go to the same place, the dust (an expectation that holds no hope for a meaningful life after death and marks most of the Old Testament). The conclusion is that there is nothing better than the fact that all should enjoy their work (Qoh 3:16–22). In verses 9-15, the author observes what God has done in the world (especially in vv. 10–11), and then draws two conclusions, in verses 12–13

God and Trinity

221

and 14–15. The same phrase prefaces each of the two conclusions: “I know that…” Verse 9 observes that workers experience toil due to their tasks ordained and assigned to them by God (v. 10). Verse 11 then says, “He has made everything suitable for its time; moreover, he has put a sense of past and future into their minds, yet they cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.” The first conclusion to be drawn from these observations is that there is nothing better for them than to be happy and enjoy themselves as long as they live by eating, drinking, and taking pleasure in all their toil. It is God’s gift (vv. 12-13). The second is that whatever God does will endure forever. Nothing can be added or taken away from it. Therefore, the appropriate human response should be to stand in awe before God, remembering that what is, has already been, and what is to be is already here (vv. 14-15). In an article on wonder published in Psyche, Lisa Sideris, a professor of environmental studies at the University of California, explains that the experience of dispositional awe at the sight of nature or another phenomenon can unsettle the wonderer, because they experience that they view the world, and their place in it, differently.470 It can lower their tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty and have a destabilising impact that activates a retreat to certainty. Such people seek the relative security of a dogmatic faith in fundamentalist religion or scientism that negates any uncertainty. It helps to restore their sense of normality and control, and results in entrenchment. The same is true of when they stand in awe and wonder of a God greater and more powerful than anything they can imagine in terms of their present frame of reference; they need “handles” to put on God to make the divinity more comprehensible. This discussion is concerned with the phrase translated in verse 13 as “a sense of past and future into their minds” (as translated by the NRSV). The subject of the verse can only be God. A better translation of “suitable” would be that God made everything “beautiful,” representing a literal

470

https://psyche.co/ideas/to-benefit-from-wonder-make-sure-youve-got-thegenuine-kind?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=e95ce97411EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_10_13_01_33&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4 11a82e59d-e95ce97411-69232797; accessed 2022-10-14.

222

Chapter 5

translation of the Hebrew idiom. “Beautiful” refers elsewhere to a woman’s physical beauty (e.g., Songs 4:10 or 7:7): Even though a multitude of things are beautiful, many of these things are incomprehensible to human beings. The sentence starts with the verb “made,” implying the heavy emphasis on “all things” or “everything” in Hebrew. In their UBS Handbook, Graham Ogden and Lynell Zogbo suggest that it can be translated as “everything God has done …” or “all things God made…”471 Hence, the verse can be translated as: “Everything God has done is beautiful for its time. Moreover, God has put a sense of eternity into their minds. Yet still, they cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.” God put a sense of eternity (‘olam) in people’s minds. There is a disagreement between scholars about the term “eternity.” In the Old Testament, one does not find any clearly worked-out concept of time, and even less of eternity. Ancient Hebrews told their narratives in terms of sequences of events; one never sees any philosophical consideration of what time represents. They viewed the divine revelation within the historical realm that included themselves. What else could they have done? Their God was the one true God who controlled history, implying that a divine goal and purpose in the historical process exists. However, when they referred to God, they used another term; God is the “eternal” One. Does that imply the endless existence of God? It is important to note that the biblical authors’ concept of eternity contrasted with the other cultures of that time. Most of those cultures thought in cyclical terms, as illustrated by the idea that time should be interpreted through the analogy of a circle, with events continuing to manifest in an ever-recurring sequence. Consequently, these cultures define salvation as the means to escape from the vicious recurring cycle to experience the senselessness and hopelessness of timelessness. However, the Hebrew perspective of YHWH necessitated another concept of time. Jews defined salvation (or deliverance, always in terms of their own reality and world) within the encounters with the divine by the individual and Israel as a whole. In other words, they focused on the events and not on any circularity of such 471

Graham S. Ogden and Lynell Zogbo, A Handbook on Ecclesiastes, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1998), 103.

God and Trinity

223

events. Eventually, the idea grew among postexilic Jews that some form of historical consummation will eventually end in YHWH, resulting in the world’s termination in its current form. The concept of “eternity” grew out of expressions such as “from generation to generation” and “from age to age,” according to Walter Elwell and Barry Beitzel.472 Postexilic Jews needed a concept that allowed for an endless life span, because only the absolute, unconditioned, simultaneous, immutable, and succession-less God outlasts the creation of the existing order. Hence, many references to God designate the divine by the adjective “eternal.” Whether these terms refer to exactly the same meaning of the Hebrew word is a matter that requires its own discussion. However, the general idea is that God’s eternity is a parte ante and a parte post, preceding the beginning of creation and outlasting creation.473 Later, John 3:15-16 would promise such existence for believers. The author defines “eternal life” as life in fellowship with God (“this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” John 17:3). To give one example, Isaiah 57:14-19, in the context of hope for an Israel crushed by the exile, states that God will again rebuild the people. The author portrays YHWH as “the high and lofty one who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy” (v. 15). This God dwells in the high and holy place, as well as with those who are contrite and humble in spirit. The God of the past will always exist, while everything that was created will experience extinction.474 It is critical to recognize that the biblical concept of eternity is not used in opposition and contrast to time as timelessness but refers to “the unlimited and incalculable space of time.”475 God governs over time and eternity; YHWH is the Lord of all time. Eternity as timelessness, as discussed above, 472

Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Eternity,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1988), 725–726. 473 Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms (Belfast: Ambassador Emerald International, 2002), 157. 474 In terms of this concept of “eternity,” “always” refers to time and cannot be used to refer to God’s existence. 475 Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 2001), 450.

224

Chapter 5

was developed by later Christians within the framework of Greek metaphysics and then represented absolute divine otherness to time. For instance, Kant defined God as noumenal, an unknowable object of thought. However, such philosophical abstractions do not represent the biblical God’s transcendent otherness, whose self-revelation existed in the time and space of Israel’s life and the incarnation of Jesus.476 For that reason, the NRSV is correct in paraphrasing “eternity” as “a sense of past and future” (Qoh 3:11). A unique concept developed by the Qoheleth is that God has put “eternity” into the human mind. Scholars disagree as to how the concept should be translated. Some think in terms of “the sum of all time,” others define it in terms of space and not time. Qoheleth continues that people cannot discover what God does; some suggest the word should instead be translated as “toil” or “darkness.” However, the text makes sense by translating it as “eternity” and directly associating the concept with God. Qoheleth uses the same word in 1:4, 10; 2:16; 3:14; 9:6, and each time the setting explains that it refers to “eternity.” Therefore, the UBS Handbook posits that it should be seen that God has placed an “awareness of things eternal” into the human mind.477 The implication is that God put the potential in human beings to encounter, recognize, and know the Divinity. Different authors explain the problem when the term is to be translated into the languages of different cultural groups that use different concepts of “time.” For example, when people think of time as cyclical and non-linear, as many of the national groups surrounding Israel also did, the Hebrew notion that stretches into the future with its ever recurrence of the same events is meaningless. However, the Hebrew word ‘olam refers to another dimension, rather than time that never ends. The Handbook on Ecclesiastes, lastly, suggests that verse 11 should be translated as: “Everything God does, he does at the right time. He has planted the idea of eternity in people’s minds; yet they cannot take in (or, grasp) the full scope of God’s work,” or “God does everything at an 476

Sinclair B. Ferguson and J.I. Packer, New Dictionary of Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 688–689. 477 Ogden and Zogbo, A Handbook on Ecclesiastes, 103.

God and Trinity

225

appropriate time. He gives human beings an idea of eternity; yet despite this, we can never fully understand the extent of what God does.”478 John Calvin already defined this view. He refers in this regard to the sensus divinitatis, a God-given means of awareness of God’s existence.479 He used the term as a natural instinct inherent to human beings that consists of some sense of Deity.480 The sense of God is connected to the awe people experience when confronted with the natural world’s beauties. It supports the self-revelation of God in the Scriptures.481 It is purported that this sense in human beings relates to the biblical account that they are made in the image of God (Gen 1:26), and capacitates them to stand in a relationship with the Divinity. Rudolf Otto called the experience of the holy the “numinous,” while Longiman refers to it as the “sublime.” It is a sense of the mysterious not as a puzzle to resolve, but as something which induces an overwhelming impression of awe, wonder, reverence, and joy in us.482 Pentecostals’ charismatic experiences of their sense of awe for God imply a more satisfactory response to God, the theos, in non-verbal rather than verbal ways, requiring an alternative word to theology. E.J. Tinsley suggests that we should instead speak of theo-poetics, reminding us that one cannot know the truth (Truth) and express it in words. We can only incarnate or embody it; our theology becomes a means to embody our experience of theos rather than translate it into some prose paraphrase.483 For that reason, Jesus gives his disciples in the Sermon on the Mount a strange and seemingly impossible command: “Be…as your heavenly Father is” (Matt 5:48). In other words, act as God does, implying an affinity between God and human beings. Miroslav Volf suggests that it implies that

478

Ogden and Zogbo, A Handbook on Ecclesiastes, 103. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 1.3.1. 480 Calvin, Institutes, 1.3.1. 481 For that reason, when Calvin writes about the knowledge of God in his Institutes, the first part is concerned with God as Creator and the second with God as Redeemer. 482 Tinsley, “Introduction to the series,” 14. 483 Tinsley, “Introduction to the series,” 15. 479

226

Chapter 5

human beings share in the divine acts of gift-giving, creativity, reconciliation, and identity.484 How is it possible that human beings can, in principle, be like God when they cannot even comprehend who and what God is, as is submitted throughout this research? Suppose no human being can understand or know the character of God existing as three entities and dwelling in unapproachable light. How would believers then know at all that they represent God correctly in their thoughts, words, and behavior? The answer to this question is found in Qoheleth’s statement that God planted the ability in human beings to meet with God and know God. In the New Testament era, Spiritfilled believers live through the Spirit who works in their conscience and life to lead and guides them in the way that represents the Divinity. By looking attentively at the work of the Spirit in the Church’s life, believers can form an idea of God’s essence, what Volf refers to as the immanent Trinity, in contrast to the economic Trinity. They know God as love, grace, care, and empathy, as the One for whom others are so important that God was willing to give up the divine life itself to deliver them. The “others” include those rejected and marginalized by society. Although we cannot understand the fullness of the love and grace of God, we can deduce enough from the biblical revelation and the Spirit’s revelation in our hearts to form an idea of the character of the God we serve. Our claim about the economic Trinity allows us to venture tentatively into the territory of the immanent Trinity.485 Allowances must be made owing to the fact that human beings can know only a part of the character or essence of God, and that their knowledge may be skewed. God is so different from us that it is not possible to draw realistic inferences about the nature of God. Our guarantee that we speak at least

484

Miroslav Volf, “Being as God Is: Trinity and Generosity,” in God’s Life in Trinity, edited by Miroslav Volf and Michael Welker, 3-12 (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2006), 4. 485 Volf, “Being as God Is,” 4. I differ from Volf’s view. He limits the deduction of any knowledge of the immanent Trinity based on the self-revelation of God in Christ. Here the role and influence of the Spirit is also acknowledged that continues to reveal God in the personal circumstances of people in the contemporary world.

God and Trinity

227

about the living Creator God in realistic terms is the divine self-revelation found in the Bible, the incarnation of Jesus, and the work of the Spirit in our lives. We know enough about God to trust that our salvation is sure. In other words, the parallels between human and divine life cannot be exact or, in some respects, even close. Connecting with the Divinity with one-toone correspondence is impossible because human beings are manifestly not God. We connect to God as created beings and correspond to the uncreated God in appropriate, creaturely ways – although it is also true that our perceptions are marred by sin. While we are destined to become the image of God while living on Earth, we can, at most, only represent a dull reflection of divine love and grace, as Volf submits.486

Holiness of God Before coming back to the discussion about the distinction between the essence and economy of God, a second remark about God’s existence is required. Another term used to refer to God’s essence is holiness, loaded with religious associations. It is necessary to explain what biblical authors implied with this term because it is essential in distinguishing divine existence from human experience. It is vital to realize what they said because they explained that divine existence in eternity, holiness, and glory requires that we use a frame of reference that falls outside our experience, hence the impossibility of accessing or comprehending divine essence. Scholars of the Hebrew language disagree about holiness’ original meaning. It might be that the Semitic word goes back to an Assyrian root that denotes purity or clearness, referring to the idea of cutting off or separation. “To be holy” or “sanctify” is related to similar terms for “to divide, dedicate, put under the ban, and devote.” The antonym means “profane, desecrate,” with synonyms including “desecrate, betray, commit sacrilege, and desecration.”487 However, “holiness” can be, and is, employed in several other senses, and etymology cannot administer the final verdict. Initially, “holiness” 486

Volf, “Being as God is,” 5. David P. Wright, “Holiness: Old Testament,” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, edited by David N. Freedman, 237–249 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 239. 487

228

Chapter 5

expressed the ceremonial separation of a specific object from common everyday use dedicated exclusively to religious service. The word “taboo” explains this meaning. However, in the end, the Bible primarily uses the term not to refer to visible objects, but to the invisible YHWH and the places, seasons, things, and human beings associated with YHWH. It does not and should not imply that we deny the ethical associations of the term. Because YHWH is holy, all people and objects dedicated to service to the divine are required to be holy, implying that people are subjected to high moral claims.488 Association with God requires holiness as a positive cultic and moral condition. It may be an inherent condition or achieved through ritual means, and it is defined as that which is consistent with God and the divine character that any impurity may threaten. The Priestly writings of the Pentateuch shed the most light on the term.489 In referring to the holiness of God, the Priest refers to divine separation from all that is human and Earthly. God exists apart from the world humans inhabit; God as the creator created the human world and the reality of human life. The divine essence consists of absoluteness, majesty, and awfulness that humanity cannot comprehend. Therefore, the impression is created that they would not be able to survive if they found themselves in the direct divine presence. The idea is found also in the next term discussed, the divine glory that excludes humans from the divine presence. People need to be shielded from direct exposure to the Divinity because God’s holiness and glory would devour and destroy them immediately. One example is found in Isaiah’s response (6:5) to seeing God: “Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!” Holiness is, however, also associated with a distinct ethical sense ascribed to God, as stated above. Divine holiness requires human beings to be holy like God when entering the divine presence (Lev 11:44; 19:2). Although no human being can resemble the divine attributes because they are incommunicable, the moral qualities of true and proper holiness can reflect 488

J.C. Lambert, “Holiness,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1939), 1403. 489 Wright, “Holiness: Old Testament,” 237–249.

God and Trinity

229

some divine sense. YHWH expects believers to be righteous, just, and loving; their righteousness and love mirror divine holiness. As a result, their battle against sin, as identified by their conscience (Isa 6:3, 5), follows as a condition and requirement of any encounter with the holy God. One also finds that the Old Testament refers to objects used in ceremonial rituals related to the tabernacle and temple. Whatever relates to and is used in the service of the holy God is itself holy. It is not holy in itself; it becomes (and remains) holy when dedicated to the temple service. The presence of the divine sanctifies it. Therefore, it is excluded from secular use and may not be taken from the temple property. The place dedicated to the divine presence is also holy ground (Ex 3:5), excluding most people from its presence. The Sabbath is holy and should also be kept holy, giving rise to a plethora of regulations in the Torah, because it is devoted to YHWH (Ex 20:8–11). Some human beings, like priests and Levites, became holy because they were dedicated to divine service, in the same sense as the inanimate ritual objects. Nazirites were holy because they had devoted their life to YHWH and separated themselves from the rest of the world (Num 6:5). And the people of Israel were holy, not because their morality or behavior supported it but because YHWH had chosen and sanctified them for divine service, implying that they were separated from all other people (Ex 19:6; Lev 20:24). In Christ, Christians believe they are filled with the Spirit, and an integral element of the Spirit’s work in their lives is to sanctify and empower them for their service to God. They become holy or are in the process of becoming so. They dedicate and devote their lives to divine service, which changes them into saints or holy ones. Not all saints realize the high ethical requirements that the name implies, but their sanctification consists primarily of the Spirit living in them and leading them.490 And they may still enter the divine presence even though they may be persisting in sin, requiring continuous forgiveness, because of the righteousness bought by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, as traditional theology teaches.

490

Lambert, “Holiness,” 1404.

230

Chapter 5

Glory of God The third concept biblical authors relate to the divine essence is the divine glory that characterizes God’s presence. It refers to the brightness or splendor human beings experience when confronted with the divine presence in theophanies. Divine glory requires them to praise, honor, and respect God by bowing in awe and worship before the Divinity. Worship implies that one literally presses one’s forehead in the dust. For instance, in their visions, the divine glory frequently appears to Ezekiel (10:4; 28:22; 43:2–5), Proto-Isaiah (4:5), and Trito-Isaiah (60:1–2). The biblical description most often explains that humans’ response to the revelation of divine glory was that they feared for their lives and worshiped God (Pss 22:23; 29:2; 86:9; Isa 66:5). Besides the revelation of the divine in theophanies to individuals, “glory” also serves as a virtual synonym for God’s presence or being. For instance, God’s glory appeared to Israel like a cloud and fire (Ex 16:10; 24:16–17). The divine glory is also associated with the tabernacle and temple (Ex 40:34; Num 20:6; Pss 24:7–10; 78:60–61).491 The three Hebrew words translated as “glory” refer to different concepts. It can mean “to be heavy, weighty, burdensome” (Isa. 22:24); serve as an aesthetic description of splendor (Ps. 90:16); or refer to divine sovereignty over all humanity and the world (Ps. 148:13; Hab. 3:3), often translated as “honor.” However, the primary connotation of the term is a light so sharp that no human can look at it. The light, at times, represents fire. For instance, the glory of the presence of God in Israel’s midst in the wilderness is described in terms of a pillar of cloud and fire.492 The Greek translation of the Old Testament uses only one term for “glory.” God’s tabernacling presence amidst Israel consists of brightness or splendor in theophanies, unifying “glory” with its manifestations and giving the word clear theological prominence by covering the greatness and majesty of God. Sometimes, the New Testament uses the same word but with the classical 491

Joanna Dewey, “Glory,” The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 2011), 331–332. 492 Elwell and Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, 534–535.

God and Trinity

231

Greek meaning of “reputation” (cf. Luke 14:10). At other times, New Testament authors follow the Septuagint in unifying glory with all its attendant manifestations.493 According to the Johannine author, Jesus’ incarnation revealed divine glory (John 1:14). The idea is that Jesus became the new tabernacle for the divine abiding glory. In these terms, Jesus’ understanding of himself led to his criticism of the temple and temple authorities, eventually leading to his eventual prosecution and condemnation. Jesus is called “a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel” (Lk 2:30–32). The disciples saw Jesus’ glory at the mount of transfiguration (Mt 17:1–8) and his resurrection and ascension (Jn 17:5; Phil 2:5–11). Pauline literature describes post-resurrection Jesus with a new and glorious body (1 Cor 15:39–43; Phil 3:21). The author of the passage was previously blinded by this body’s splendor (glory) (Acts 9:3). Christ will return in glory, sitting in glory on the judgment throne (Mt 25:31). Divine glory will then fill the renewed earth (Ps 72:19; Is 6:3; Hb 2:14), illustrated by the image of heaven descending to the planet, needing no external light because God’s glory would serve as its bright light.494 The most common use of the word “glory” in the New Testament describes the brilliance persons manifest when they share in the heavenly glory. So, the angel’s glory reflecting the divine presence and brightening the earth with divine splendor (Rev 18:1) shone about the shepherds when the angel appeared unto them (Lk 2:9). Likewise, Paul refers to the same glory that characterized the face of Moses after spending considerable time in the presence of God, who relayed the Torah to him (2 Cor 3:7-11). As in the case of Moses, the source of this glory is God, who is the God of glory (e.g., in Acts 7:2).495

493

Allen C. Myers, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 420. 494 Elwell and Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, 535. 495 Walter R. Betteridge, “Glory,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Chicago, Ill: Howard-Severance, 1915), 1235.

Chapter 5

232

The glory of God consists partly of the Divinity serving the good of people. God does not give gifts to people in order to get anything other than the delight of God’s creatures, because God does not need anything. To be God implies, in essence, to be lacking nothing. “God gives without self-seeking and for the benefit of others. That kind of giving is at the heart of who God is.”496 Believers who wish to convey something of God’s glory as a means to honor the Divinity with their lives also give for the benefit of others. In other words, they actively promote others’ interests. They renounce gain for themselves and bestow it on others. They do this by utilizing their reconciliatory, nonviolent, and benevolent mission in which the Spirit guides them.497 Believers do not see themselves as more remarkable than those who receive because they also receive from others. However, that does not apply to God because no equality exists between God and human beings. God gives so that the relation between God and humans can be brought to greater parity. When God gives to us, categorical inequality exists; yet we become God’s equal in other regards.498 We enter the presence of God.

Concluding remarks This elaborate discussion of divine eternity, holiness, and glory was required to portray the otherness that characterizes the Divinity and illustrate the divine existence’s uniqueness. God exists in a dimension that human imagination cannot ground; biblical authors refer to it as “eternity.” God’s eternal presence is marked by holiness, describing the phenomena human beings encounter when they enter the divine presence that compels them to bow in awe and worship God. And divine glory refers to the effects people face when they encounter the divine revelation. The conclusion is

496

Volf, “Being as God Is,” 5.

497 Philip J. Rosato, “Spirit-Christology as Access to Trinitarian Theology,” In God’s

Life in Trinity, edited by Miroslav Volf and Michael Welker (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2006), 176. 498 Volf, “Being as God Is,” 11.

God and Trinity

233

that although it is possible to say something about human experiences with God in history, explaining the divine essence is impossible. To explain the divine essence would be like searching for life on an extrasolar planet, in that it probably would not exist in any way that is understandable for human beings. They are limited to their understanding of life as defined by the reality of their known world. Even in self-revelation, the divine essence always remains unknowable. Therefore, the divine essence had to be emptied of the divine self (kenosis). The idea of Godemptying comes from Philippians 2:5-8, which states that even though Jesus was in the form of God, he did not explore or capitalize on that equality but emptied himself of (a part of) his divinity to become an enslaved person born in human likeness. He further humbled himself to sacrifice his life on the cross. In Greek and theological discourse, the word is kenosis; it refers to the “self-emptying” of Jesus’ own will. He dedicated his life to realizing the divine goal by coming to the earth and dying on the cross. Kenosis is based on the Greek term that means “to make yourself nothing or empty yourself.” God did the same when Jesus died on the cross in a significant sense. God emptied the divine self of empathy with the suffering of the Son for the sake of humanity’s benefit. In commenting on this concept of kenosis, Thomas McCall argues that it reflects the Trinitarian doctrine par excellence.499 Paul refers to what C.F.D. Moule called the “great monotheistic passage” in Isaiah 45:23, “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” He argues that language reserved strictly for God the author now applies to Jesus, although he agrees that Jesus is distinct from his “Father.” In other words, he includes Jesus in the identity of YHWH. N.T. Wright agrees and writes that “it should be clear that Paul remained a monotheist, and never sold out this position to any sort of Hellenistic ditheism or polytheism…if Jesus is not one-for-one identical with the Father, and if Paul is still a monotheist, then the assertions of 2:9-11 must mean that Jesus — or, more accurately, the one who became

499

McCall, Which Trinity?, 62.

234

Chapter 5

Jesus — must have been from all eternity ‘equal with God’ in the sense of being himself fully divine.”500 In Jesus’ conversation with Thomas, according to John 14:8-11, Jesus responds to Philip’s request to show them the Father. Jesus explains that whoever has seen him has also seen the Father. He is in the Father, and the Father is in him. If the disciples find it difficult to believe Jesus when he claims to be in the Father, they should look at his works, presumably convincing them of the close relationship between the Father and Son. Even Jesus’ words are not his own but come from the Father. He identifies with the Father to such an extent that his words create the impression that they are identical. Jesus’ authority also originates from the Father because the divine is one undivided will (John 5:30; 7:16; 8:28). The divine had to become incarnate to unlock the image of the invisible God and become knowable to humanity (Col 1:15). The divine had to be emptied of a part of divine essence for humans to see something of God’s essence. In a view related to the above, John Meyendorf explains the Eastern Church’s view that God did not absolutely identify with the act of incarnation.501 The divine remained above the embodiment processes but communicated the divine to Jesus. However, that is not true for humans. The human creature can never possess God, who always remains the only one who can take the initiative and act. He concludes that to know the divine essence would be the same as to possess God. In the incarnation, Gregory Palamas, a fourteenth-century Greek theologian and cleric of Eastern Orthodoxy that lived in the late Byzantine period, saw Jesus as a complete revelation that established a close union between the divine and human, illustrating humanity’s inability to explain the divine essence.502 Limiting the divine act of revelation in the incarnation to the 500

N.T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 94. 501 Meyendorff, St. Gregory Palamas, 119. 502 G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware (translators), The Philokalia, Volume 4: The Complete Text; Compiled by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth (London: Faber & Faber, 1999), Vol. 4, 380.

God and Trinity

235

energies of the deity protects the essence of God that no human being except Christ can comprehend. What humans need to know about God is the way of salvation. God had clearly revealed in the divine revelation. However, to form conclusions about the divine essence based on the different views of biblical authors about the divine revelation is to misuse the Bible. It was stated above that the Bible does not represent scientific or historical treatises about the world, the history of Israel, and the early Church. Instead, its purpose is to explain salvation’s history. It subjects its historical accounts to this purpose, to illustrate salvation in terms of how humanity can rectify their relationship with God, which was broken by humanity’s propensity to sin. Salvation requires human participation in the divine energies and grace of God. That is the only way to lasting life transformation, changing the human image back to its original form, the image of God (Gen 1:26) in which God breathed the divine spirit (Gen 2:7). Spirit-filled believers experience God’s work in them through the Spirit, leading to knowledge about God’s revelation to a human being. However, this does not imply that anybody can know God in the divine essence. Palamas correctly asserts that it is impossible to participate in what he calls the “superessential Essence of God.”503 For that reason, something exists between divine essence that cannot be participated in and the experience of people who encounter God. The essence one cannot know from the energies. However, we can know from the energies that the essence exists, though we do not know how, or what it truly is.504 The energies refer to what we experience in our charismatic encounters with God. Because the human does not surpass all fullness of being, God makes the divine self present to human beings in selfrevealing manifestations and creative and providential energies. Therefore, encounters with God imply participation in the life of God.505 As a result, we can know God because God in divine essence decided to reveal the

503

In Palmer, Sherrard, and Ware, Philokalia, Vol. 4, 380. Palmer, Sherrard, and Ware, Philokalia, Vol. 4, 412. 505 Gregory Palamas, The Triads, edited by John Meyendorff (London: SPCK, 1983), 2:24, 687. 504

236

Chapter 5

divine self, allowing humans to be united to the divine self and share in divine energies.506 From the discussion above, one can conclude that Eastern theology and spirituality correspond in various ways to modern Pentecostals’ interest in and desire for spiritual encounters. Although the Eastern Church did not influence Pentecostalism directly, it is submitted that Pentecostals are the heirs of an ancient tradition going back to the earliest period of ecclesiastical history. Eastern mysticism represents a spirituality that connects with Pentecostalism in various ways, because it is linked to the same tradition. Pentecostalism’s validation can be motivated by the practices and theology of the early believers, the Eastern fathers, and some Western traditions found in the early phases of monasticism. A vital element in the practice of their spirituality is the necessity of repeated encounters with God and links with the early Church.507

Traditional Classical Pentecostal God-talk The first part of the chapter discussed the distinction between the divine essence and energies. It concluded that divine self-revelation relates to the divine energies without disclosing all the secrets of the divine essence that remain unknowable to human beings living in another dimension with a different framework of speech and rational abilities. The following section compares the traditional God-talk of trinitarian Pentecostals and Oneness Pentecostals before attending to the current God-talk of the twenty-first century. This brings us to the next chapter, which discusses alternative ways of God-talk from a Pentecostal hermeneutical perspective. It is not easy to give an overview of traditional Pentecostal teaching about the Trinity since Pentecostals did not readily write down their theology. Since the 1950s, when theological colleges, and later theological seminaries, arose, the need to provide lecture material for students requiring more formal academic treatises also presented itself. In many cases, at least initially, lecturers primarily utilized the textbooks of conservative Evangelical 506 507

Tobias, “Is it Possible to Experience God?,” 29. Tobias, “Is it Possible to Experience God?,” 31.

God and Trinity

237

scholars and adjusted them where necessary to emphasize the particular Pentecostal emphases. Their theology, in many instances, also betrayed the lecturers’ own training at formal theological faculties related to Protestant, specifically Reformed theological traditions. To illustrate this, the publications of a well-known South African Pentecostal church leader and early theologian of the movement serve as a case study to present an overview of traditional Pentecostal teaching about the Trinity. Dr. F.P. Möller served in the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa (AFM of SA) as missions superintendent and then as principal of its theological college. He became a member and general secretary of the Church’s Executive Council until he was elected as its president in 1966. The AFM of SA is the largest classical Pentecostal denomination in South Africa, with 1.2 million members.508 Additionally, AFM International is represented in Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America.509 Möller was the church leader until 1988, four years before South Africa became a democracy. He spent his retirement years compiling his publications and writing a series of dogmatic works representing Pentecostal theology.510 He was the first AFM pastor to earn a doctorate (eventually, he made three doctorates) in the Pentecostal anti-intellectualist climate of his day. He also served as principal of the AFM Theological College for many years, first at the Church’s headquarters until it moved to new buildings in Auckland Park, Johannesburg. His discussion of the Trinity begins with the assertion that he derives his concept of God from the divine self-revelation contained in the Bible.511 He 508

See Burger, Isak and Marius Nel. The Fire Falls in Africa: A History of the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa, Centennial Edition 1908-2008 (Vereeniging: Christian Art, 2008). 509 https://afm-ags.org/about-us/afm-international/; accessed 2021-12-01. 510 The most important is the series of seven publications called Words of Light and Life, respectively discussing God, Christ, sin and salvation, the kingdom of God and the Church, creation and spiritual beings, the Holy Spirit, and eschatology. This discussion is mostly limited to the first volume. These books are based on Möller’s dogmatics lectures, given at the white division’s theological college based in Auckland Park, Johannesburg. 511 Francois P. Möller, Understanding the Greatest Truths, Words of Light and Life, I (Pretoria: JL Van Schaik, 1998), 97.

238

Chapter 5

states that the Bible reveals God to Israel through the concept of the Trinity. However, he acknowledges that the better part of the Hebrew Bible denies the polytheism that the surrounding nations accepted. Placing God next to other gods would be blasphemous because YHWH exists wholly apart. Möller does not refer to whether the Old Testament views the gods of the surrounding nations as real entities, with most biblical authors presumably accepting it. They subscribed to the theological perspective that gods existed as territorial powers that exercised the right to reign over that area and people. In stating that YHWH is one (Deut 6:4), the Deuteronomist historian did not deny the existence of other gods. Möller finds references to the Trinity in the Old Testament in the use of the plural in Genesis 1:26, references to identifications of the angel (or messenger) of YHWH (malak YHWH) with YHWH (Gen 16:9; Ex 3:2-10), and the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 confirmed to be Jesus in the New Testament (1 Pet 2:21-25), and the angel of his presence (Isa 63:19). He interprets references that God created the universe and life through the Word and Spirit (Job 33:4; Ps 33:6) by stating that the Word refers to Jesus (John 1), implying the existence of the Father, Son, and Spirit. He also refers to Karl Barth’s remark that in Isaiah 61, one finds the mentioning of the Lord JHWH, the anointed and the Spirit of the Lord, referring to the existence of the Trinity.512 Möller argues that God’s creation of human persons in the divine image (Gen 1:28) required God to have been a person.513 He reasons that being a person implies being in relation to others and yet distinct from them. If the human being is a being-in-relation who reflects God, it is necessary to understand God in terms of the relationship between the Father, Son, and Spirit. His argument presents a logical difficulty because he limits personhood to and holds that the distinctive feature of personhood is to be in relation to others. The question arises why the Divinity must necessarily be limited to be of the same essence as human beings. The notion of human beings as created in the image of God does not imply that they are the same 512

The reference is presumably to Barth, Church Dogmatics, I/1, 313; Möller does not provide it. 513 Möller, Understanding the Greatest Truths, I/102.

God and Trinity

239

as God. The metaphor of imago Dei can refer to several aspects of human existence, and scholars disagree about the exact meaning. The same is true of his argument that the Church’s existence as people in specific relation to each other necessitates that Christ is a person who stands in relation to the divine equals of the Father and Spirit. He presumes that the Church literally reflects Christ, portraying the Trinity’s relations. A better argument to explain the necessity of Jesus being a human person is that he serves as mediation between God and humans, representing humanity and restoring their relationship destroyed by the introduction to sin. The study later returns to the question of the logicality of the redemption price the Son of God paid. Möller emphasizes that the Old Testament had already revealed God as a heavenly Father who takes care of the elected people. Later, Jesus would refer to God as “Father” and teach his disciples to do the same in their prayers, reflecting a widespread custom among those of the Jewish faith. He accepts that the concepts are filled with the meaning humans attach to them. Möller then states that God’s fatherhood (paternitas) exists in being the father of Christ and, through Christ, of all believers.514 However, he does not explain the implications and associations of (patriarchal) fatherhood for Israel. As the Son, Jesus shows people the face of God (John 14:9-10). He is first and foremost the Son of God, as a Roman soldier confessed at the end of Jesus’ earthly life (Mark 15:39). Jesus exists as the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15). He lived in the form of God before the incarnation (Phil 2:5-11), and he is revealed as Immanuel, “God with us” (Matt 1:23). As the Word, he is with God, and he is God (John 1:1). He is also the Mediator between God and human beings (1 Tim 2:5). With sonship (filiation), the New Testament emphasizes the relationship between Father and the Son that characterized Jesus’ life. Möller argues that the Bible introduces the Holy Spirit as the divine self, and not merely as a power or influence. The distinction between the Spirit

514

Möller, Understanding the Greatest Truths, I/98.

240

Chapter 5

on the one hand and the Father and Son on the other is in the different relations the Spirit has with the Father and Son. The Spirit is called the Spirit of God (Gen 1:2), YHWH (1 Sam 10:6; Isa 61:1), and the Spirit promised by the Father (Acts 1:4; 2:33). That God fills believers with the Spirit implies for Möller that the Spirit “must indeed be divine, but not the same as God the Father or God the Son.” He does not explain the logical inconsistency of the argument that in giving the Spirit of God to human beings, the Spirit of God is not the same as God the Father or God the Son, given the human impression that one’s spirit and oneself are identical. It leaves room for believers to visualize the Divinity in terms of three different persons, implying that they end with tritheistic beliefs. Concerning the Son, the Spirit effected Christ’s birth (Luke 1:35), descended upon Jesus at his baptism (Matt 3:16), led him into the desert to be tempted (Matt 4:1), and resurrected Jesus from the dead (Rom 8:11; 1 Pet 3:18). The Spirit became the paraclete when Jesus departed, filling his role among believers (John 14:16-17). With humankind, the Spirit facilitates the rebirth of new believers (John 3:5-8), baptizing them into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13), fills believers with the divine presence (Acts 2:4), and equips and empowers believers with spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12:1-11). The Spirit prays in and alongside believers (Rom 8:26-27), convinces human beings of sin and the coming judgment (John 16:7-8), reminds believers of Christ’s words (John 14:26), effects sanctification (Gal 5:16-22), and assures them of eternal life as their heritage (Rom 8:11, 14, 17). The implication is that the Spirithood (spiratio) attests to the Father and the Son. Therefore, the Spirit is called the Spirit of both the Father and Son. The Spirit affords “expression to the unity between the Father and the Son.”515 The Spirit facilitates the relationship between human beings and the divine and effects unity between believers. Möller describes the expression “Trinity” as a human conceptual reaction to the divine self-revelation in the Bible.516 He states that believers attempting to express the divine in conceptual terms are forced to acknowledge the unity of God and the divergence of the Father, Son, and 515 516

Möller, Understanding the Greatest Truths, I/99. Möller, Understanding the Greatest Truths, I/100.

God and Trinity

241

Spirit, requiring the concept of the Trinity. However, the concept cannot be anything but a human conceptual reaction. Therefore, it is impossible to theologize any further about the concept of the Trinity. The reason is that the concept represents the human attempt to express the inexpressible, an indication of a barrier that is impossible for human intelligence or imagination to cross. In attempting to make sense of the divine selfrevelation in the Bible, human thinking cannot progress further than emphasizing that unity and Trinity exist within the Divinity. It is not possible to exegete God any further. Möller’s view of the essence of God is explored later in the chapter. In explaining his concept of the Trinity, Möller does not accept what he calls “various aberrant schools of thought.”517 He does not accept the indication of God with the numerical number of one that forms the basis for Jewish monotheism; he emphasizes that the significance of the revelation of God cannot be found in a number but only in divine uniqueness. He is supported by the argument of Thomas McCall, who also argues that monotheism is not centered on numerical oneness, implying that it is certainly not obvious that monotheism dictates that there is at most one divine person.518 He relies on the opinion of the contemporary Jewish theologian, Pinchas Lapide. He notes that monotheism is not primarily concerned with integers or questions about how many Divinity tropes exist. Instead, it centers on exclusive allegiance to the only Creator and Ruler. Lapide writes, “The Oneness of God, which could be called Israel’s only ‘dogma,’ is neither a mathematical nor a quantitative oneness…the difference between gods and the One God is indeed not some kind of difference in number — a more miserable understanding there could hardly be — but rather a difference in essence. It concerns a definition not of reckoning but of inner content; we are concerned not with arithmetic but rather with the heart of religion, for ‘one’ is not so much a quantitative concept as a qualitative one.”519 McCall argues

517

Möller, Understanding the Greatest Truths, I/101. McCall, Which Trinity?, 60-61. 519 Pinchas Lapide, Jewish Monotheism and Christian Trinitarian Doctrine: A Dialogue by Pinchas Lapide and Jürgen Moltmann (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1981), 29-31. 518

242

Chapter 5

that this is why early Christians could include Jesus in this unique divine identity while also distinguishing the one God from all else.520 He also denies unitarian ideas such as traditional Arianism, which views the godhead of the Son and Spirit as distinct from the Father. Instead, Arius’ definition of God’s essence is that there is one God, and He alone is everlasting and unbegotten. The Cappadocian fathers, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil of Caesarea, responded by affirming the oneness (homo-ousios) between Father and Son. The oneness was later extended to include the Spirit. Möller denies that his theology is tritheist or that it accepts three separate gods. The Father, Son, and Spirit exist in and through one another, independent but with close relations to each other. One can know the Father only through the Son who reveals the divine, in his opinion. One can only know the Son as the one who exists in the bosom of the Father and does and says what the Father commands him. The Spirit is also not of the Spirit self and for the Spirit self.521 He goes out from the Father and Son (accepting the filioque phrase that separated the Eastern and Western churches when it was added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed) and realizes the divine power and presence. At the same time, the Father is truly the Father, and the same is true for the Son and Spirit. They are not synonymous. Möller also rejects the modalism propounded by Sabellius (third century CE), that God extends the divine self in the form of the Father, and later in the form of the Son, and then in the form of the Spirit. After each protraction, God retracts into the divine again. Sabellius argued that God is and cannot be simultaneously Father, Son, and Spirit. Instead, the divine exists in succession or sequence of Father, Son, and Spirit. The three different entities are an apparition, a mode of existence, or a mask (prosopon) of the divine. Möller also rejects the dispensationalist views, popular with many of his tradition, that state that God the Father worked first of all, and after that the Son, and lastly the Spirit. He quotes with consent Augustine, who said that 520 521

McCall, Which Trinity?, 61. Möller prefers the male terms for God and it is used here in his references.

God and Trinity

243

the works of the Trinity externally are undivided (opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt). The works of the Spirit and the Son are also the works of God. Lastly, Möller rejects Augustine’s notion that the Spirit is but the love which unites the Father and the Son.522 To limit the divine in such a way, he argues, is to violate the Bible’s information and the divine's unknowability. Instead, it attempts to construct speculatively what can be concluded logically about the essence of the divine. Möller’s use of biblical proof-texting characterizes his theology. He demonstrates traditional unarticulated Pentecostal hermeneutics by merely systematizing what the Bible states about the issue in different places. He places the statements next to one another and does not explain the relationship between the different biblical expressions or where they clash with each other. He subscribes to a hermeneutic that accepts that every word in the Bible is divinely inspired and breathed by God, implying that the truth of each statement is guaranteed as a presupposition. Such a frame of mind refrains one from discounting the differences in sentiment and meaning between biblical texts and authors. It is only necessary to provide an overview of all textual references to enable the reader to see the whole truth. Another characteristic of the hermeneutic is that it does not refer to the diversity of historical contexts that the different texts represented and that codetermined their meaning along with the author’s purpose in writing the text.

Pentecostal Alternatives: Finished Work and Oneness Pentecostalism Another trinitarian tradition originated shortly after the movement’s arrival on the American religious scene. Oneness Pentecostalism resulted from a schism in 1916 within the newly established Assemblies of God (AG), founded in 1914. It was referred to as the “New Issue.” Amos Yong and Jonathan Anderson typify the “New Issue” in terms of several issues. Firstly, an affirmation of biblical monotheism based on a high Christology. 522

Möller, Understanding the Greatest Truths, I/102.

244

Chapter 5

Secondly, Christian initiation as baptism in Jesus’ name, the “one” name of the Father, Son, and Spirit (Matt 28:19 notes the singular, “name”). Lastly, the apostolic precedent in which Christian regeneration climaxes with the reception of the Spirit, as evidenced by speaking in tongues.523 Most early Pentecostals accepted the teaching from their predecessors in the holiness movement that sanctification was a second definite experience that cleansed the believer immediately from all “inbred sin,” eradicating the sinful nature (“finished work”). The earliest Pentecostal leaders like Charles Parham and William Seymour taught that there were three definite works of grace or experience: the new birth, sanctification, and the “baptism of fire.” The “baptism with fire” referred to the experience of early Christians on the day of Pentecost, described in Acts 2:4. Sanctification was held as the “second blessing.” It cleansed the receiver of sin as a condition and enablement to receive the Spirit. To be filled with the Spirit required the believer to be entirely sanctified. The Spirit will never fill an unclean sinner with the fullness of God. This was also the teaching of the Fire-Baptized Holiness group of Benjamin Hardin Irwin and Benjamin Wesley Young, founded in 1896.524 They were Wesleyan Methodists. Like Irwin and Young, many of the early church leaders (later called pastors) were African Americans. They emphasized the need for racial equality, supplying the early movement with a prophetic voice. The “finished work” debate in the AG diverged into two separate streams, one classically trinitarian and the other not. In time, people from groups that were not a part of the holiness movement, like the Baptist Church, also joined the Pentecostal movement. They did not accept the Wesleyan “second blessing” that led to the experience of being sanctified in a moment. For them, sanctification represents a continuous and progressive lifelong process. They did not know anything about holiness as an instantaneous 523

Amos Yong and Jonathan A. Anderson, Renewing Christian Theology: Systematics for a Global Christianity (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014), 298-299. 524 https://www.apostolicarchives.com/articles/article/8801925/173917.htm; accessed 2021-12-02.

God and Trinity

245

process with lasting, lifelong effects. It led to the challenge that Christocentric emphasis in early Pentecostals’ theological thinking consisted of two forms of the Full Gospel they preached. The fourfold Full Gospel consists of Jesus as savior, healer, Spirit baptizer, and coming King, while the fivefold version adds “sanctifier.” William Durham, a Pentecostal leader in Chicago, participated in the Finished Work Controversy. He enthusiastically accepted the teaching of Spirit baptism after experiencing it first at Azusa Street, and it changed his ministry in Chicago drastically. His influence on fellow Pentecostals increased, and many leaders read his monthly periodical, The Pentecostal Testimony. Previously, Durham, a holiness preacher, taught the second work of grace theory. However, since his experience of Spirit baptism, he rejected it in favor of the continuous and progressive view of holiness. The Finished Work Controversy eventually split the Pentecostal movement into Wesleyan and non-Wesleyan doctrinal orientations, known as Holiness Pentecostals and Finished Work Pentecostals. At a Pentecostal convention in Chicago in 1910, Durham preached on “The Finished Work of Calvary.” He referred to the relation between the three crisis experiences of conversion, sanctification, and the Spirit baptism. He taught that the blessing of sanctification as a second definite work of grace should be rejected as unbiblical in favor of a finished work of sanctification. Sanctification is identical to the act of conversion, both based on Christ’s finished work on the cross. He defined “to sanctify” as “to dedicate, consecrate, separate unto, or set apart,” a term applied to God, angels, temple vessels and clothes, houses, and people.525 He rejected the perspective that sanctification is wholly realized in the believer by a crisis experience subsequent to and distinct from conversion. He did not accept the teaching that two works of grace to save and cleanse a believer are necessary, nor the belief that God does not deal with the nature of sin at conversion. He argued that God does a complete work when God converts a person. Salvation is the inward work that leads to a change of

525

The term with its fuller implications and meanings was discussed earlier in the chapter (“holiness of God”).

246

Chapter 5

heart. The old nature of the human being, which was sinful and depraved and led to the condemnation of God, is crucified with Christ. The believer should now crucify the old nature or flesh (Rom 6; Gal 2:20). This does not imply that the believer may not lapse and fall back into the pattern to sin – how else might one explain the occurrence of sin in believers’ lives? The recurrence of such sinful fruit implies that the root cannot be eradicated completely, as the theory of instantaneous sanctification claims. Instead, only by abiding in Christ can the believer avoid sinning. The object of faith is not an experience of sanctification but salvation through Christ’s work of atonement, resulting in a restored relationship between God and human beings. When Durham returned to Los Angeles, hoping to preach in the Upper Room Mission, the largest church in the city, the leader, Elmer Fisher, requested that he leave the service, given his “non-Pentecostal” views of sanctification. He then turned to the Azusa Street Mission, William Seymour’s group, where glossolalia had occurred for the first time in the USA. The Mission now consisted mainly of Afro-American members. They invited him to preach while Seymour was on a preaching tour. Many people streamed to listen to his charismatic sermons, and Azusa Street saw a return of the popularity it had enjoyed in earlier times. However, when he returned to take the service on 2 May 1911, he found the doors padlocked. On his return, Seymour had decided with his trustees to deny their services to Durham because they did not accept his sanctification views. Durham responded by renting a large building and starting with worship services held each day of the week. As a result, many Azusa Street members joined the new group. What happened reverberated throughout the Pentecostal movement and led to a conflict that lasted from 1911 to 1914. Eventually, the AG incorporated Durham’s views into their statements of faith. Only groups with an exclusive holiness movement background rejected it, making the doctrine a test of orthodoxy. Like the rest of the Pentecostal movement, his teaching was determined by the Arminian presupposition that salvation requires specific subjective experiences in line with the objective facts about salvation based on the New Testament. Durham’s contribution was that he focused early Pentecostals’

God and Trinity

247

attention on the requirement that any view of sanctification should be Christocentric and Calvary-focused. Durham died in 1912 after successfully redirecting most American Pentecostals to his view of the partial work of sanctification. However, his influence did not last long after his death. In 1913, Robert E. McAlister, a Canadian Finished Work evangelist in Durham’s tradition, preached at a baptismal service during a Worldwide Camp Meeting in Arroyo Seco, California. He noted the inconsistency between Jesus’ commission to baptize in the triune name of the Father, Son, and Spirit in Matthew 28:19 and the apostolic practice of baptizing exclusively in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38). His opinion was that Jesus spoke parabolically about himself, and only his disciples could understand what he said.526 In response to the teaching, some members started rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity and insisted that water baptism should be administered only in the name of Jesus Christ.527 Their concern was designated as the New Issue, and it served as a defense of the deity of Christ against some liberal theological claims that emphasized the humanness of Christ at the cost of his participation in the Divinity. They argued that the Divinity’s fatherhood, sonhood, and spirithood represent only different roles that one divine person temporarily assumes. In the early Church, Sabellianism, modalist Monarchianism, and Patripassianism also represented a similar idea of the Divinity. An Australian friend of McAlister, Frank Ewart, left his work in Los Angeles, set up a new ministry, and he and his coworker baptized each other in water in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. This led to the spread of the New Issue throughout the young AG. By 1915, the new teaching had attracted several prominent leaders, including J.R. Flower, the AG’s inhouse magazines editor, the Pentecostal Evangel and Enrichment Journal.528 526 David A. Reed, “Oneness (Apostolic) Pentecostalism,” In Handbook of Pentecostal

Christianity, edited by Adam Stewart (De Kalb, ILL: Northern Illinois University Press, 2012), 159. 527 Reed, “Oneness (Apostolic) Pentecostalism,” 158. 528 Edith Blumhofer, The Assemblies of God: A Popular History (Springfield, MI: Gospel Publishing House, 1985), 6.

248

Chapter 5

Ewart found two reasons for the practice of baptizing in the name of Jesus. The first reason is that since there is only one baptism (Eph 4:5), its justification must be based on God’s one name (Zec 14:9: “YHWH will be one and YHWH’s name will be one”). In the Christian era, the name of God is Jesus. Secondly, since God’s name is one, God’s being must be radically one, precluding the existence of God as three distinct persons (he preferred to refer to the perceived three manifestations of God). The new movement experienced the development of two views of Spirit baptism. The first taught that spiritual life begins at the conception of conversion, leading to new birth (John 3:5) that consists of three processes: repentance, water baptism in the name of Jesus, and reception of the gift of the Spirit. The other grouping taught that one is born again at conversion, and water baptism and Spirit baptism realize the Christian life’s full provision. Today, these two interpretations of Acts 2:38 still function within Oneness Pentecostalism. Initially, the AG tolerated the new movement, trying to restore unity. However, in 1916, its leaders approved the expulsion of 156 of their 585 pastors because they rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, insisting on baptizing only in Jesus’ name. The expulsed leaders formed the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, at first a multicultural movement before bowing the knee to the racial prejudices that marked early twentieth-century America. Two white groups eventually emerged, the first in 1945 as the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) and the second in 1971 as the Apostolic World Christian Fellowship. The Apostolic World Christian Fellowship has approximately half a million members in the USA and a similar figure in other countries. The UPCI is the largest of the two groups, and through their Word Aflame Press influences many other Pentecostals. There are currently 135 member organizations, with 42,000 churches, 41,000 credentialed ministers, and 5.3 million constituents, representing a worldwide alliance to promote fellowship and coordination of ministries among like-minded Pentecostal communities.529

529

https://www.upci.org/about/about-the-upci; accessed 2022-02-24.

God and Trinity

249

Oneness Pentecostalism, on the other hand, rejected the traditional teaching of the Trinity for various reasons. First, they argued that such teaching contradicts the clear biblical teaching emphasized in various places that God is one, and there is only one God. Second, they call the doctrine selfcontradictory and illogical. They refer to texts that speak of the Father alone as “God,” distinct from Jesus. Third, they argue that the Bible does not employ the terms related to the trinitarian doctrine such as “Trinity,” “eternal Son,” “coequal,” “consubstantial,” and “three persons.” It betrays that it was not the way early Christians thought about Jesus. They also argue that the Trinity is of pagan origins, such as the Platonic philosophical concept of the Trinity and similar concepts in the Babylonian religion, Mithraism, and Hinduism. Fourth, they reject any reference to “persons” because it represents, in their opinion, nothing else than tritheism, a form of polytheism. It holds that traditional trinitarian language undermines the centrality that Jesus Christ should occupy in the salvation of human beings. Oneness taught a form of modalism that states that God reveals the divine self in three modes or manifestations: Father, Son, and Spirit. There is only one God, and Jesus is that God. Like Trinitarians, they emphasize the deity of one God without any distinction.530 They distinguish between the divine Father and the human Son, viewing them as inseparable throughout Jesus’ life and death. The nature of the union is divinity and humanity in one person. Trinitarianism, in contrast, teaches that in the incarnation, God entered into union with humanity so that the human and divine in Christ are inseparable. Jesus is the one “God-man.” Unitarians use several biblical arguments to state their case. For instance, Jesus is honored with the titles God (e.g., John 1:1; 20:28; Tit 2:13; 2 Pet 1:1; 1 John 5:20) and Lord (e.g., John 20:28; Rom 10:9-13; Phil 2:9-11; Heb 1:10). In several places, Jesus is portrayed as speaking and acting with the authority that God alone can exert (e.g., in demanding and receiving obedience from the elements of nature and demons). He also commanded 530

For good research about Oneness Pentecostalism, see Carl Brumback, God in Three Persons (Cleveland, TN: Pathway, 1959); F.J. Lindquist, The Truth About the Trinity and Baptism in Jesus’ Name (Minneapolis, MN: Northern Gospel, 1961); and Gregory A. Boyd, Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992).

250

Chapter 5

and received the honor, respect, and commitment that belongs to God alone. The early Christians prayed to and worshiped him and awaited his return as judge of all people.531 What is, then, the Son’s relation to the Father and the Spirit, if Jesus is the one God? Jesus is himself Father, Son, and Spirit. Only in this way, Oneness Pentecostals argued, can the unity of God and the full deity of Christ be reconciled with each other. David Bernard states explicitly that it is logical that if there is only one God and that God is called the Father, then Jesus as God must be the Father.532 Specific proof texts are used to identify Jesus and the Father with each other. Like several other Evangelicals, they studied the names and titles of God in the Old Testament. They identified Christ with these figures, using it as proof that Jesus was an essential part of and fulfilled all the qualities of the deity. For instance, in applying the titles of Isaiah 9:6 to Jesus, they assert that Jesus is the Mighty God and Everlasting Father. Another argument is that the New Testament calls Jesus “Lord” or kyrios, the same term used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, for YHWH. John 10:30 states that Jesus said that he and the Father are one. According to John 8:19; 12:45; 14:7-11, Jesus says that to know, believe in, and see him is to know, believe in, and see the Father. According to John 14:18 and Revelation 21:6-7, Jesus is said to relate to believers as their Father. Romans 1:7 and 1 Corinthians 1:3’s reference to “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” should be translated as “God our Father who is the Lord Jesus Christ” or “God our Father, even the Lord Jesus Christ,” a translation possibility that is probable. These references proved to them the identification between Jesus and God. Oneness Pentecostals also refer to passages that state explicitly that the Son and the Father perform certain divine functions. For example, the Father raised Jesus, and Jesus raised himself from the dead; both the Father and Jesus answered prayer; the Father and Jesus gave the Spirit; the Father and Jesus drew all men unto Jesus; the Father and Jesus will eventually raise the dead. Again, the implication is that Jesus is the Father and the Son.

531 532

Boyd, Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity, 20-21. Bernard, The Oneness of God, 66.

God and Trinity

251

Jesus is also the Spirit. The author of 2 Corinthians 3:17, for instance, states explicitly that “the Lord is the Spirit.” Likewise, Romans 8:9-11 refers to the “the Spirit,” “the Spirit of God,” “Christ,” and “the Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead.” These terms are used interchangeably, in the same way, that the Old Testament identifies YHWH and the Spirit. Both Jesus and the Spirit raised Christ from the dead; both will raise all believers from the dead in the end. Both dwell in believers’ hearts, called Paraclete, and both serve as intercessors for believers. Both sanctify the Church and comfort believers in times of persecution.533 In other words, Jesus is the Spirit. The baptism in the name of “Jesus only” is based on their theology of the name of God. The God who revealed the divine to humanity in the Old Testament as YHWH revealed the divine in the New Testament dispensation as Jesus. Jesus is the only name required for salvation in the new covenant, and by being baptized in his name, the believer identifies with Jesus as God in totality. They regard Father, Son, and Spirit as a threefold generic relationship term; God’s proper revealed name is Jesus. They argue that the book of Acts consequently relates that believers in the early Church were baptized in the name of Jesus. No mention is made of any baptisms in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, as Matthew 28:19 states. At the same time, they argue that Jesus in Matthew 28:19 commands the disciples to baptize believers in the “name” (singular) of the Father, Son, and Spirit. If there were any distinction between the three persons, Jesus would have said, “baptize them in the names of the Father, Son, and Spirit.” As a result, they argue, trinitarian baptism is unbiblical and invalid. Some Oneness Pentecostals conclude that believers baptized in the “wrong” way are unsaved until they have been rebaptized.534 The last remark is that some Pentecostal groups that share the trinitarian perspectives of classical Pentecostals also baptize only in the name of Jesus.535

533

See Boyd, Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity, 24. Boyd, Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity, 24. 535 Cf. also Talmadge L. French, Our God is One: The Story of the Oneness Pentecostals (Indianapolis, IN: Voice and Vision, 1999); David S. Norris: I AM: A Oneness Pentecostal Theology (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame, 2003); David A. 534

252

Chapter 5

What is the distinction between the Father and the Son in the Bible? How can Jesus be both Father and Son at the same time? Oneness Pentecostals respond by stating that the distinction between Father and Son is similar to the difference between the humanity and divinity of Jesus. The Father represents the divine element in Jesus and the Son, the human element. Therefore, to say that Jesus is both Father and Son is to say that Jesus is both God and man. In contrast, trinitarianism states that the Son of God is fully human and divine, in distinction from the Father. The Son and the Father are two separate persons. In contrast, Oneness Pentecostals assert that Jesus is the Father and Jesus is the Son because Jesus is fully God. Sonship is for Jesus the human aspect, and Fathership the divine element. The implication is clear: the Son is a human being in whom God dwells. The Son is the permanent body of the Father. He is the last, permanent, and complete theophany of the Father, implying that the Father always existed in bodily form because the Son is eternal. Not all Oneness Pentecostals agree that Jesus was eternal. They state that Jesus existed from eternity as the Father, but Jesus as a human being had a definite beginning at the time when he was born. In this way, they attempt to accommodate texts that refer to Jesus’ preexistence with God (John 1:1, 15, 30; 6:62; 8:58; 17:5). John’s Gospel also relates several times that Jesus claimed to have come out of heaven from the Father, and Colossians 1:15-17 and Philippians 2:6-7 also refer to his preexistence. If the world was created through Jesus, as John 1:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 1:15-17, and Hebrews 1:2 indicate, this implies that he existed before the creation. Jesus’ preexistence implies that he shares in the eternal dimension that characterizes divine existence, a dimension that human beings cannot understand due to their being limited to the existing reality. Was Jesus, at one stage, created or begotten by the Father? Does his preexistence then imply that he is instead limited to a temporary existence? But then, Jesus

Reed, “In Jesus’ Name”: The History and Beliefs of Oneness Pentecostals Blandford Forum, UK: Deo, 2008).

God and Trinity

253

could not have been God. This demonstrates the logical hurdles one has to overcome in using the traditional trinitarian theology. Not all Oneness theologians emphasize that the Sonship is limited to the humanity of Jesus. As Father and Son, Jesus alternated during his earthly existence between being the Father at times and the Son at times. Oneness theologians call this the Oneness key to interpreting who Jesus was. At times, it is the Father who said something when Jesus was speaking, and at times, it was the Son. The key is to ask, who is now acting in Jesus, God or a human being? Some admit that it is not easy to answer the question in all cases found in the Gospels. At times, both God and the human being act in the same event, with Jesus speaking as God at one moment and then as a human being at the next moment. When Jesus learned, prayed, was tempted, expressed his forsakenness, and died on the cross, he was a human being. When he walked on the sea, healed, or delivered ill people, and proclaimed his message, he worked and spoke as God. In such instances, he knew everything, was in control of every situation, made divine claims, and received respect limited to the divine. He was also baptized as man, not as God. One may then ask the question: how could John the Baptist have baptized God? Jesus did as God what he could not do as a human being and did as a human being what he could not do as God. As a human being, he stated that he loved the Father and the Father loved him, he was sent by the Father, and the Father sent him. Another implication of this theology is that Jesus was (and is) the Father who loved the Son and spoke to the Son, while Jesus was (and is) also the human being who loved the Father and spoke to the Father. If God did not separate the divine self in the Son and the Spirit, it would have been impossible to provide a sinless human being that qualifies as the mediator between human beings and God. The relation between the Father and Son represents two natures of one person, forming the impression that God is depicted as schizophrenic. The controversy over the Trinity that divided the early Pentecostals in North America and other parts of the world later received little attention. To the best of my knowledge, there are not many classical Pentecostals or groups who reconsider the doctrine in any essential way. Keith Warrington agrees

254

Chapter 5

that most Pentecostals are theologically Trinitarians – although, in practice, different voices are heard.536 Boyd’s research shows that in 1992 there were more than a million adherents of Oneness Pentecostalism in the USA, about twenty-five percent of the total number of Pentecostals, and perhaps half a million in other parts of the world.537 Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen contends that about one-fourth of all Pentecostals are Oneness Pentecostals in a conservative estimate.538 However, this is only the case in the USA; Oneness Pentecostalism did not grow in popularity in the Global South.539 Kärkkäinen mentions that Oneness Pentecostals are popularly known as “Jesus Only” Pentecostals, since they only baptize in the name of Jesus. However, he argues that they actually accept a form of trinitarian understanding. This understanding is based exclusively upon God’s economic revelation, which excludes God's essence. Going beyond the economic level implies that it requires one to move beyond the economic language of the New Testament by succumbing to philosophical speculations to describe God’s essence.540 In a significant development, the Society of Pentecostal Studies undertook an ecumenical dialogue between Oneness and classical Pentecostals in the twenty-first century’s first decade.541 According to Robert Shaka, the dialogue demonstrated some significant disagreements between the two groups. Both agreed on the dominance of the biblical revelation in the Church’s ministry and stated that all revelations must be in harmony with

536

Warrington, Pentecostal Theology, 30. Boyd, Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity, 183. 538 Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Trinity as Communion in the Spirit: Koinonia, Trinity, and Filioque in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue,” Pneuma 22, no. 2 (Fall 2000), 209-230. 539 In South Africa, for instance, many Pentecostals were taken up in the New Issue until Donald Gee visited the country by invitation from 29 January till the end of April, 1934. His teaching turned the tide and brought back most Pentecostals to the traditional trinitarian viewpoint (Burger & Nel 2008:112). 540 For further information about Oneness Pentecostalism, see David A. Reed, “Oneness Pentecostalism” and Bernard, The Oneness of God. 541 Richard Shaka, “A Trinitarian Pentecostal Response.” Pneuma 30 (2008) 240244. 537

God and Trinity

255

Scripture.542 They also warned of the dangers of “private or new” revelation that is superior to both the Old and New Testaments.543 However, when it comes to their views of the sacraments, Christology, salvation, and holiness, they disagreed, at times vehemently. Both Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostal groups adhered to water baptism by immersion but disagreed on the correct formula to be applied when ministering water baptism. The Oneness Pentecostal movement invokes the name of Jesus only in water baptism, while (most of) the Trinitarian Pentecostals invoke the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the baptismal formulae. Oneness Pentecostals believe the Spirit is the same as the “Spirit of Christ.” For that reason, they see water baptism and Spirit in the Holy Spirit as a single spiritual experience. Classical Pentecostals, contrastingly, distinguish clearly between the two experiences. This difference had served as the major cause of the historical division. A quick compromise on this issue is clearly not in sight. The ontological understanding of the nature of Christ also divided the Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals. While the Trinitarians baptize in the name of the Trinity, Oneness believers baptize only in the name of Jesus. The Trinitarian language reflects the patristic, Tertullian, Constantinian, and Nicene traditions, while the minority of Christians accept the Oneness movement’s unitarian formula. Trinitarians in the group acknowledged that the three persons in the Godhead are of the same essence (homoousios), while Oneness Unitarians denied that the Godhead exists in three separate persons. God is the same as Jesus, while the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. While both groups affirmed that Jesus alone brought salvation by his sacrificial death, both sides tended to hold to a monotheistic interpretation. While Oneness groups saw salvation as inclusive of water baptism and Spirit baptism, Trinitarians viewed baptism in the Spirit as progressive sanctification by the Holy Spirit. However, some Trinitarians believed that

542

Oneness-Trinitarian Pentecostal Dialogue. “Oneness-Trinitarian Pentecostal Final Report, 2002-2007.” Pneuma 30 (2008) 203-224. 543 Shaka, “A Trinitarian Pentecostal Response,” 242.

256

Chapter 5

sanctification occurs immediately, while others saw sanctification as lifelong progress through the Christian life. Unitarians view, in general, the God of the Old Testament as holy and the same who manifested in the incarnation of Christ, implying that Jesus exemplifies the holiness of God. They believe that holiness must be demonstrated in the believer’s personal appearance and behavior, including modesty, moderation, and the avoidance of excessive ornamentation. Trinitarians view holiness as inclusive. Holiness in God is demonstrated in love between the three divine persons, shown by the Divinity through the Father’s decision to send the Son to the Earth, the Son’s obedient devotion to realize the divine will, and the Spirit’s witness. All believers can participate in the redemptive strategy of the Godhead.544

Some Contemporary God-Talk: Jesus Seminar The third case study of current God-talk comes from an influential group that advocates a non-theistic Divinity whose historical son was Jesus of Nazareth. It represents a new way to talk about God, found among the supporters of the Jesus Seminar, an American group of fifty biblical scholars, and a hundred interested laypeople that Robert Funk regularly invited since 1985 to the Westar Institute. The members looked critically at the Gospel authors of the New Testament’s portrayals of Jesus. They compared these portrayals to those found in extra-biblical literature that refers to Jesus in the same period. Their purpose was to determine the historicity of the deeds and words of Jesus. They decided this collectively by voting with colored beads. They also produced new translations of the New Testament and Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books. The results of their deliberations were published in three reports: The Five Gospels (1993), The Acts of Jesus (1998), and The Gospel of Jesus (1999). The Seminar also attempted to educate the American people by presenting lectures and workshops. Although the Seminar was disbanded in 2006 after the death of Robert Funk in 2005, members of the Seminar continued their research, using the Seminar’s methodologies. In new research, the Westar Institute

544

Shaka, “A Trinitarian Pentecostal Response,” 242-44.

God and Trinity

257

researched the development of Jesus movements in the first two centuries CE. The Seminar viewed Jesus as a mortal man like any other, born of two human parents. He was probably an illegitimate child born of a liaison between an innocent Jewish girl and a Roman soldier.545 He could not do miracles and did not die as a substitute for sinners, a doctrine they ascribed to Paul. He did not rise from the dead. The New Testament presents the interpretation of Jesus, an extraordinary person who influenced a group of people immensely. After his death, the students or disciples reported seeing him in visionary experiences rather than physical encounters with the bodily Jesus. This view of Jesus was formed through a consensual agreement between the members of the Jesus Seminar. The American bishop of the Episcopal Church, John Shelby Spong, is a scholar who worked in the Seminar tradition and published several bestselling books. He died in 2021. He called for a fundamental rethinking of the traditional Christian doctrines, including the Trinity.546 He rejected theism as a viable way of viewing God and suggested that the Bible should be reinterpreted in a more nuanced way in order to reach the public’s ear. He insisted that an informed, contemporary, scientific worldview should supplement scholarship. He believed that Jesus, a human being, fully expressed God’s presence through his compassion and selfless love. He states that when he explores the life of Jesus apart from the theistic framework, he is energized and enchanted because a whole new vision emerges. Jesus is more deeply and fully alive than anyone else in history and literature. He points to the realm or kingdom of God, where new possibilities demand to be considered because Jesus is still busy dismantling the barriers that separate people from one another. Jesus is the boundarybreaker who enables humans to envision the possibility of their own humanity that breaks through any human barriers to reach the Divinity that his life reveals.547 The early Church proclaimed these qualities as 545

For the development of such a view, see Andries G. Van Aarde, Fatherless in Galilee: Jesus as Child of God (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2001). 546 John S. Spong, A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith is Dying and How a New Faith is Being Born (Morristown, NJ: HarperOne, 2001). 547 Spong, A New Christianity for a New World, 131.

258

Chapter 5

characteristic of those who, like Jesus, are adopted by God for imitating divine love and service.548 It was how God was incarnated in Jesus, and it expresses the divine desire to be incarnated in all people. Indeed, as Gregory Dawes argues, Spong’s theological assertions and statements are not always closely argued. Moreover, he sometimes makes claims that are not well documented and even betrays egregious errors. However, his influence in terms of the sales of his books is enormous and deserves close scrutiny. Moreover, most of his central ideas “have a respectable intellectual pedigree.”549 Spong uses the theological perspectives of Paul Tillich in his discussion of the need to transcend traditional Christian (and Jewish) theism. Tillich describes the divine as “the courage to be.”550 He argues that “the gods” are nothing other than “images of human nature or subhuman powers raised to a superhuman realm,”551 an idea that will be espoused again in the next chapter. The same idea was already functioning in the work of Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–1872), who regarded the gods as creations of human beings and projections of elements of human experience into an unseen world. It is a common human practice, seen particularly often in scientific endeavors, to draw upon analogies in everyday experience to create models used to explain the underlying reality of the world. However, in the sciences, these models are subjected to a rigorous process of criticism for their explanatory value. It ensures their value for arriving at reliable knowledge about reality that never becomes fixed but remains open for further investigation. Unfortunately, theological assertions as a function of religion

548

Demonstrated by a 2002 book of John S. Spong, Here I Stand: My Struggle for a Christianity of Integrity, Love, and Equality (New York: HarperOne. 2002). 549 Gregory W. Dawes, “God Beyond Theism? Bishop Spong, Paul Tillich and the Unicorn,” Pacifica 15, no. 1 (Feb. 2002), 66. 550 Paul Tillich, The Courage to Be (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1952), 176. 551 Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology: Combined Volume (Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1968), vol. 1, 235.

God and Trinity

259

are not always open to criticism, especially if they are accepted and valued highly for their traditional worth. Spong argues that since the emergence of the sciences as we know them today, which began in the seventeenth century, it is no longer necessary to explain most elements of reality in terms of divine interventions. In Michel Foucault’s words, religious claims about reality fall outside the “episteme” of modern knowledge.552 However, for Spong, this does not imply that God does not exist. He refers to his “experiencing God,” suggesting that it represents an experience of something or someone. This “other” cannot be simply identified with the other objects of our experience and does not exist as an idea in the human mind. God is the “ultimate reality” for him; he claims that he lives in “a constant and almost mystical awareness of the divine presence.”553 In attempting to describe the essence of the Divinity, Spong is elusive, except that he states that God is the source of human love and compassion, the ground of being whom we come to know each time we have the courage to be.554 Spong believes Divinity is “being itself,” stating that it reveals a commitment to unconditional ideals. About Jesus, he argues that he fully expressed the presence of God by way of his compassion and selfless love, something with which his earliest followers found a connection.555 In this way, God was incarnated in Jesus, expressing the divine desire to be incarnated in all people. The implication is that the divine does not consist of a trinity of persons. In addition, Spong advocates a “God beyond theism” that rejects traditional theism as well as atheism.556 The Greeks initially used the term “atheism” to refer to those who disbelieved in the official state installed and recognized 552

Michel Foucault, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. (New York: Random House, [1966] 1970), xiv, xxii. 553 John S. Spong, Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers in Exile (Morristown, NJ: HarperOne, 1999), 3. 554 Spong, Why Christianity Must Change or Die, 68-70. 555 See Spong, Here I Stand. 556 Dawes, “God Beyond Theism?,” 66.

260

Chapter 5

gods, whether they believed in God or not. For example, Socrates lost his life because he was convicted of atheism. The Roman Empire applied the term to some Christians for the same reason.557 The phrase occurs once in the New Testament, in Ephesians 2:12, to refer to being “without God in the world,” referring to alienation from Christ. Spong’s problem with theism is that its notion of Divinity is vacuous because it is based on the belief that “being” is a characteristic of individual beings that may be universalized. In concluding his arguments about Spong’s response to theism, Dawes states that Spong’s conception of God as an infinite, necessary being who sustains the world of contingent, finite beings does not differ from the very traditional notions of God. He argues that Spong’s God is, in fact, nothing less than the God of “theism.”558 Many believers, including Pentecostals, would ask Spong the following critical question: what power does such a deity display in divine intervention in people’s lives and the planet’s business? If the Divinity is powerless, are Spong’s arguments anything more than an empty abstraction? After all, a God without any of the characteristics of an individual being has no reality at all.559 This study’s purpose is to ask awkward and challenging questions about most Pentecostals’ uncritical acceptance of the traditional notion of the Trinity. It also considered the non-traditional views of the Jesus Seminar and Spong to stimulate further critical thinking about our God-talk, a subject continued in the next chapter. However, before turning to that subject, it is necessary to consider some negative consequences of the traditional way of God-talk that most Pentecostals adhere to.

557

Elizabeth A. Livingstone, “Spirit,” in F.L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone (eds), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2005), 122. 558 Dawes, “God Beyond Theism?,” 68. 559 Dawes, “God Beyond Theism?,” 69.

God and Trinity

261

Implications of the Traditional Pentecostal View of the Trinity The first part of the chapter discussed the human unknowability of God by comparing the divine essence and energies to each other. It concluded that divine self-revelation relates to the divine energies but does not include (all of) the divine essence. God lives in a different dimension, characterized as eternity, in a holy state of glory that is incomprehensible to human beings and limited by their earthly existence, which makes the divine presence inaccessible. The second section compared the Pentecostal God-talk found in trinitarian and Oneness Pentecostalism, before contrasting it to some contemporary views of the Trinity. After discussing the theological perspectives of classical Pentecostals on the Trinity in comparison and contrast with the viewpoints of Oneness Pentecostals and representatives of the Jesus Seminar, it is now possible to develop certain relevant lines of thought about their implications for Pentecostals. The traditional notion of the Trinity that the Church accepted in the fourth century and which influenced the universal Christian Church holds certain negative consequences – it is a part of the reason for the present study that reconsiders the trinitarian view. The following section discusses some of the implications of the traditional Pentecostal (and universally held) view of the Trinity. Two of these aspects apply to Oneness Pentecostals as well, namely the maleness of God and the challenge with interfaith beliefs. However, all the aspects apply to trinitarian Pentecostals.

God’s maleness? One result of emphasizing God as a male person is that references to God and divine work have nearly exclusively been made in male terms. The awareness of the centuries-long discrimination against female human beings established a sensitivity for older, traditional thought patterns and their predisposition to chauvinism and patriarchalism. This awareness also led to an acknowledgment that traditional ways of addressing God are limited and, to a certain extent, unusable in current theological endeavors. Does this

262

Chapter 5

imply that conventional ways of addressing the Triune God as Father, Son, and Spirit should be replaced? It does not seem necessary, except if the Trinity is limited to three male persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. In many trinitarian discussions, the emphasis is limited to God’s personhood and God’s maleness. The same is true in most translations’ use of the Greek term for “kingdom,” ȕĮıȚȜİȓĮ. “Basileia” is a Greek feminine noun used to refer to “sovereignty” usually translated into English as “kingdom.” Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza argues that the English word was generated by “kyirarchal” worldviews, a term that replaces “patriarchy.” The term “kyriarchy” explains the dominant position of the emperor or master to subordinates. It also refers to the patriarchal custom of the woman’s submission, first to her father and brothers and then to her husband. Fiorenza does not limit patriarchy to the sex/gender system. Instead, she thinks of interlocking structures of domination with the elite male at the top. Therefore, she argues, the kyriarchal translation of “basileia” as “kingdom” fails to capture the literal meaning. It leaves no room for feminine majesty, described as queendom. The terms “reign,” “dominion,” “empire,” or even “kin-dom” all provide better approximations.560 It is submitted that what is needed is the development of and focus on complementary modes of God-talk that underline the full character of God. Further, the Church should consider using neutral terminology in referring to the Divinity. Lastly, the Church should also reconsider thinking about God’s existence as three entities more logically and rationally, and whether the use of persons best reflects the reality of God. Do we not limit God by defining the divine essence in human terms, forgetting that God’s existence as defined by holiness, glory, and eternity is inaccessible for any human understanding? It is accepted that it is impossible to speak of God in terms of gender because it is impossible to say much about the divine essence, as discussed above. When a language has become a means to serve the interests of a specific gender group, it would certainly be the best way to change the language 560

Dawn Hutchings, “Basileia of God: A kin-dom,” https://pastordawn.com/2013/07/21/basileia-of-god-a-kin-dom/, accessed 2022-0628.

God and Trinity

263

practice in a radical fashion. It is suggested that Mother-Father replace Father God (as found in some traditions related to the Nag Hammadi documents), and that the feminine side of the Spirit as the manifestation of divine love should be emphasized. Some of the Gnostic documents state that Jesus is the Father, Mother, and Son.561 In the Secret Book of John, translated by Marvin Meyer, there is a voice from the exalted heavenly realm proclaiming the incarnation of the Child of Humanity. When the first ruler, Yaldabaoth, heard the voice, he thought it had come from his mother. However, it was the voice of the “holy perfect Mother-Father, the complete Forethought, the image of the invisible one, being the Father of the All, through whom everything came into being.”562 In Three Forms of First Thought, translated by John Turner, God is the one who declares that s/he is androgynous, mother and father, since God mates with the divine self. Through her/him alone, the All stands firm by giving birth to shining light.563 It should be kept in mind that other aspects or agencies of God, such as wisdom and word, should also be viewed in terms of feminine characteristics. However, the warning should be repeated that all attempts to describe God by abstract and nonpersonal philosophical speculation should be refuted. Instead, male and female theologians, philosophers, sociologists, and believers must collaborate to find more appropriate, complementary divine names. Elaine Pagels asks why the early Church rejected most of the Gnostic teachings. One of her answers to the question is relevant for this discussion about the Hebrew God’s maleness. She notes that Irenaeus, who worked in the first part of the second century CE, noted that many foolish women were attracted to these groups.564 He ascribed it to a Gnostic teacher, Marcus, who seduced these women, using aphrodisiacs to deceive, victimize, and defile his victims. Marcus even encouraged them to prophesy when he initiated

561

Meyer and Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, 104-105. Meyer and Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, 118. 563 Meyer and Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, 730. 564 Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 82. 562

264

Chapter 5

them, which was strictly forbidden in the orthodox Church.565 Irenaeus’ indignation and resentment grew when the heretic also invited women to act as priests. Marcus went so far as even to hand the holy cups to women when he consecrated the eucharist. He described such women as audacious, without any modesty. He resented that they were bold enough to teach, engage in argument, enact exorcisms, undertake cures, and baptize. Another apologist, Tertullian, who lived in the second part of the second century CE, referred to a woman who led a congregation in North Africa without considering the “precepts of ecclesiastical discipline concerning women.” These precepts specified that no woman might speak, teach, baptize, offer the eucharist, or claim any share in masculine functions.566 This indicates a correlation between religious theory and social practice. For example, some Gnostic groups considered women equal to men, revering them as prophets, teachers, traveling evangelists, healers, priests, and bishops.567 However, there is no evidence of women in prophetic, priestly, and episcopal roles in conventional churches from around 200 CE. In contrast, the early Church was much more open toward women. Jesus violated all Jewish conventions when he talked with women and included them among his companions. After his death, certain women held leadership positions, and women acted as prophets, teachers, and evangelists.568 At the initiation of Christians, the leader initially announced that there is neither male nor female in Christ. The saying goes back to Romans 16:7, as Paul recognizes the work of women deacons, fellow workers, and an outstanding apostle, Junia, senior to himself in the movement. At the same time, Paul was ambivalent concerning some of the implications of equality between the sexes. His traditional Jewish faith views God as monistic and masculine in a divinely ordained hierarchy of social subordination. Paul refers to Genesis 2–3’s assertion that man has authority

565

Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 83. Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 84. 567 The Marcionites, Montanists, and Carpocratians, among other groups, retained a masculine image of God. 568 Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 84. 566

God and Trinity

265

over woman, because the man is made in the image and glory of God, while the woman reflects only the glory of man. Although Paul seemingly acknowledged women as his equals and recognized their ministry, he also bowed to traditional Jewish Christian believers. He found it impossible to advocate social equality between the genders consistently. For that reason, he (or perhaps a later editor) states in Corinthians 14:34-37 that women should keep silent in the churches, claiming that it is shameful for a woman to speak in church and that they should act in subordination to men.569 Since 200 CE, most Christians also accepted the pseudo-Pauline letter of Timothy as authoritative. Its author exaggerates Paul’s antifeminist segments when writing that women should learn in silence and with all submissiveness because they may not teach or have authority over men. The pseudo-Pauline letters to the Colossians and Ephesians also regulate that women should be subject to their husbands in everything. By the middle of the first century CE, Christian groups also adopted the synagogue custom of women being segregated from the main community of men. By the end of the second century, participation in any worship practices by women was explicitly condemned. Any group that recognized women as leaders was branded as heretical.570 The last remark of Elaine Pagels is also significant. She argues that orthodox Christians’ target was not the woman as such, but the power of sexuality suggested by the prominent presence of women in the liturgy. For instance, in one of the Gnostic manuscripts, the Dialogue of the Savior, Mary Magdalene, Judas, and Matthew are favored to receive Jesus’ commands. The text continues that Mary Magdalene then rejects the “works of femaleness,” apparently referring to all activities of intercourse and procreation. The author suggests that only those who renounce sexual activity can achieve human equality and spiritual greatness.571 Early Pentecostals followed the same route as the early Church when they recognized that the Spirit anointed and used women to minister the same 569

Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 84-85. Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 84-85. 571 Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 90. 570

266

Chapter 5

way as men. But, as explained, the custom was left aside when the second generation of Pentecostals changed their hermeneutic to fit that of Evangelicals. For most Pentecostal denominations, it took decades to reverse the process. Therefore, Pentecostals should be open to recognizing the Divinity’s genderless-ness, rather than viewing God in exclusively male terms.572 Suppose trinitarian God-talk is supplemented by alternative ways of referring to God, rejecting the exclusive designation of God as a person as proposed in this study. This would solve several of the problems discussed earlier in this book. It is one gender-free God who reveals the divine self to human beings through different agencies; gender does not necessarily come into play except in the case of Jesus, born as a male. All other God-talk must then also be subjected to the same agenda of sociopolitical scrutiny of all ideologies. The Old Testament in particular lends itself to defending nationalism, xenophobia, racism, the marginalization of the “other,” presenting disabled people as unclean, and rejecting people with alternative sexual orientations. Biblical authors clothed their narratives about Israel’s history to serve political and social interests, especially royal and nationalist ideologies. For that reason, one finds gruesome descriptions of how Israel should, and eventually did, treat their enemies and nonIsraelite foreigners (at least as far as one can trust the biblical “historians’” explanations). One example is Nehemiah 13:23-31 (see also Ezra 9:1-4), which explains how Nehemiah observed that some Jews had married “foreigners.” He contended with these Jews, cursed and hit some of them, and pulled out their hair. He also forced them to declare under oath that they would never give their daughters to foreigners’ sons or take foreigners’ daughters for their sons or for themselves. He even chased the son of the high priest Eliashib away because he was married to a Horonite. He boasted that he cleansed Israel from everything foreign in its midst. Ezra added in his account that he mourned over the faithlessness of his people before he summoned all the returned exiles of Jerusalem and Judah.

572

Christopher Thomas, “Women Pentecostals and the Bible: An Experiment in Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 5 (1994), 41-56.

God and Trinity

267

At the meeting, where it was raining and everyone was suffering from the cold, he forced the people to confess the sins that they had committed before forcing them to separate themselves from foreigners. The returned exiles sent their foreign wives away with their children without taking further responsibility for them. In closing, a crucial aspect of God-talk consists of naming God. To do so represents a creative and constructive task. It leaves ample room for considering God-talk in terms of local context and dialects. For instance, ancestor terminology plays a vital role in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and other cultures. It can be considered a means of finding more theologically suitable ways of referring to God in the local cultural idiom. Some in these movements prefer to refer to themselves as the “emerging Church” or “fresh expressions of the Church.” African Independent Churches (AICs), with their highly contextualized spirituality and faith expressions, have also been proposing and implementing the utilization of alternative liturgical and music styles in worship services, and even a redesign of the traditional worship service. They use contextualized values and customs, emphasizing that worship is the primary purpose of gathering the faithful. In the process, they developed highly successful contextual ways of worshiping God, as demonstrated by the popularity of the AICs in Africa. However, the established Church must also become aware of the debate around God-talk. It should reconsider its own God-talk to effectively reflect theological and cultural concerns, and thereby reach the new generation. The traditional doctrine of the Trinity challenges the naming of God, and that challenge must be confronted. One way to do so is to reconsider traditional God-talk that emphasizes the unity and oneness of the Divinity as well as the diversity in the phenomenon of divine revelation. It is also suggested that the Church continuously reconsider its God-talk, given the profundity and extent of changes that characterize the postmodern world, and that it rethink its God-talk in terms of its spirituality.

God as Communion Most contemporary theologians who are thinking and publishing about God-talk include understanding God as communion as a central aspect of

268

Chapter 5

their thought. The shift in theology from viewing the God of the Bible as one subject to considering God as three persons also led to an emphasis on the divine as an eternal communion of love. Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, John Zizioulas, Jürgen Moltmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Elizabeth Johnson, Catherine Mowry LaCugna, Leonardo Boff, and Millard J. Erickson are only some of the theologians who emphasized God as communion, bringing it into their God-talk, also as a means to justify their trinitarian consideration of the Divinity.573 God as communion indicates that God is love, who shares love and is related in love. Relationality between the divine “persons” implies relationality between the Divinity and human beings and represents a significant way of God-talk found in the Bible. The God of the Bible relates to human beings in love, illustrating that God created them to care for and love them. That is the reason for the statement that God created humanity in the divine image (Gen 1:26-27). A splendid example of the application of the communion principle is found in the short book written by Myroslaw Tataryn and Maria Truchan-Tataryn about disability. Their trinitarian theology is, as such, a contribution toward a theology of community. They call it a “theology for embracing difference.” Still, it is also a theology of inclusion based on interdependence and koinonia, predicated on a perichoretic vision of the triune relationships.574 The emphasis on the relationality of God is in line with postmodern values and interests and may be the result of the focus on this value. For instance, David Cunningham calls isolation, individualism, and independence the most prominent and central concepts that characterize the spirit of modernity. Postmodernity rejects the typical modernist bias that attempts to classify and categorize everything into distinct units. Instead, it chooses the

573

For a good introduction, see Thomas J. Norris, The Trinity–Life of God, Hope for Humanity: Towards a Theology of Communion (Hyde Park, NJ: New City, 2009). 574 Myroslaw Tataryn and Maria Truchan-Tataryn, Discovering Trinity in Disability: A Theology for Embracing Difference (Toronto: Novalis, 2013).

God and Trinity

269

values of relationality, interdependence, becoming, emerging, etc.575 Its emphasis is not nearly exclusively on the individual, as was the case in modernist thinking. Communion theology relates God not to an individual potentially isolated from other individuals, but instead describes the different “persons” as absolutely dependent on each other. The terms imply that parenthood and childhood are humanly devised words that can be utilized to refer to an aspect or aspects of the Divinity, suggesting that mutual causation and interdependence exist within God and between God and human beings.576 Athanasius already emphasized this idea. He viewed the divine relational nature as a communion that led to a confirmation of other claims such as divine co-equality, co-eternity, and mutual reciprocity. Current scholars are reendowing them with new meaning and significance.577 Relationality also relates to diversity and difference within the divine self, allowing believers to accept each other’s diversity and differences. Kärkkäinen remarks that such a reconsideration of difference helps believers highlight the importance of particularity. The incarnation of Jesus portrays how to live a unique life among people. The subsequent reception by the Church of the Spirit and the formation of a faith community demonstrate this our day, encompassing all peoples and cultures in the world.578 For the same reason, each believer’s faith history is significant because it represents the unique relationship between God and this specific individual. The Creator and Redeemer God who reveals the divine self in the power of the Spirit cannot be comprehended in terms of a “natural theology” but stories and testimonies, starting with Jesus and continuing in the lives of believers and the diversity of faith communities. David Moe suggests that the primary human identity be grounded in the Trinity with its image of the triune God that is re-formed in Christ to become the dawn of a new humanity. The religious other is, then, the divine imagebearing neighbors and believers who form the body of Christ, indicating 575

David S. Cunningham, “The Trinity,” in The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology, edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 187. 576 Cunningham, “The Trinity,” 189. 577 Cunningham, “The Trinity,” 190. 578 Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 387–388.

270

Chapter 5

what believers’ behavior should be in terms of nonbelievers and believers. The body of Christ is here defined, in Emil Brunner’s terms, as the fellowship of persons, Jesus Christ, and the Spirit. Fellowship or koinonia is defined as a joint participation, togetherness, and community life. Believers are bound to each other because they share in Christ and the Spirit. They do not have any “thing” in common, but they share Christ and Spirit.579 In other words, Brunner’s suggestion implies that the Trinity and the atonement of Jesus serve to redefine Christians’ perception of the self and the other as human beings because they brought reconciliation between humans and God.580 That God loves communion also defines God, not as the one who is simple, unchangeable, and incapable of suffering, but the loving, forgiving, healing, and participating God. Divine involvement and interventions in people’s lives always compromise the transcendence of God, but God’s love shares human joys and sorrows and is concerned for their well-being. The passionless God of classical theism is not the mother who gave up her own life to ensure that humans live and survive. In this regard, Harvey Cox refers to the theory of Joachim of Floris, an Italian Cistercian abbot living at the end of the twelfth century. Joachim explained that although the Trinity lived in eternal mutuality, they manifested themselves in history sequentially.581 The period of the Old Testament had been the Age of the Father, the New Testament and first millennium had been the Age of the Son, and the new age was the Age of the Spirit. In the new age, the Church would not need any hierarchy of the pope, archbishops, and bishops because the presence of the Spirit would permeate everything and everyone. The strife and hostility that divided Christians would disappear, and all people would form a single harmonious

579 Emil Brunner, The Misunderstanding of the Church. Translated by Harold Knight

(Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1953), 10-11. David Thang Moe, “Identity and Otherness: A Trinitarian Theological Exploration of Engaging the Other and Embracing the Otherness in a Pluralistic World,” Ecclesiology 14 (2018), 261-283. 581 Harvey G. Cox, “Make Way for the Spirit,” in God’s Life in Trinity, edited by Miroslav Volf and Michael Welker, 93-100 (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2006, 93-100 (93). 580

God and Trinity

271

body. He influenced some of the Franciscans; eventually, the Church condemned Joachim’s teaching and burned those Franciscans who supported his views. His views of a sequential distinction cannot be supported because God is working in every age and among all people. At the same time, it should be remembered that it is the one God who works. By strictly distinguishing between the three “persons” (or rather “entities”), one establishes a tritheistic scheme that disavows God’s unity. Pentecostals would love to suppose that their emphasis on Spirit baptism and charismatic encounters is the dawn of Joachim’s new age, the Age of the Spirit. However, the lack of harmony among them belies such a claim. Moreover, it annuls their claim that their movement represents the work of renewal that the prophets promised and would introduce the beginning of the renewal of creation. Nevertheless, it is true that the institutional Church discouraged, curtailed, and even outlawed the freedom of the Spirit. However, they could never extinguish the Spirit.582 In contrast, as portrayed in the New Testament, the early Church had a lively belief that the Spirit was present in their midst and was revealing the Christ who promised not to leave them orphaned, but to come back imminently (John 14:18-19). Cox writes of the Council of Nicaea that the newly-converted Emperor Constantine called was a sign of new changes, as well the betrayal of the active participation of the Spirit in Church life that occurred during the first few centuries.583 The Church composed and accepted the Nicene Creed that states that it believes in the Father and the Son, each time explaining in more detail what it considers about their existence and distinction. In contrast, it states only that it believes in the Spirit, without giving any more detail. Cox argues that it demonstrates the lack of interest in the subject (Subject!) of the Spirit. The early Church experienced some controversy about the Spirit’s charismatic revelation, as portrayed in the congregation at Corinth. As a result, the fourth-century Church did not find it necessary to say anything more about the Spirit.

582 583

Cox, “Make Way for the Spirit,” 94. Cox, “Make Way for the Spirit,” 95.

272

Chapter 5

When the World Council of Churches held its 1991 Assembly in Canberra, Australia, it used the theme “Come Holy Spirit, Renew Thy Whole Creation.” Little did they realize how these words would divide delegates, ending in a polarization between the older and younger, and Western and Eastern Churches. At the beginning of the twentieth century, when Pentecostalism established theological attention to the divine Spirit, much of the established Church rejected it. In recent years, Jürgen Moltmann’s publications have also been generating much attention to the work of the Spirit. Although Joachim’s Age of the Spirit did not realize it, our day has seen a worldwide outburst of religious energy. The Church in the Global South has shifted its attention extensively to the Spirit, who reveals Christ to the world and the Church. Postmodernism is also characterized by its emphasis on the emotional, in response to Modernity’s overemphasis on the cognitive, and contributes to the new interest in the Spirit.

God as Trinity and socio-political concerns The God who is love, existing as equal communion, can also be an excellent paradigm for reconsidering society, reflecting the faith community’s involvement with socio-political concerns. Pentecostals traditionally rejected the world, setting themselves apart from anything worldly and secular, thinking it would contribute to their holiness. They focused exclusively on winning the world for Christ. They believed their successful efforts would hasten the second coming and the end of the existing world.584 However, postmodern concerns about the survival of the human race require all believers to rethink their involvement in a world threatened by climate change, the destruction of fauna and flora at an unprecedented scale, the dangers of nuclear and chemical warfare, the threat of modern-day dictators to peace (such as President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022), and the unsustainability of the world’s population of nearly eight billion that pose an existential threat to the diversity of their own world. God as the Creator

584

Marius Nel, “Pentecostalism and the Early Church: On Living Distinctively from the World,” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 153 (2016), 141-159.

God and Trinity

273

of all reality implies not only divine involvement with the universe but also believers’ acceptance of responsibility for God’s world. What are the implications of believers making the Divinity their social program, given their fallen and fragile state and enslavement to economic, political, and social ideologies that contribute to the world’s challenges?585 Christians’ contribution can be at most modest and tentative, as Kärkkäinen explains.586 In reconsidering their involvement as members of the divine household, should they emphasize the legitimacy of hierarchy in the Trinity, as Zizioulas does, or oppose it, as Moltmann and LaCugna do? Even though the Bible explains that God has everything to do with believers’ lives and the world they live in, requiring their participation in caring for it, the Bible itself, unfortunately, does not portray any such involvement and does not give any examples or prototypes that believers may fruitfully use to consider their own contribution. This issue requires careful consideration and navigation to ensure that their involvement and participation reflect God’s interest in and concern for the world inhabited by human beings, among other forms of biological life on earth.

God in an Interfaith Context It may be true that some Pentecostals, due to their fundamentalist leanings, may evaluate other religions as evil and a part of Satan’s work. However, they display how ignorant their views are. It has, with good reason, become unacceptable to accept or use caricatures of other religions in the contemporary world. These religions confront Christians because the world has opened all boundaries with effective communication canals brought by television, social media, and the internet. On the other hand, some Christians view all religions as versions of the same generic truth, transcendence, and human goodness. In the process, they also display their ignorance about the differences between the different religions.

585

See Miroslav Volf, “‘The Trinity Is Our Social Program’: The Doctrine of the Trinity and the Shape of Social Engagement,” Modern Theology 14, no. 3 (July 1998), 403–23. 586 Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 396.

274

Chapter 5

In Mark Heim’s eyes, these two different perspectives agree in preferring to avert their eyes from the thick texture of religious diversity.587 It is accepted, for instance by Heim, that Christian believers should honor truth, virtue, and integrity in all people, including the adherents of other religious traditions. They should also respect the substance of those traditions themselves.588 There is just too much wisdom and truth integral to the different religious paths to ignore. The result of radically transformed lives due to the influence of other religions cannot be denied. For example, most evangelically inclined Christians accept and appreciate the Dalai Lama’s virtue and wisdom, even though they represent predominantly Buddhist convictions. Many Christians argue that what is contrary between religions cannot be true, and what is different cannot be significant. Conservative Christians like the Pentecostals interpret the second in terms of the first: difference primarily means error. Liberal-minded Christians interpret the first in terms of the second: religious truth claims can conflict only on matters of secondary significance. Christian exclusivists may look for conflicts between Christianity and other religions and view the conflict as proof of the error of all the other religions. On the other hand, pluralists recognize the differences but do not accept that it proves the other religion’s invalidity or falsehood. To progress beyond the inflexible perspectives, Heim wonders whether individual religions should not recognize other ways to religious fulfillment than their own. The response to the question found in exclusivist, inclusivist, and pluralist views all assume that there is and could be only one form of religious fulfillment. Exclusivists accept as an axiom that their tradition alone provides the means to religious fulfillment.589 Inclusivists think other faiths than their own serve as effective channels for it. At the same time, 587

S. Mark Heim, The Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends, Sacra Doctrina: Christian Theology for a Postmodern Age (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 1. 588 Heim, The Depth of the Riches, 1. 589 Religious fulfilment is used here to refer to the end (or ends?) of all religions, called “salvation” by Christians.

God and Trinity

275

pluralists argue that each religious tradition offers its own separate and independent means to attain its religious end.590 Inclusivists and pluralists accept that believers from other faiths seek the same religious ends as they do, and that some succeed in realizing these ends. Heim argues that the implication is that all paths lead to the same goal despite being different in many respects, covering different ground, and having different scenery. Heim suggests that Christians should rephrase their assumption that what is contrary cannot be true so that they do not represent two conflicting claims. It may be true that all religions do not result in salvation, as Christians define the term.591 However, that does not leave out the possibility that different ways may be valid for other ends. The conflict is not real if it stands for a different concrete end in each case. To say both paths lead to “salvation” is only to say they lead to some type of the desired end, not necessarily the same one. The implication is that adherents of religions may see their contrasting religious ends as essential alternatives to other religions and, on those grounds, argue that their own faith represents the unique path to the distinctive religious fulfillment they seek. For instance, if a Buddhist argues that attaining Nirvana is impossible without following the Excellent Eightfold Path, it does not suggest that the Buddhist will never realize Christian “salvation.” Instead, it implies that if Christians do not pursue the Path, they may never reach Nirvana. If they show no desire to attain and enjoy Nirvana, it is because Nirvana is not what they seek. To summarize, a theology of religions aims to understand other faiths by accepting their respective integrity within the Christian faith that forms part of their own integrity while also realizing that it can only be done imperfectly.592 But, at the same time, it does not accept that there is one and only one valid religious fulfillment. John McIntyre argues for a way to breach the impasse of exclusivism that holds that only the name of Jesus can save people. Such a view implies that all other religions are erroneous. The other side is inclusivism which implies 590

Heim, The Depth of the Riches, 2-3. “Salvation” as used here refer to the human fulfillment that Christians believe is offered to us by God through Christ. The term is rarely used in other religions. 592 Heim, The Depth of the Riches, 6. 591

276

Chapter 5

that other religions offer the same as Christ did in the same effective way.593 He contends that believers should retain their allegiance to the unique offer of salvation in Christ, given Christ’s words that he had “other sheep that do not belong to this fold” (John 10:16). Just as the Spirit directs Christians towards God, the Spirit also guides believers of other faiths. Their beliefs and works are also, to some extent, the expression of that presence of the Spirit within them. No people can wander beyond divine mercy and the Spirit’s compassion. The traditional doctrine of the Trinity necessarily alienates the Christian tradition from its roots in Judaism with its severe monotheism. Judaism, like Islam, criticizes belief in Christ’s incarnation and sharing in the Divinity, viewing it as an impious association of the human with the divine that compromises the unity of God. Mark Heim asserts that these objections basically represent the idea that the Christian concept of salvation presupposes a relation with the divine that comprises nothing less than actual participation in the divine life – something that Muslims cannot accept, given their emphasis on the human response of awe and fear for Allah, as expressed in obedience and devotion.594 Such an aim would, in their estimation, be irreverent. For Islamic (as well as Jewish) believers, the unity of God is a supreme religious value, while Christian claims threaten to blur the distinction between creatures and Creator. Theologians who accept the traditional doctrine of the Trinity face the task of defending it in the face of religious pluralism. Heim explains that the doctrine of the Trinity motivates some theologians to participate in dialogue with other religions because it teaches that Jesus Christ cannot be an exhaustive or exclusive source for knowledge of God nor the exhaustive and exclusive act of God to save us.595 In attempting to bring the Trinity into relation with other religions, Gavin D’Costa asserts that a trinitarian Christology helps Christians guard against exclusivism and pluralism by dialectically relating the universal and the particular. At the same time, the emphasis on the Holy Spirit as a person in the Trinity allows the particularity 593

McIntyre, The Shape of Pneumatology, 288–289. Heim, The Depth of the Riches, 124–125. 595 Heim, The Depth of the Riches, 134. 594

God and Trinity

277

of Christ to be associated with the universal activity of God in the history of humankind.596 He argues that because the Holy Spirit is active in the world religions, Christian faithfulness requires that Christians should attend to other religions. Furthermore, it requires them to build loving relationships with the members of other religions, their religious neighbors, with a “crucified selfgiving love.”597 The practical implication is that Christians should build relationships based on dialogue seeking the common good of God’s reign. At the same time, their relationship with Christians from other traditions should be based on self-giving love as a means to validate their witness.598 From his side, Heim warns that Christians should not overlook the real and apparent differences that exist between themselves and the adherents of other religions. However, they should not condemn all such differences without further ado. Instead, they should look for alternative ways of integrating these differences in comparison with their trinitarian option by integrating other religious truths within their vision of reality.599 The implication is that Christian believers accept that believers in other religions experience a real (if limited or less than full) relation to the ultimate “in terms largely consistent with the distinctive testimony from that tradition itself.”600 For instance, Raimundo Panikkar asserts that Christ as the logos may be present incognito in places where the name of Jesus Christ is not recognized, as some traditional theology stated previously.601 He presumes that the “Christ of Hinduism” is unknown to Christians, an “unknown Christ” whose full dimensions and character are hidden from Christians. He argues that they can enrich their own relationship with Christ if they could 596

Gavin D’Costa, “Christ, the Trinity and Religious Plurality,” in Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, edited by Gavin D’Costa (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1990), 16-29 (18). See also Przemyslaw Plata, “Gavin D’Costa’s Trinitarian Theology of Religions” Louvain Studies 30 (2005), 299-324. 597 D’Costa, Christ, the Trinity and Religious Plurality,” 19. 598 D’Costa, Christ, the Trinity and Religious Plurality,” 20. 599 Heim, The Depth of the Riches, 128. 600 Italics used by quoted resource; Heim, The Depth of the Riches, 128. 601 Raimon Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism: Towards an Ecumenical Christophany (London: Darton, 1981).

278

Chapter 5

learn to know him. He is the ultimate, even across the boundaries that different religions traditionally erect. Another example is the successful communication of the Christian Gospel in the Buddhist culture of Thailand, as Kosuke Koyama explains.602 He finds the residents ready to accept the Christian Gospel because certain aspects of Jesus’ teaching and person harmonize with the Buddhist religious tradition. He has also learned from the Buddhist tradition, especially the value of “coolness” or non-attachment to the emotions, passion, attachment, craving, and desire that necessarily lead to suffering. As a result, Koyama could readily relate Jesus’ words to his Thai hearers that Jesus’ disciples should not take thought for tomorrow or keep any treasures on earth where moth and rust consume, and thieves break in to steal. However, this does not imply that Buddhists accept every other element of the message of Christ in the same way. For example, their religious tradition does not relate to the biblical view of God, who could become agitated or passionate and teaches disciples to love their enemies and to hunger and thirst after righteousness. In this line of thinking, the “ultimate” is, then, what John Hick calls “the Real.” He finds it in the proper referent of the Christian “God,” the Hindu “Brahman,” and the exponents of other religions. It implies one actual referent for all such religious (and non-religious) references to the ultimate. However, Jacques Dupuis argues that Hick’s argument is incorrect when he implies that the triune God is behind “the Real” (and the other referents), rather than the other way around.603 Such an attitude will enrich believers and provide a platform for their witness to adherents of other religions without accepting everything that each tradition holds as true. A Christian theology of religion should accomplish that goal – to “translate” elements in other religions into a Christian perspective while keeping them as clearly as possible. But, of

602

Kosuke Koyama, Waterbuffalo Theology: A Thailand Theological Notebook (Singapore: Private, 1971). 603 Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997), 402–3.

God and Trinity

279

course, it is possible to do so only when we accept that these elements contain some element of absolute truth as they stand.604 Any dialogue with adherents of other religious traditions requires specific skills and attitudes and adequate knowledge of these traditions. A vital element of all religions is their distinctive spirituality(ies), and Raimundo Panikkar provides a handy guide to distinguish between the different spiritualities.605 He condenses them into three spiritualities that he observes in all human religions. The first is “iconolatry,” or the path of karma where some image, icon, or concept serves as the focus and norm for religious practice. The image or concept attracts, inspires, and directs the faithful. It also helps to direct their moral aspiration and act in such a way as to transform the world and the self. In iconolatry, it is vital that religious practice should be given a concrete worldly form. Its temptation is decaying into the adoration of false images. The second spirituality is personalism, a path of loving devotion to the divine in an intimate personal commitment. Personalism is characterized by experiences of mercy, joy, and ecstasy in the context of worship as an act of passionate devotion. It can decay into anthropomorphism. The third spirituality is mysticism, a path of unitive knowledge through forgetting the self and a realization of the divine not through relation alone, but through immediate identification. It can decay into indifference to the phenomenal world. Panikkar claims that the typology of these three spiritualities can be recognized in many various religious contexts. Therefore, it successfully works in dialogue with other religions. At the same time, Panikkar, a Christian trinitarian believer, holds that his concept of reality provides the best synthesis of the three spiritualities because the concept of the Trinity reconciles the apparently irreducible concepts of the Absolute in the 604

Heim, The Depth of the Riches, 129. Raimon Panikkar, The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man: IconPerson-Mystery (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1973).

605

280

Chapter 5

different spiritualities.606 Here, authentic spiritual dimensions of all religions meet.607 The Trinity “is the acme of a truth that permeates all realms of being and consciousness…”608 However, this does not imply that the doctrine of the Trinity is unique to Christianity, because the same insight or revelation can be found in other traditions. However, Panikkar also states that the concept of the Trinity he is referring to is hardly understood by Christianity or historical Christian theology. He means that the Christian faith leads to the plenitude and hence to the conversion of all religions. It consists of “humanity’s common good” and “incarnates humankind’s primordial and original traditions.”609 In other words, it is correct that Christians should think that Christ is the fulfillment and culmination of all religions. Still, they are wrong when they afford their faith any privileged relation to other religions. The other religions already authentically grasped the divine reality and truth they found. If they think in exclusivist terms, they deny themselves the opportunity to be enriched, expanded, and supplemented in order to approach the fullness of what they confess. On the other hand, to contend that all religions are equivalent is also wrong because it denies the opportunity to identify the unique saving properties of each faith. Their purpose should rather be to include the valid truth found in all religions within their religion’s defining framework.610 Panikkar concludes his study with the statement that the trinitarian possibilities in the world religions strive, each in its own fashion, to synthesize spiritual attitudes.611 Such a synthesis links the “silent, empty God” behind God in the Father who has given all to the Son, a personal deity in the Son who manifests God, and mystical union in the Spirit as the bond between the 606

Panikkar, The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man, 41. Panikkar, The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man, 42. 608 Panikkar, The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man, xi. 609 Raimon Panikkar, “The Jordan, the Tiber and the Ganges: Three Kairological Moments of Christic Self-consciousness,” in The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, edited by J. Hick and P.F. Knitter, 89– 116 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1987), 102. 610 He also offers a fascinating study of how a study of the different persons in the Trinity can be used to relate to other religions, but it is not valuable for the current research. 611 Panikkar, The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man, 55. 607

God and Trinity

281

Father and the Son.612 Other Indian Christian theologians, as reported by Von Bruck, correlate God the Father with nirguna Brahman (Brahman without qualities) and God the Son with saguna Brahman (Brahman with qualities).613 The meeting of religions provides the deepest inspiration and most certain hope.614 Most Pentecostals would not be able to identify with the sentiments expressed above because they view their missionary task to plant a Church within every “people group” through the conversion of “unbelievers,” bringing each individual within the effective range of Christian witness. Their priority is the saving of souls. It is not denied that conversion is an integral element of such activity. However, all missionary enterprises require missionaries to cross religious and cultural boundaries to identify with the people living in the new environment. In this way, missionary endeavors are already contributing to the Catholicity of the Church’s life. Heim correctly states that the missionary’s first task is to become a converted member of the new culture, and even of its religious heritage, to the extent that its beliefs and practices are consistent with what Christians believe. The missionary task depends upon successful communion with other human beings based on respect for them as persons, as well as respect for their culture. Successful missionaries should be convinced that they bring a message that will transform listeners living in the new context. Still, they should also recognize that transforming their message itself may become a new gift that is returned to them.

Conclusion This chapter aimed to bring the discussion within the Pentecostal articulated hermeneutic back to the doctrine of the Trinity. It emphasized the importance of human attempts at God-talk. Christians can do no other than think and talk about their God, and the Bible provides them with the means to access the presence of God by describing the divine self-revelation, at first to Israel 612

Raimon Panikkar and S. Eastham, The Cosmotheandric Experience: Emerging Religious Consciousness (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1993). 613 Michael von Bruck, The Unity of Reality: God, God-Experience and Meditation in the Hindu-Christian Dialogue (New York: Paulist Press, 1991). 614 Panikkar, The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man, 55.

282

Chapter 5

and then to all human beings. The challenge is restricting God-talk to such revelation and withholding any attempts to express God’s essence. An excellent example of such a purely philosophical discussion of God’s essence, done for the most part without distinguishing it from the revealed energies of God, can be found in the work of Thomas McCall, a philosophical theologian.615 The author works in the tradition of realist theists like Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Richard Swinburne, William P. Alston, and Keith Yandell. He discusses divine attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, eternity, simplicity, immutability, and impassibility.616 In addition, he spends many pages discussing the various theological efforts in the history of the development of the trinitarian doctrine. He demonstrates such philosophical attempts to catch the incomprehensible in long and complex arguments. He starts from the presupposition that the earliest Christians worshiped Jesus, indicating their acceptance that he was included in the identity of the one God. They saw him as a distinct speech agent without seeing this worship as a compromise of their monotheism.617 In other words, his supposition is that (all) early Christians accepted the divinity of Jesus, indicating his lack of historical knowledge about the controversies and conflicts that surrounded the early believers’ challenge to sort out the identity of the crucified One. These believers agreed only that Jesus was crucified, not even why it happened. In the chapter, the distinction between the energies and essence of God was discussed by relating the divine essence to what it identified as its most prominent elements, namely the eternity, holiness, and glory of God, concepts that biblical authors used to “hide” the inexpressible essence because they illustrate the unknowability and ineffability of the God who lives in a different reality. In order to take up the challenge to rethink an alternative Pentecostal hermeneutical consideration of the doctrine, it was necessary to look at 615

McCall, Which Trinity? McCall, Which Trinity?, 3. 617 McCall, Which Trinity?, 57. 616

God and Trinity

283

traditional classical Pentecostal God-talk of the Trinity and contrast it to early alternatives of God-talk of the Trinity among Pentecostals in the form of Finished Work and Oneness Pentecostalism. Oneness Pentecostalism limits the divine to Jesus to defend the monotheism that characterizes the Old Testament. These views were then contrasted to the views of the Jesus Seminar, represented by John Shelby Spong, before some implications of the traditional Pentecostal view were compared to the issues that (re)surfaced among contemporary discussion of the subject. These include God’s maleness within the Trinity, the idea of God’s existence as a Trinity as communion and its implications for human beings, and the challenges that socio-political concerns and the postmodern interfaith context pose to the Christian Church. The next chapter develops proposals for an alternative way of God-talk in terms of the articulated Pentecostal hermeneutic. Finally, it concludes that Pentecostals should reconsider their traditional God-talk about the Trinity to do justice to the revelation of their God.

CHAPTER 6 ALTERNATIVE PENTECOSTAL WAYS OF GOD-TALK AND THE TRINITY Introduction Rather than attempting to summarize the innumerable insights and lessons of the long and winding story of trinitarian theology in biblical, historical, and contemporary settings, my aim in this final chapter is to distill the key contributions emerging from this discussion. Even here, I take the liberty of being selective and discussing those perspectives that I see as groundbreaking and critical for continuing global conversation. In addition to registering those contributions, I will also continue the dialogue by suggesting some further tasks and pointing to some challenges and possible directions the discourse may take soon. In other words, this final chapter represents one theologian’s assessment of the key critical contributions and insights emerging from a comprehensive global conversation.618 Few (if any) of the established main-line Churches saw the Pentecostal movement, the result of nineteenth-century revivalism sweeping into the twentieth, as a renewal movement at first. Eventually, they recognized the significance of Pentecostalism’s emphasis on pneumatology, their charismatic democratization of the worship service, and their fresh way of looking at the Bible – that is, viewing it not as the final divine revelation but as an introduction to the ongoing divine revelation, leaving room for extrabiblical insights. Although Pentecostal theological thought is undoubtedly far from flawless, illustrated by its own diversity that at times served to schismatize the Church, it contributed to, and will continue to engage in fruitful discussion with, other theological discourses. Moreover,

618

Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 383.

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

285

Pentecostalism rethought several aspects of orthodox thinking that the Church had accepted for centuries. It is suggested that Pentecostals should revisit and rethink one more concept: the God-concept that underlies their own and most of the Western Christian tradition. It is a mistake to view the traditional concept of God’s trinitarian existence as sacred and untouchable. Instead, it should be turned on its head, critically and objectively, and observed afresh from all sides. It is also suggested that Pentecostals would benefit from combining some elements of the Eastern Church’s paradigm of viewing God, with discussions about the Trinity that have marked new theological discourse about the subject during the past six decades. Its stimulating insights can be utilized while rethinking the trinitarian concept. This study attempts to ask whether the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, of one God existing in three persons, represents the best result of communal Christian reflection on the concrete relevant narratives of Scripture. Put slightly differently, the aim of this study is to ask, to use the words of VelliMatti Kärkkäinen, if is it not instead the product of philosophically speculative theology gone awry?619 Vladimir Lossky argues from the side of Eastern mystical theology that applying a number to God implies that we submit the Divinity to an exterior determination, a form proper to our understanding. This includes the number three and the concept of “persons.”620 But, as Lossky also does, this study argued that the divine selfrevelation should always imply an abyss between the truths that it represents and the “truths” that philosophical speculation can attempt to describe.621 I started with the observation from my ministry that it seemed to me that much of our God-talk is actually characterized by a belief in three different gods, illustrated clearly when many Pentecostals pray and worship. The uninitiated might conclude that we are serving a multiplicity of gods, given how we distinguish between the “persons” of the one God.

619

Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 385. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, 47. 621 Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, 49. 620

286

Chapter 6

Kärkkäinen accepts the traditional assertion that the biblical narrative affirms God as the Triune One and argues that it is the very heart of the Christian faith and its distinctive conception of God. For that reason, he argues, any truly Christian theology must be trinitarian in structure. The only way to study the God of the Bible, which is the task of theology, is to study the Triune One.622 However, is that the only and best way for Pentecostals to think about God? It is suggested that a shift should occur to help believers comprehend the concept of an ineffable God better in terms of divine self-revelation. Few readers of the Bible would disagree that the New Testament contains numerous references to the heavenly Father, the Son of God, and the Spirit. It is not possible to pray, worship, or witness without referring to God by using variants of the different designations of God. In many traditions, people pray to the Father, through the Son, and in the power of the Spirit. In some instances, it happened that pastors within these traditions even faced prosecution by their denominations because they did not pray exclusively to the Father, but also to Jesus or the Spirit. Such cases illustrate how the three persons/aspects/agencies of God are distinguished from each other. In practice, it seems to me to reflect a position akin to tritheism, thinking of God in terms of a pantheon of three separate gods: Father, Son, and Spirit. It lost, in some sense, the “oneness” of the “three.” It seems that the concept of the oneness of God questions such thinking. Additionally, Amos Yong emphasizes that our understanding of the Son and the Father and our union with the Son and the Father are facilitated in a pneumatological sense.623 This illustrates the close relationship between the three modalities, a closeness that gets lost when the distinction between the three is overemphasized at the cost of the oneness. In the liturgy, one often finds references to God as Father, Son, and Spirit. In the past, most theologians agreed that although the term “Trinity” is not in the Bible, one can find the phenomenon of one God existing in three

622

Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 386. Amos Yong, “Toward a Trinitarian Theology of Religions: A PentecostalEvangelical and Missiological Elaboration,” International Bulletin of Mission Research I 40, no.4 (2016), 294-306 (303).

623

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

287

entities or “forms,” for lack of a better word, in the Bible and the practice of the church and believers’ lives. The conclusion is that the “Trinity” is presupposed by biblical authors, and this is especially evident in the New Testament and the beliefs of the early Church. Frank Macchia, for instance, states unequivocally that the Trinity as a fact is apparent to anyone who has read the New Testament or gone to church for any length of time.624 At the same time, he tells of his experience as a student when his professor in historical theology, Robert Webber, acknowledged that many Christians are tritheists in practice. Webber explains that believers tend to think of God as a pantheon of three separate gods: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The oneness of God tends to elude them, and they do not think about it.625 However, does the designations of “Father,” “Son,” and “Spirit” necessarily refer to “persons,” justified by human designations of “father” and “son” to “persons?” And where does “Spirit” fit into this scheme? How can “spirit” be a person? Is it logical? In human terms, “spirit” at most refers to one aspect of a “person,” although the word is also used to refer to several other phenomena.626 Ascribing (even enforcing) the traditional trinitarian doctrine in the Bible presupposes that one accepts that God’s three elements, forms, or aspects refer to “persons.” My initial motivation for reconsidering the traditional form of the concept of Trinity was the need to distinguish between different persons in the divine for the sake of the Protestant view of the divine salvation plan. Nevertheless, 624

Macchia, The Trinity, Practically Speaking, 2. Macchia, The Trinity, Practically Speaking, 108. 626 According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “spirit” can refer to an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms; a supernatural being or essence; a malevolent being that is bodiless but can become visible; a malevolent being that enters and possesses a human being; the temper, disposition of mind, or outlook, especially when a person is vigorous or animated; the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person; the activating or essential principle influencing a person; an inclination, impulse, or tendency of a specified kind; a special attitude or frame of mind; the feeling, quality, or disposition characterizing something; a lively or brisk quality in a person or a person’s actions; a person having a character or disposition of a specified nature; a mental disposition characterized by firmness or assertiveness; prevailing tone or tendency; general intent or real meaning; an alcoholic solution of a volatile substance; and enthusiastic loyalty (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spirit; accessed 2022-01-13). 625

288

Chapter 6

I do not deny the Bible’s traditional fluency in the grammar, lexicon, and syntax of primary “trinitarian” discourse. Therefore, this study does not deny that the biblical narrative presents the one God as existing in three agencies that reveal different aspects of the divine to human beings. Instead, it asks whether the doctrine of the Trinity, based on the revelation of one God as described in the Bible that in time seems to consist of three agencies, presents the best way to speak of God? It appears that the question that remains to be answered is how one can justify the discourse in terms of the fundamental conviction that the divine exists as a unity. The question was also vexing for Karl Barth and Karl Rahner and led to the accusation that they were alleged modalists. As will be discussed, several other theologians also seem to find the trinitarian solution problematic.

Incomprehensibility of the subject of God-talk This study asserts that all God-talk is limited by the subject of theological investigation, consisting of the ineffable divine. This theme returns the table because, in all God-talk, it is imperative to remind oneself of the incomprehensibility of the Subject that is characterized by ineffability. For this reason, Marcus Borg emphasizes the importance of avoiding the human tendency toward excessive precision and certainty in God-talk.627 An unknown mystic in the English tradition, living in the latter half of the fourteenth century, referred to God as the unknown.628 The author asserts that the only way to know the Unknown is to abandon any consideration of God and surrender one’s mind and ego to the divine realm. Only then will the believer experience the reality of the Unknowing. Augustine, who influenced the Western Christian Church to a large extent by the way he defined and discussed the Trinity, also admitted that it is imperative that believers must hold fast to the rule that what has not yet become apparent to the human intellect must still be preserved by the

627

Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 50. Anonymous, The Cloud of Unknowing, edited by William Johnson (Baltimore, MD: Image, 1996).

628

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

289

firmness of faith.629 He asserts that Christian theology has often been bedeviled by the human desire to know too much and to know it too precisely. The challenge is compounded when it is kept in mind that such thinking necessarily occurs within the limitations of human language that is limited to human experience and imagination. Augustine refers to some doctrinal disputes of the past where theologians made the mistake of knowing about matters about God with such precision and certainty that they claimed the absolute truth of their convictions. One example of such a debate would eventually tear Christianity apart and leave the Western and Eastern Churches alienated from each other. The issue was whether the Spirit proceeds only from the Father or from the Father and the Son. The debate presupposed that it is possible to know precisely and with certainty what the internal relationships within the Godhead were, which biblical authors explicitly and implicitly denied. Pentecostals insist that theology may only follow the experience of worship. Christopher Webber affirms that people who worship God experience how difficult it is to put their experience of the Divinity into words. The reason is that God is always beyond our definitions.630 People requiring precise answers to all their questions will be frustrated. In contrast, those who feel restricted and unsatisfied by easy explanations given about God in the past will find it liberating to be permitted to stammer about God and stumble over their words. In all cases, our descriptions of the Divinity are speculative; only when we describe Israel’s or the early Church’s experiences or our own can we speak confidently of ourselves. The Pentecostal journey is a lifelong quest for a fuller knowledge of God. We realize it can only be fully satisfied when we enter the divine presence of eternal life. The indefinability of its subject implies that theology will never be more than a stuttering attempt to find the necessarily humanly developed and defined concepts to describe the indescribable. The only way to talk fluently about God is by testifying to the divine works found in the Scriptures, the beauty of creation, and the experience of the divine care bestowed on human beings. That is the reason why biblical authors employ narrative exclusively 629 630

Augustine, On the Trinity, 8; Preface, 4. Webber, Welcome to the Episcopalian Church, 64.

290

Chapter 6

when they attempt to speak about the Divinity – not only because the Hebrew language was concrete, but also because they realized the limitations in trying to verbalize the ineffable. Narrative and story are the preferred forms of biblical revelation; any God-talk should be anchored firmly in salvation history, which includes current believers in its flow. In conformity with the Eastern tradition, it is accepted that, to a certain extent, there cannot be a theology of the divine essence. The reason is clear: the divine essence is unknowable to any human being. Our encounter with God is limited to the work of the Spirit in the Church and the world that can be contained in narratives. Spirituality is not concerned with the vision of the essence, but rather with the divine kingdom or reign realized in the divine Spirit working in and through people’s lives. The principle is that people searching for the fullness of being and the end and meaning of existence can find it only in the revelation of the divine energies.631 A vital result of traditional God-talk that contains God in theological propositions is that it domesticates God. The unknown God is tamed to be accommodated by human perceptions. In the process, God becomes the product of the human mind, a projection of the human desire for perfection. To provide an example of such domestication, one may consider the “spiritual” laws that prosperity teachers formulate which “compel” God to act in line with their “confessions” of “faith.” They manipulate their God to provide for their hearts’ desires by subjecting divine behavior to the “promises” “God’s word” provided.632 To resist the urge to domesticate God, it is essential that we encounter the Divinity as the Creator who revealed the divine self in the splendor of the universe and Jesus Christ. The Bible, along with nature, show the way to such an encounter.

Alternative Ways of God-talk How should one think about the three entities that defined the Divinity and led the traditional Church to speak of them as persons? First, it is crucial to 631 632

Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, 65. The terms in quotes refer to notions defined in unique ways by prosperity teachers.

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

291

emphasize that it is not possible to talk with any confidence about God, the incomprehensible Creator of the universe that limits us to its boundaries. Human beings in any definite form cannot conceive of the God who exists outside our universe. We can only witness how God reveals the divine self to us in various ways and through the ages. The problem, as stated, seems to be that many Pentecostals are practical polytheists in practice because their distinctions between the Son and the Father had changed them into different gods, not only different persons. To overcome this challenge, it seems that Pentecostals should look for new ways, consisting of a middle way between trinitarianism and modalism. On the one hand, authors in the Hebrew Bible refer to God and the Spirit in ways that identify them with each other (and the same is true when they refer to wisdom, word, and other terms). In contrast, authors in the New Testament differentiate the Son from the Father (and, to a lesser degree, the Spirit). When we combine the two aspects of God’s incomprehensibility and modalism to describe the divinity’s inner workings, it defines God as relational. To say anything more is risky because who can know the Mighty God? It might be a good idea in all God-talk to keep God’s response to Job’s charges in mind: “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me” (Job 38:2-3). As the Eastern Church shows, negative theology is the best means to endeavor in God-talk. We can state that human love, forgiveness, grace, care, goodness, justice, etc cannot be applied to God. Whilst God contains all these characteristics but in such perfection that our ideas of the most perfect examples of, say, love, like the self-sacrificing love of a mother for her vulnerable child, cannot compare with divine love. On the other hand, Biblical narratives represent human attempts to speak of the divine self-revelation in terms that make sense to people within their own experiences. One should remember: what they state about God is not to be taken literally because God represents an entity existing in a dimension (multi-dimension?) that exists outside the human frame of reference. By using concepts derived from human experience, these narratives bring the transcendent God down to a level that humans can understand. As a result,

292

Chapter 6

they redefine God to make God accessible to human understanding and establish a shadow of the true God. There is no other way to make sense of the Divinity. However, we should constantly consider the inherent limitations in all our God-talk. At the same time, it is suggested that our God-talk should reject the distinction of the Father and Spirit as persons. Because the Son was born a human being, it does not imply that the Father and Spirit should also be human beings, or even persons. God became a human being in Christ to ensure our salvation, but that does not imply that God is or remained a human being. William Atkinson, a prominent English Pentecostal scholar, illustrates the embarrassment of calling the Spirit a person.633 He admits that the Spirit’s being is the most difficult to explain or identify. He emphasizes that the Spirit is not a created heavenly intermediary, but is best understood as God’s own being, an extension of God. In instrumental terms, the Spirit is the means for facilitating the communication of love between the Father and the Son. Atkinson thinks that the Son and the Spirit cannot be identified with each other though he admits that New Testament authors linked them closely. Atkinson also admits that the New Testament and Pentecostals’ encounters with the Spirit view the Spirit more impersonally than personally. However, he claims that it is not impossible to view the Spirit personally as well. In contrast, it is much easier to explain Jesus as personal. For these reasons, Pentecostals may instead consider seeing God in terms of different ways of the divine self-revelation, emphasizing creative and sustaining powers when we speak about the Creator. When we speak of the Father, we refer to the divine empathetic care for human beings. In referring to the Son, we refer to divine love and providence, which teach us new ways to live that transform our lives. This way of thinking somewhat links to modalist perspectives, specifically the modalist Monarchianism of

633

William P. Atkinson, Trinity After Pentecost (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2013), 149.

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

293

the second and third centuries that interfaces with aspects of the Antiochene school of thought of the fourth and fifth centuries.634 In other words, the three entities are aspects of divine self-revelation. To use an example from human experience (what else can we use?), in the same way that a woman is a daughter of her parents, a wife for her husband, a mother for her children, and a medical doctor in employment at a hospital, the Divinity acts in different circumstances and takes on different characterizations. At times, God may reveal divine wrath at our behavior. At other times, we may experience the divine presence as forgiving love. It implies that divine self-revelation, as we perceive it, may create the impression that different “persons” act in different ways, defining them as other persons. However, that is not necessarily the case when they refer to persons. Several contemporary theologians have realized the dilemma when one refers to three persons in one Divinity. Several theologians are currently arguing for functional modalism; they associate it with alternative functional names for the persons of the Trinity. For example, John Thompson refers to the Father as the creator, the Son as the savior, and the Spirit as the sustainer.635 Karl Barth provides another example. He prefers not to use the concept of “person;” instead, he refers to “modes of being.”636 As a result, Jürgen Moltmann complained that Barth tends to modalism when he views the three persons as functioning modes of being of one subject.637 Moltmann includes Karl Rahner in his criticism.638 Rahner uses the term “three distinct manners of subsisting” to describe the three entities in the Divinity, betraying some modalist dispositions.639 It is submitted that divine modalism is to be qualified by divine relationality. In encountering 634

Yong and Anderson, Renewing Christian Theology, 300. John Thompson, Modern Trinitarian Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 115. 636 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol. 1: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. Translated by Geoffrey William Bromiley, Thomas F. Torrance (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2003 [1932]), 407-417. 637 Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 139-44. 638 Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 144. 639 Karl Rahner, The Trinit. Translated by Joseph Donceel (New York: Herder & Herder, 1970). 635

294

Chapter 6

God, the most significant impression is that God is relational, desiring a personal relationship with human beings. John Hick is another proponent of this modalism when he states that “...for a non-traditional form of Christianity the Trinitarian symbol does not refer to three centres of consciousness and will but to three ways in which one God is humanly known-as creator, as transformer, and an inner spirit. We do not need to reify these ways as distinct persons.”640 In their turn, Barth and Rahner also resolutely deny three centers of consciousness and will within the one God. Rahner adds there is only one “self-utterance” in God.641 There is in God “one consciousness that exists in a threefold way.”642 Barth is also adamant that there is “only one Willer and Doer that the Bible calls God.” It is logically impossible to speak of three divine “I’s” – one should instead refer to thrice of the one divine “I.”643 The “personality” of God belongs to the one unique divine essence of God. There is only one divine Subject and “one speaking and acting divine Ego.” If there were three of these, logic would demand that “we should obviously have to do with three gods,”644 and that would constitute tritheism. Thomas McCall disagrees strongly and states succinctly that the Father and Son are and have different centers of consciousness and will, a conclusion he makes from John 17:25-26.645 According to these verses, the Johannine Jesus explains that the world does not know the Father, but Jesus knows the Father. Jesus has been making and will continue to proclaim the Father’s name to them so that the Father’s love for Jesus may be in them, along with

640

Cited in Stephen T. Davis, “John Hick on Incarnation and Trinity,” in The Trinity, edited by Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 269. 641 Rahner, Trinity, 106. 642 Rahner, Trinity, 107. 643 Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1, 351. 644 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics Vol. IV The Doctrine of Reconciliation, Part 1. Translated by Geoffrey William Bromiley, Thomas F. Torrance (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark), 2010 (1986), 205. 645 Thomas H. McCall, Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 71.

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

295

Jesus. McCall argues that Jesus, with these words and in this way, displays his consciousness of his preexistence and correlativity with the Father. The distinction in the Divinity between three persons is confusing to Christians on the practical level, requiring pastoral sensitivity for believers who view fellow Pentecostals’ perspective of God as polytheistic or tritheistic rather than monotheistic. However, they are correct in feeling confused, because such views do not represent the normative biblical perspective of God. When we view the different characterizations of one entity revealed as three in non-literalist terms, they are images, metaphors, or analogies of the divine self-revelation. Then God’s fatherhood serves as a metaphor for the divine paternal care for the well-being of human beings. At the same time, divine sonship refers to the revelation of divine grace to establish the means to reestablish fellowship with God. Finally, the divine Spirit refers to the involvement of God in the daily lives of human beings, realizing the consciousness of the divine presence and encouraging, warning, and leading Spirit-filled believers in revealing the divine will and establishing the divine rule on Earth. These analogies are extended to include the expectation of the second coming of Christ that serves as a metaphor for the human hope that God will ultimately establish the divine rule to include the whole Earth and not only the Church. This perspective eliminates the current custom of speaking to Jesus as though he exists apart from God or thinking of God as an exclusively external force. Instead, we realize that to be Spirit-filled is to enjoy the privilege of divine presence in one’s life. Most Pentecostals are conservative by nature, and the chances are slim that they might reconsider their views of the Trinity or even their hermeneutical perspective. However, academic atheism that responds partly to the question of the Trinity challenges them (along with the rest of Christianity). Atheism argues that religious beliefs, particularly belief in God, betray themselves as human philosophical projections, as Ludwig Feuerbach

296

Chapter 6

asserted as long ago as 1841 in his book, The Essence of Christianity.646 George W.F. Hegel and Karl Marx further developed Feuerbach’s ideas. Sigmund Freud would later describe all religious ideas as a sickness of the mind.647 He argued that people need a good and vivacious father, a savior to save them from their shortcomings and tendency to criminal behavior, and a sense of the presence and encouragement of a divine figure while facing the challenges life poses to them. Hence, the design of a divine Father, Son, and Spirit. The arguments of atheist thinkers about the Christian God can be summed up by their assertion that the concept of God is incoherent, faith is the opposite of reason, and the postmodern world holds no place for an alternative to a reasonable living, given that theism lacks any rational grounds. They assert that the existence of belief in a God who is omnipotent and omniscient at the same time is one of the biggest challenges to theism.648 Christians may respond to this challenge in various ways, one of which is to rethink their traditional way of viewing God as a Trinity of persons. The argument for alternative ways of God-talk suggested in this study rests on several pillars. Before discussing these pillars, it is crucial to emphasize that any way of God-talk is qualified by its Subject, the indefinable and indescribable God. The attempts in this chapter are also qualified and limited by it and can never be more than provisional and stumbling in theological assertions. It is also necessary to state what the view consists of. As documented in the previous chapter, Pentecostals traditionally viewed the Divinity as three distinct persons that exist and operate apart from each other. It served to justify the view that one person (Jesus) must make atonement for sinners with the other (the Father). Another person (the Spirit) must intercede for believers with the others (Father and Son). Amos Yong acknowledged that the trinitarian consensus emerging from the fourth-century ecumenical councils adopted nonbiblical categories of 646

Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 113. Hans Schwarz, The God Who Is: The Christian God in a Pluralistic World (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 4-9. 648 For a further discussion, see Marius Nel, God, Suffering, and Pentecostals (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2022). 647

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

297

thinking to contain divine essence.649 They borrowed these categories from Hellenistic, Greek, and Platonic philosophical endeavors. For instance, the consensus relies on Neoplatonic notions of time and eternity (as discussed in the previous chapter) to reinterpret biblical data, or the lack of such data, within a foreign framework. In this way, the Church contextualized its message in categories used by its listeners. However, at the same time, it can be argued that these categories changed the essence of what biblical authors said and their God-talk. Alternative views suggest that the Father be seen as the reigning creator, ruler, and maintainer. Jesus in the incarnation is the personification of the divine heart consisting of compassionate love for human beings that brings about reconciliation between the divine and humanity, and the Spirit as the uninterrupted divine presence in believers’ lives. Yong’s idea that the Holy Spirit is God’s way of being (Seinsweise) present to and active within the world illustrates this point.650 He argues that the Trinity signifies a mutual-love model, with the Spirit relating Father and Son to each other, and God to humanity. The Father bestows the Spirit on him in the divine love for the Son to acquire that goal. That love forms the essential reason for realizing the goal of the economy of salvation, which consists of restoring humans’ relationship with the divine. When Jesus ascended to the divine abode, he left the Spirit to relate the world to God.651 The implication is clear: reality as such is inherently relational. The idea of “spirit/Spirit” itself refers to the quality of relationality that holds together various things in their integrity without the dissolution of their individual identities.652 In the words of John Damascene, the Divinity is undivided, like three suns cleaving to each other without any separation. It gives out one light as the 649

Yong and Anderson, Renewing Christian Theology, 299. Yong, An Amos Yong Reader, 11. It must be stated clearly that Yong does not support the alternative views developed in this publication. He holds to the traditional stance of a trinity of persons. However, his explanation is useful to refer to the relations between the Father, Son, and Spirit. 651 Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, 69-70. 652 Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, 84-86; see also discussion in Yong, An Amos Yong Reader, 3-4. 650

298

Chapter 6

light of the sun.653 The Father is the “symbol,” metaphor, or sign for divine creation, the Son for divine love and care, and the Spirit for divine presence, in the same way that the Word refers to divine revelation and Wisdom to divine counsel. It is evident that one can say much more to flesh out these concepts. However, what is vital in the context of Pentecostal values is the effect of such a way of God-talk on believers’ worship. In worshiping the one true God, believers now approach the Divinity not in terms of three distinct persons but in the different ways the divine exists and functions. This enriches their view of God and provides them with the liturgical language to speak to God and testify to their divine encounters. Three pillars support the alternative views. The first is the human inability to comprehend the Divinity within the existing framework of existence and the inherent limitations to language in speaking about transcendency. The second refers to a new (postmodern) emphasis on relationality contra substance. The third offers an alternative to the traditional way of describing the Trinity in terms of persons by emphasizing instead that the Godhead exists of three entities functioning as modes of being (Seinsweise) of the one God. However, the functioning in the modes is not seen in terms of different and sequential ages, for example, with the Father working in Old Testament times, the Son in New Testament times, and the Spirit in the church era. Instead, one God reveals the divine self to human beings in different modes, experienced by humans as different aspects of the divine self-revelation.

First pillar: Human inability to comprehend God So far, humans’ inability to understand the divine essence has been discussed several times. To my mind, this is a critical consideration that one should keep in mind in all God-talk.

653

John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa, quoted in Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, 54.

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

299

A phrase coined by philosopher Timothy Morton might describe the human inability to know and understand God.654 He defines “hyperobjects.” They are something so enormous in the forecast impact of global warming, so divorced from our lived experience of the world that we cannot process it. It is suggested that God-talk falls in a similar category as a hyperobject. It refers to an entity that exists in another dimension and falls outside our frame of reference; there is nothing in our lived experience that we can use to compare or provide the necessary language to describe the divine essence. This can be compared to the difficulty in discerning life forms if we were to find such life in an extrasolar object that exists in a form unknown to us – we would probably not recognize it for what it is. In this regard, Francesca Stavrakopoulou refers to Maimonides (also called Ramban) to illustrate the need to use specialized religious logic to demonstrate the divine’s incomprehensibility and uncontainable nature.655 She criticized Rabbinic Judaism for the easy way it speaks of God as though it knew God in person. In this context, the present study should be seen as a further attempt to contextualize the doctrine of God in the context of postmodern people. The last chapter closed with Thomas McCall’s work as a philosophical theologian in discussing Christian monotheism and the Trinity. He was criticized for his abstract description of God which lacked any biblical evidence. One can compare this to one of his trinitarian explanations in contemporary philosophical theology to demonstrate the criticism. McCall represents a group of theologians practicing philosophical and systematic theological scholarship. He admits that the doctrine seems logically inconsistent and thus necessarily false and challenging to an essential doctrine of orthodox Christianity.656 He refers to the Athanasian Creed (or Quicunque Vult, or Quicumque Vult, the opening words in Latin, “Whosoever wishes”), used since the sixth century CE. It explains that belief in both the distinctness and Divinity of the three persons, on the one 654 Discussed in Simon Mundy, Race for Tomorrow: Survival, Innovation, and Profit

on the Front Lines of the Climate Crisis (London: William Collins, 2021), 22. Francesca Stavrakopoulou, God: An Anatomy (London: Picador, 2021), 87. 656 McCall, Which Trinity?, 11. 655

300

Chapter 6

hand, and belief in the oneness or unity of God, on the other hand, are essential to orthodox Christian belief. McCall distinguishes between several forms of Trinitarianism developed by scholars. First, he discusses Social Trinitarianism by referring to the words of an American analytic philosopher, which describes the Trinity as a divine, transcendent society or community of “three fully personal and fully divine entities:” the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit or Paraclete. The three persons are united by their common Divinity, defined as possessing a generic divine essence and their joint redemptive purpose, revelation, and work. The Trinity is a zestful community of divine light, love, joy, mutuality, and verve.657 Social Trinitarians cling to “respectability as monotheists” by saying that there is only one God because the Old Testament often uses the term. It designates the Father or the Trinity. He emphasizes that it explains that there is only one God in the generic divine essence.658 The Godhead exists as three individuals, each of whom is a distinct center of consciousness and will, and each of whom fully possesses the “divine kind-essence.”659 The second distinction is Anti-Social Trinitarianism, which exists to criticize Social Trinitarianism. It argues that Social Trinitarianism can only be justified by seeing it as Functional Monotheism because it conceives of the divine being as a collective that is indivisible for logical reasons. It consists of various elements. Its Group Mind Monotheism states that the three divine minds somehow “emerge” or meld into one divine mind or one center of self-awareness, consciousness, and will. Its Trinity Monotheism entails the compromise of an adequate doctrine of divine omniscience by proposing a fourth mind that combines the knowledge of the distinct persons to amount to full omniscience. McCall refers to the work of J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig in the tradition of Social Trinitarianism. They argue that the “central commitment” of Social Trinitarianism is the conviction that there are three distinct centers of self-consciousness in God, implying that each person has a distinctive proper intellect and will. Why, then, are there not three Gods? In opting for 657

McCall, Which Trinity?, 13-14. McCall, Which Trinity?, 14. 659 McCall, Which Trinity?, 17. 658

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

301

“Trinity Monotheism,” there are two alternative ways of arguing. Either only the Trinity is God, composed of non-divine persons, or the sum of all divine persons is somehow not divine. They deny that the Trinity is a fourth instance of the divine nature but agree that the Trinity is divine. The Trinity cannot be the fourth instance because there are no other instances of divine nature. Therefore, there is but one God. To refer to God as Father, Son, or Spirit implies that they perform different functions. What makes them divine? Moreland and Craig reply that there is some sort of part-whole relation between the persons of the Trinity and the entire Godhead. Parts can possess properties that the whole does not, and the whole can have a specific property because some part has it. Saying that God is omniscient or omnipotent does not imply a fourth person in the Trinity, but that God has these properties because the persons do. Moreland and Craig justify their view by arguing that nothing in Scripture warrants us to think that God is simple or that each person of the Trinity is identical to the whole Trinity. Why not, then, think of the three persons of the Godhead standing in some sort of part-whole relation to the Trinity? They represent three centers of consciousness. God is one but is also endowed with three complete sets of rational cognitive faculties, each sufficient for personhood. God is one being who supports three persons. As argued, this implies that what contemporary people define as personhood differs from what people in the early Church meant, as James D.G. Dunn also argues.660 McCall distinguishes two other forms of Trinitarianism. The first is Relative Trinitarianism, which finds the distinct identity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in their relations, providing a more substantial account of divine oneness. The second is Latin Trinitarianism, which asserts that God lives the divine life in three discrete strands at once.661 In contrast, no event of divine life occurs in more than one strand, and no strand succeeds another. The events of each strand add up to the life of a Person, and the lives of the three Persons add up to the life God lives as the three Persons. The one God is many in the events of divine life.662 660

James D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (London: SCM, 1980), 264. McCall, Which Trinity?, 105. 662 McCall, Which Trinity?, 111. 661

302

Chapter 6

The reason for discussing McCall’s work in more detail was to illustrate how philosophical and systematic theological theology is based on abstract reasoning without referring to biblical data about the subject under discussion. When such analyses lead to conclusions that are viewed in dogmatic terms as the “truth,” it presupposes that cerebral thinking about God can contain God. On the other hand, suppose the theological endeavor is limited to the witnesses who testify about humans’ charismatic experiences included in the Bible. In this case, scholars limit their theological attempts to divine energies, a way of theologizing advocated for in this publication. At the same time, believers must remember that in attempting to speak of God, they can do no other than use concepts that portray their own experiences as human beings. In talking about the transcendent and perfect God, the temptation is to interpret the human terms that attempt to say something about God in literal ways. In this way, the divine becomes captive to humans’ descriptions of the divine. In the Bible, human beings participated in divine revelation in a specific time frame, culture, religious tradition, and nationalistic and cultural prejudices that define their attempts to relate their experiences of perceived encounters with God. To interpret their words literally results in the confusion of systematic propositions about God that represent nothing more than limited human attempts to speak of God; McCall serves as an example. What is the solution? To stop speaking about God does not solve the challenge, as illustrated by biblical authors that kept on attempting to interpret their lives in terms of their faith. Their lack of scientific knowledge did not keep them from using their views of the world’s creation as a metaphor to state their belief that the God of Israel and Jesus is also the creator of the universe. Their example permits contemporary human beings to continue speaking tentatively and hesitatingly about God. They certainly made some mistakes in the process of verbalizing their experiences and concept of God. This implies that we should not take our God-talk more seriously than warranted because we speak of Someone that no human intelligence or comprehensibility can define, at least not while our human bondage limits us to earthly reality.

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

303

The alternative solution presented here does not solve every problem (see, e.g., the later discussion about the justification for Jesus’ death on the cross). Especially in the New Testament, some authors use language which suggests that God exists as three different entities representing persons. For instance, one of the entities does not know what the other is thinking or doing (e.g., Mark 13:32). How can the one God forsake the divine self, as portrayed on the cross when Jesus bemoaned the fact that God had forsaken him (Mark 15:34)? How can God receive the Spirit of God if Jesus is already God, as happened at his baptism by John in the Jordan (Mark 1:10)? Why is it necessary that one divine person does penance and pay the price of human sin to another divine person to restore human beings, as Jesus did on the cross to appease the justified alienation between God and humans? Why did God not simply forgive repentant human beings their sins? As human beings, we expect criminals to “pay” for their wrongdoings, but God is no human being. Why should God function according to the principles of human legal systems? Is it not the same God who expects believers, the members of the divine household, to forgive without requiring anything from those who sinned against us? Why did God not apply the same principle by forgiving human beings their sins without requiring any form of penance? Yong argues convincingly about the human inability to comprehend the Divinity within our framework of existence. He states that all claims about “truth” should be made with great humility, because all human knowledge is fallible.663 What Yong ascribes to the pneumatological imagination is also true of Pentecostals’ hermeneutics and ontology. Some Pentecostal leaders may make dramatic announcements about the quality of their “revelation knowledge.” Still, Christians need humility in discussing truth and should leave room to compare one’s concepts of “truth” with that of others. In the love song in 1 Corinthians 13, the author contends that prophecies, tongues, and (from the context, presumably spiritual or religious) knowledge have a limited life span. It underlines that human beings know only in part while waiting for the completion when the partial comes to an end (vv. 8-9). Verse 12 then uses the image of the ancient mirror with its limited capacity to

663

Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, 176-183.

304

Chapter 6

reflect a face and explains that believers now see as in a mirror while they await the time when they will see “face to face.” The implication is that all knowledge, especially knowledge about the Divinity, is fallible and requires epistemological skepticism, tempered by the realization that spiritual reality as we perceive it is more or less truthful.664 Traditionally, Pentecostals view glossolalia in terms of such divine incomprehensibility. Many Pentecostals think of glossolalia as a sign of Spirit baptism, while a smaller group refers to it as the initial sign. Some limit its use in terms of the gift requiring an interpretation, implying that it contains a divine message addressed to a group of people or individuals. However, most appreciate the gift for its use as a prayer and worship language, assisting the worshiper to address God in more than cerebral terms, praying in the “spirit” – typical Pentecostal jargon to refer to what they perceive as the ability to communicate on a paracerebral level. To speak of and with God, we need languages unknown to us. Much trinitarian talk seems to be based on abstract philosophical speculation.665 However, my suggestion is that the only way to do theology is to start with the divine economy: we can know God only from the revelation of God’s works. And whenever a human being views God’s works, the immediate and initial reaction is to worship God in reverence and humility. Valid theology follows the act of worship. In a similar vein, Christopher Webber, in his discussion of the Episcopalian church, defines worship as an experience that lifts participants beyond language and logic.666 He argues that Episcopalians draw the language of theology primarily from this worship experience. They use the language of speaking to God in theology instead of speaking about God. This is also an integral part of the Pentecostal ethos. They follow the rule of the ancient church, lex orandi, lex credendi (“prayer shapes belief”).667 Only after

664

Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, 184. Yong and Anderson, Renewing Christian Theology, 300-301. 666 Webber, Welcome to the Episcopalian Church, 62. 667 Webber, Welcome to the Episcopalian Church, 63. 665

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

305

speaking with the unknown God in unknown languages can Pentecostals properly define their faith. If the rule that theology can only result in worship is not held, theology quickly ends in abstract speculation. The early Pentecostal believers were justified in worrying about the negative effect that theology might hold. For them, the divine economy existed in unfolding testimonies and narratives about the incarnation of the Son to inaugurate the kingdom of God in the first century CE in Palestine and in the power of the Spirit in the divine encounters of the Church. The “kingdom of God” is defined here as what life would be like on Earth if God were king and the rulers of this world were not. For that reason, Jesus teaches his disciples to pray for the kingdom’s coming (Luke 11:2; Matt 6:10). It is submitted that the most significant and critical precondition for any God-talk is awareness of the incomprehensibility of the essence of God, in contrast to the divine economy revealed in the Bible and the experience of believers. It stands in direct contrast to much of traditional Protestant dogmatics. For instance, David Moe emphasizes that believers can indeed know the transcendent nature of the Trinity through the incarnate Christ by the Spirit.668 In contrast, Ernst Conradie correctly warns of the famous “Rahner’s rule” that states that if the economic Trinity is identified with the immanent Trinity and vice versa, it implies that God’s identity cannot remain unaffected by the event of the cross.669 In the words of Scott Swain, divine primacy, uniqueness, and transcendence warn humans not to think of God’s essence in a creaturely way.670 Human beings cannot speak about God in any other way than from their own reality. It seems that biblical authors considered the application of family resemblances to God one of the more effective ways to do so. However, it is essential to remember that there is no one-to-one correspondence between 668

David Thang Moe, “A Trinitarian Theology of Religions: Themes and Issues in Evangelical Approaches.” Evangelical Review of Theology 41, no. 3 (2017), 234253 (253). 669 Conradie, “South African Discourse on the Triune God: Some Reflections,” 6. 10.4102/hts.v75i1.5483 670 Swain, The Trinity, 107.

306

Chapter 6

God and creatures. We cannot explain divine primacy, uniqueness, and transcendence other than through creaturely language. The Bible asserts that God used our language to reveal the divine economy in terms of a father, son, and spirit. However, in the act of self-revelation, the creaturely language gets new and different uses to accommodate the holiness or otherness of God’s essence. “Father,” “Son,” and “Spirit” indicate something profound and true about God, but this does not imply that real distinctions exist in the one divine as in the case where God exists as three persons. Biblical narrative refers to three historical encounters with God: YHWH choosing Israel as the divine people; Jesus the incarnate Son and his interaction with a group of disciples that eventually formed the Church; and the Spirit who manifests the ongoing presence and guidance of Christ in the faith community through the ages. At the same time, biblical narratives acknowledged that God exists eternally, apart from divine engagement with the world. The eternal God also has a “history,” in Stanley Grenz and John Franke’s terms, consisting of an internal “history” (inner divine life) and an external history, which is the economy of God’s actions and engagement with the world).671 The biblical narratives provide nearly no information about the internal aspects of God’s life. Their silence warns readers to be careful to speak of the Divinity only in terms of what God reveals to humanity about the divine life. Theology should resist the temptation to start from above and proceed to below. The immanent Divinity may never be conflated with the economic Divinity, but the two aspects also may not be separated. Divine economy is the only way to know God. Although it is admitted that it does not provide all the information about God that we might think of, it should be emphasized that we know enough to be restored into a relationship with God and that God challenges us as a mystery. The New Testament uses “mystery” twenty-eight times, and in most cases, these occurrences clearly refer to Jesus Christ.672 The divine self-revelation in the Old Testament clearly turned into the incarnation of Christ in the New Testament. Baik uses the concept of mystery to be determinative of 671

John R. Franke and Stanley J. Grenz, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 174. 672 Baik, The Holy Trinity, 187.

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

307

ontology and epistemology of the Trinity, as an appropriate method to overcome a substance ontology that presupposes two separate ontological levels and excludes a static kind of epistemology. He argues for a spiritual epistemology that allows epistemological transformation in the face of the mystery that Jesus presupposes.673 Human beings can only know so much about God. The apophatic tradition’s emphasis on God as the unknown reminds us that the only way to enter the presence of God is through silence and worship. The transcendent God can never be confined to immanent categories. In the words of Stanley Grenz, the question is how theology can conceptualize the relationship between God-in-eternity and God-in-salvation in such a way that takes seriously the importance of the latter to the former and still avoids collapsing the former into the latter.674 The only solution is to give epistemological priority to the divine economy while simultaneously reserving ontological primacy for the dynamic of the relationality within the divine.

Second pillar: Divine relationality Postmodern thinking supports the suggestion that modalist Monarchianism and trinitarianism should be combined to provide a more balanced way of referring to the indefinable, the essence of God. It emphasizes that “substance” should be replaced by focusing on relationality. As was noted, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed states that there is only one divine substance (ousia or substantia) that is realized in different ways in the three divine “persons” (hypostases). Significantly, Yong remarks correctly that these nonbiblical terms illustrated that the Church resorted to philosophical distinctions and that not all Churches accepted these distinctions, as demonstrated by the debates that kept on raging until the seventh century.675 Father and Son are of one substance, implying identity of substance rather than numerical unity. God has one “substance” but three distinct yet undivided “persons:” “one substance

673

Baik, The Holy Trinity, 189. Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune God, 222. 675 Yong and Anderson, Renewing Christian Theology, 300-301. 674

308

Chapter 6

in three persons” (una substantia, tres persona). Aquinas substantiated “substance” when he defined “person” in terms of “an individual substance of rational nature” and argued that the word “person,” when related to the Divinity, refers to someone the most perfect in the world because of the divine rationally.676 He concluded that it makes the term “person” fit to apply to God in an analogical sense. In the three subsistent persons belonging to the Divinity, Aquinas argued, fatherhood and sonship belong to Father and Son; spiration belongs to both Father and Son because the Spirit comes from both. He equates persons with relations, arguing that believers would better understand divine relationality and mutuality. It was discussed earlier that “person” in Greek changed in meaning over time, implying that the association of the term differed among early Christians from how their successors saw the word. What is vital to remember is that all words can only point toward God. It is impossible to capture or define God with our words.677 In thinking about God, which can only be done tentatively because of the essence of the incomprehensible Divinity, it is submitted that God as love is relational. Therefore, the most we can say is that God reveals the divine self as the relational God who establishes a relationship with human beings. While the Church’s way of thinking views the most important events as consisting of the exchange of substances, implying a static view of the world, in Moltmann’s view, an ontology of dynamic relationships should be preferred that sees no distinction between the divine immanence and the economic Trinity.678 Moltmann argues that Jesus’ incarnation is a revelation of the Trinity through the ages. He writes that reality has as its basis not human and divine substances but interactive relationships, as implied in the relationship in the Trinity. Postmodernism redefines “substance” in terms of relationality, opening the door for a more dynamic perspective on the divine entities presented by 676

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/; accessed 2022-04-21. Webber, Welcome to the Episcopalian Church, 77. See also discussion in the next subsection. 678 See the discussion in McDougall, “The Return of Trinitarian Praxis?,” 177-203. 677

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

309

biblical authors. In this view, it is argued that the Father, Son, and Spirit do not represent three distinct persons but rather a unity that reveals various aspects of God in diverse contexts, providing a distinction in the divine selfrevelation defined in relational terms. It is agreed with several other contemporary theologians that the divine inter-relationality that the Bible presents can, and should, serve as a model for the Church’s existence as distinct members within one body, the body of Christ. The emphasis on relationality is, according to Kärkkäinen, a typical nonWestern way of doing theology.679 He characterizes the endeavors of African, Latin American, and Asian theologians as a genuine desire to relate the Christian God to their contexts of local religions and cultural heritage. These theologians use a theological method that differs from the Western view of God. It emphasizes dynamic, concrete, and “tangible” terms and sees God’s presence in creation, human beings, and human struggles. They listen to women’s voices speaking from their positions of marginalization, poverty, oppression, and abuse, and also view God in feminine images. They see God as a community and human beings as a community relating to God and one another, emphasizing both communal and corporeal aspects. Lastly, they focus their theology on society, politics, and the economy, and confront religious pluralism as the major challenge for the Church. As a result, their focus falls on the immanence of God and God’s presence in the world instead of divine transcendence. Their emphasis is on divine love, responsiveness, and dynamism. The place of the doctrine of God in the context of salvation history is the divine self-revelation in human history. They attempt to speak more inclusively about God, making the discourse meaningful for people of all sexual orientations and classes. In the process, they rehabilitate the category of community. Frank Macchia addresses the objection to attempts to combine trinitarianism and modalism.680 He thinks that it fails because manifestations or functions of one God cannot relate to each other. It is not possible to describe it in terms of mutual love; I cannot love myself as a father, a son, or friend, only

679 680

Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 195-197. Macchia, The Trinity, Practically Speaking, 89.

310

Chapter 6

different persons can do that. However, the objection does not seem as real as Macchia suggests. One finds that the relationship between Jesus and the Father is described in loving terms (e.g., in John 17:26), excluding the Spirit. It is possible to state that I base my love for myself on my relationship with my son (and on being a good and considerate friend to my wife). Why does it necessarily require three persons (in one God) to describe the selflove (and self-respect and loyalty implied by the Hebrew term for love) that the Divinity has? Jesus speaks about his relationship with the Father, according to John 10:2230. The context is Jesus attending the feast of the Dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem, falling in the Palestinian winter. While Jesus was walking in Solomon’s portico, some Jews confronted him about whether he was the Messiah. Jesus responded that he had already affirmed it to them, but they did not believe him, despite his works in the Father’s name. They could not believe him because they were not his followers (sheep). Nevertheless, his sheep heard his voice and followed him. He gave them eternal life, and no one could snatch them from the Father’s hand. He argued that those who belonged to him also belonged to the Father because the “Father and I are one” (v. 30). It is clear that Jesus identified himself with the Father. The argument that the use of the plural form of the verb in words ascribed to God in Genesis 1:26 and 11:6-7 necessarily indicates more than one person in the Divinity also cannot be accepted, as discussed above, because it was customary for kings and pharaohs to refer to themselves in this way in order to emphasize their majesty as representatives of their people. At the same time, the word that biblical authors used for “God” (elohim) is a plural noun that requires plural verbs to qualify it. Again, however, that does not imply that God is more than one in the authors’ thinking. A more significant challenge is found in Jesus’ regular prayers that he addressed to the Father. Does that not presuppose that the divine designation as Father and Son refers to two persons? The question also has far-reaching implications for Trinity because the Gethsemane prayer of Jesus (Matt 26:36-46; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–46) indicates a seeming clash of

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

311

wills between the Father and the Son. Jesus pleaded that the Father should remove this cup of suffering. It found its resolution in Jesus’ subjecting his will to the Father’s (“yet, not what I want, but what you want,” Mark 14:36). In modalist terms, it might be possible to argue that Jesus, representing the aspect of the divine revelation concerned with divine love and salvation, had to subject himself to the divine decision. The same can be said about the Gospels’ description that Jesus at times spent the night in prayer to God on a mountain to pray (Luke 6:12). It aligned Jesus’ will as a human being with the divine will. Eventually, it meant that he became unpopular and rejected by fellow Jews.

Third pillar: Godhead exists, not of three persons but three entities or modes of being The third issue is concerned with the fourth-century Church’s decision to define its trinitarian theory in terms of three persons. What constitutes a person as Trinitarianism applies the term in its theological enterprise? Trinitarian theology’s use of the term “person” originates in prosopological exegesis, an ancient reading strategy employed by many Greek-Roman readers and some of the Church fathers.681 This strategy led Boethius to define a person as an individual substance of a rational nature. A person is, in other words, not merely an individual entity that exists; a person is a certain kind of individual that is characterized by and worthy of knowledge and love. The concept denoted the outward aspects of the individual for early speakers, consisting of a person’s appearance, visage, and mask. The Greeks used “person” also to refer to the mask that actors wore in ancient times to reflect the character of the personage they enacted. In some cases, one actor plays different roles in the same play, and they differentiate between the same characters by way of the mask and the change of voice tone. This use differs from the modern usage of the term.682 To illustrate the historical changes in associations of “person:” Boethius (480-524/5 CE) defined the classical sense of human personhood as an 681 682

See definition in chapter 2 of prosopological exegesis. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, 51.

312

Chapter 6

individual substance with a rational nature. In contrast, René Descartes (1596-1650) provided the early modern notion of a person as a self-aware soul or mind distinct from the body. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) described a person as an autonomous rational subject in later modern philosophy. Because of this confusion, Yong concludes that the triune persons ought not to be equated with human persons.683 First, however, Pentecostals should consider whether it is necessary at all to refer to the Trinity as persons. In the argument that the persons of the Trinity are individuated in their relation of origin, Thomas Aquinas defines a Trinitarian person as a “subsisting relation.”684 The personal property of each person serves as the unique identifying feature of each person that distinguishes the person from the other persons. In the divine inner relations, the Father’s personal property is paternity, the Son’s personal property is filiation, and the Spirit’s personal property is passive spiration. In terms of relations of origin – that is, what distinguishes one person of the Trinity from the other persons of the Trinity – it refers to how the person is eternally related to another person of the Trinity as the specific personal principle or source. The Father does not have an eternal personal principle or source but is the eternal principle or source of the Son through begetting the Son. The Father and the Son are the eternal personal principles or source of the Spirit through breathing the Spirit. In other words, the Trinity is explained in terms of the relations between the three “persons.” In an important article, Peter Bertocci also asks what the essence of a person is.685 He thinks that the self-awareness that human beings have of themselves distinguishes them from other and biological life forms. In other words, self-consciousness distinguishes a human being’s separateness from all else and is the foundation of identity. What the self-conscious person experiences and perceives of their experiences forms the contents of the individual human life. To understand another human being, one must try to understand the criterion or criteria that the other person utilizes to prioritize

683

Yong and Anderson, Renewing Christian Theology, 302. Swain, The Trinity, 136. 685 Peter A. Bertocci, “The Essence of a Person,” The Monist 61, no. 1 (January 1978), 28-41. 684

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

313

experiences and the judgments they make based upon them, for this represents the person’s self-consciousness. Experiences are given priority in the court of self-conscious awareness and reasoning in evaluating competing perceptions. Reasoning is the activity that a person uses to weave together the different dimensions of experience in order to discover which hypothesis about them as a whole is more inclusive than any other. A person who succeeds in finding a criterion of experiential coherence never suspends the demands of logical consistency. At the same time, the person does not allow anything to bar the way of experiential truth’s claim to the court of experience as a whole, as reasonably interpreted. This person will apply the criterion of truth to the ideals by which the self-conscious being guides all action and interpretation of all experiences. Like Karl Rahner, Karl Barth also had problems using “persons” to designate the Trinity’s three, as already briefly explained. The problem originated when the associations and nuances of the term changed in modern times. Therefore, Barth argues that “person,” as used in Church doctrine, bears no relation to personality, implying that in the trinitarian doctrine, “persons” does not refer to three personalities in God. Therefore, it cannot be that there are three divine persons, three “I’s.” Instead, there are three of the one divine “I”.686 Barth thinks a better continuation of the word hypostasis would be “modes of being” (Seinsweisen). The Greek fathers had already applied that term to designate the three within the one God. This study concurs with Barth that the way the early Church applied “person” to the Trinity is acceptable. However, since the concept’s meaning changed over time and now represents an individualized substance, its utility has ended. We need to regain the initial meaning of the concept “person,” and the only solution is to redefine it, as the early Church did, as a mode of being. John Farrelly agrees that in common current understanding and modern philosophy, “person” refers to “personality.”687 It designates a “person” as an individual subjectivity, consciousness, and autonomous source of action.

686 687

Barth, Church Dogmatics, I/1, 359. Farrelly, The Trinity, 17.

314

Chapter 6

Individualism, an important trait of people living in the contemporary world, is based on this concept. However, when the term is applied with this meaning to the Church doctrine of trinitarianism, it necessarily results in tritheism. It should be kept in mind that in the patristic era, the unity of God was emphasized and expressed as a unity of substance or being. The distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit was expressed as a distinction of hypostases, and it was based on the distinct property of each. For example, the Father created, the Son is generated and saves, and the Spirit proceeds; many more examples can be used and explain why biblical authors found the distinction necessary. Another distinction exists in the relations of origin one had to the other. It definitely does not refer to substance or being; substance and being are one in the Divinity. The difficulty in arguing such distinction that presumably exists within the Divinity is illustrated by William Atkinson’s establishment of different models to serve his pneumatological trinitarianism.688 His third of a triad of models, along with social and instrumental models, he calls a substantial model. He agrees that this model is the most controversial because it has no biblical foundation. According to this model, the Father and the Son are seen in personal terms. The Spirit, meanwhile, is an impersonal divine entity, entirely pervading both the persons and relations of the Father and the Son. In other words, the Spirit is an adverb and not a noun. The attempt to distinguish between the three entities in ontological terms remains a difficult philosophical challenge that resists easy solutions. The God within us may speak in different voices, but remains a single Divinity, which therefore implies that God’s being is actually within us. It is argued that the origin of the different entities refers to the mode of selfrevelation that qualifies each entity. The Son originates from the Father because the Father represents God’s creative and caring abilities, and the Son presents a characterization of those abilities. However, when the traditional doctrine thinks literally about the origination of the three “persons,” they conclude that the Son and the Spirit originated from the Father, implying that significant “parts” or elements of God are not eternal. 688

Atkinson, Trinity After Pentecost, 160.

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

315

How can an eternal God beget another part of the divine self and remain eternal? Such logical questions are seemingly never entertained by scholars functioning in the traditional mode of thinking. For that reason, this study chooses to refer to the Father, Son, and Spirit as three distinct manners of subsisting, forms of appearance, characterizations, or modes of being (Seinsweise), because this was the way the early Church qualified the Trinity. The description of the cross scene in two of the Gospels demonstrates this when they explain that in his last moments, Jesus gave up his spirit into God’s hands (Luke 23:46; John 19:30). Likewise, when one considers the outpouring of the Spirit on Jesus as recorded at his baptism, marking the beginning of his ministry (Mark 1:9-11; Matt 3:13-17; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-34), it is possible to say that Jesus gave up what was essential to him, which is also God, because the Spirit is God. The distinction in traditional trinitarian theology between the three persons led to the conclusion being drawn by some believers that the Father alone should be worshiped. This is the case in the New Testament, where prayer was expressly addressed to the Father. However, in its Nicene Creed of 381 CE, the early Church stated that the Spirit was with the Father and the Son, and both are worshiped and glorified.689 Instead, when the trinity is seen as three entities within God, it does not matter who one addresses in worship and prayer. The same is the case with biblical references to the Spirit as the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. Our worship connects us to God, whether we address either of the entities as though they exist personally. What is important in worship is not our speculation of who God is, but instead the awe and wonder that fill us with worship and praise when we encounter the Divinity through the Spirit and meet the Christ of the cross. In terms that Moltmann applies, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three actors and subjects in the economy of revelation and salvation. Moltmann connects with one of the Greek associations with the concept of “person.” The Father, Son, and Spirit take different relations to one another in the stages of salvation history and the roles played by the different modes of being in the eschatological moment when salvation will be achieved. In the Trinity, the 689

Atkinson, Trinity After Pentecost, 163.

316

Chapter 6

unity of the three is a perichoretic unity, implying a union in dedication to one another and not the unity of one substance or one subject.690 Leonardo Boff joins Moltmann’s point of view and refers to the unity of the Trinity in the perichoretic community of the three. He sees this community as a social program for human beings.691 Moltmann had also said that his understanding of the Trinity presents a social program for the Church and serves as a model for its unity with God and one another. Jesus existed as the incarnation of God as a person, the personification of the divine. However, that does not imply that Jesus, after the ascension, necessarily still exists in personal terms. The Divinity does not have a material and physical body, although Jesus did appear bodily to some people after his ascension, e.g., to the disciples walking to Emmaus (Mark 16:1213; Luke 24:13-35). Indeed, the Spirit cannot be viewed as a separate person, at least as far as human terms allow. The spirit enlivens and animates the body, turning it into a person. The essence of the personality remains even after the body perished. The body is lifeless and dead until the spirit enters it, as vividly portrayed in the vision of Ezekiel 37:1-14, where the prophet sees dry bones and YHWH asks the question of whether these bones can live, something that only happens when YHWH causes the spirit or breath to enter them (v. 5). According to verse 14, YHWH promises to put his spirit within Israel, and they shall live. The personality of someone cannot exist without the spirit; the person’s personality consists of the spirit. God blew the divine Spirit into the first human being for the same reason (Gen2:7). In Christian theological parlance, “spirit” denotes a person’s intelligent, immaterial part, whether united with the body or separated from it in death. However, in biblical terms, the spirit relates to that aspect of human beings that are directly susceptible to divine influence.692 When “spirit” is used in the Bible to refer to beings in another dimension that is not related to the

690

Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 150. Leonardo Boff, Church, Charism and Power: Liberation Theology and the Institutional Church (London: SCM, 2011). 692 Livingstone, “Spirit,” 122. 691

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

317

limits of time, space, and bodily forms, it refers to the essence of God’s selfrevelation, as well as to angels and demons. When the Samaritan woman at the well asked Jesus whether they should worship on Mount Zion at Samaria in Jerusalem, Jesus answered that the time had arrived for true worshipers to worship God anywhere, because they would worship the Father in spirit and truth. The Father is looking for this because God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth (John 4:23-24). The implication is that worshipers meet God in their spirit when they worship in truth, through God’s Spirit within them. The word “spirit” does not state whether it refers to the divine or human spirit, implying the innuendo that it consists of both. In John’s Gospel, the term “truth” serves as one of the central themes. In stating that worshipers should serve God “in truth,” the implication is that it implies that worshipers should serve Jesus as God since Jesus is the way (back to God), the truth, and the life (that does not end with death) (John 14:6). They should also serve the Spirit to be poured out onto them, called the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth (John 14:17).693 The conclusion to be drawn from this is that the classic trinitarian way of referring to the Spirit as the third “person” of the Trinity does not make sense. An issue related to the explanation of the Divinity in terms of modalism is Patripassianism. In accepting the incarnation of God in Christ, modalism necessarily accepts that the Father died on the cross when the Son died, because Father and Son are identified with one another. God suffered along with Jesus because Jesus is God. In a short while, the present discussion will turn to a study of the justification for the incarnation and death of Jesus. The traditional view of Jesus’ death as the propitiation of humans’ sins presents various challenges. Again, it will become clear that God is not impassible, as the traditional Church supposed. The problem was that the Church forced their views of what God should be, defined by philosophical and religious ideas of the ancient world, on their 693 Andrew L. Smith, “Truth,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, electronic ed., Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 784.

318

Chapter 6

image of God, and used that image to interpret the Bible. Indeed, there will certainly be a few texts that can be used to justify the doctrine of impassibility, as it is possible to prove many other things from the Bible that are not biblically correct. However, God did not require the Son, a different person, to die to be able to forgive human beings. God could have done that without any such sacrifice since Jesus taught his disciples to forgive as the Father does, freely and without requiring any reward. Jesus told the parable of the prodigal son who returns to his father. The father accepts him unconditionally, without requiring that he first provide ample atonement. Why would God then require the highest sacrifice before the divinity forgives human beings for their sinful nature? What Jesus did was reveal the divine compassion for human beings. How should one think about the three entities that defined the Divinity and led the traditional Church to speak of them as persons? The problem, as stated above, seems to be that many Pentecostals are, in practice, practical polytheists; their distinctions between the Son and the Father had changed them into different gods, implied by their reference to different persons. To overcome this challenge, it seems they should follow a new middle way between trinitarianism and modalism. On the one hand, it cannot be denied that authors in the Hebrew Bible referred to God and the Spirit in different ways (wisdom, word, and other terms demonstrate this). In addition, authors in the New Testament differentiated the Son from the Father and Spirit. On the other hand, biblical narratives represent human attempts to speak of the divine self-revelation in terms that make sense to people within the context of their own experiences. What is said of God is not to be taken literally, because God represents an entity existing in a dimension (multidimension?) that exists outside of the human frame of reference. In conclusion, one should view the three entities as aspects of the divine self-revelation. It does not leave out the impression that divine selfrevelation, as human beings perceive it, may create the impression that different persons in God act differently, defining their personhood. However, it is not necessarily the case that they refer to persons.

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

319

This might be the intention of Willem Oliver and Erna Oliver, a South African married couple, when they discuss the Trinity.694 Their focus on God’s unity defines “unity” in terms of omnipresence, a divine characteristic. They are concerned about the fact that much of trinitarian theology is held ransom by the view of “one” God” existing as three “separate” persons. As a result, they argue, God is split up, an observation supported by the research results of my discussion. The couple suggests that we should understand divine omnipresence in terms of the household metaphor. They discuss biblical texts, patristic texts, ecumenical creeds, and sixteenth-century Reformed confessions to support their argument and conclude that God’s unity is entrenched in God’s omnipresence. The God, who is everywhere at any time, is simultaneously in any one of the three at any time. When the different characterizations of one entity revealed as three are viewed in non-literalist terms, we see them as images or analogies of the divine self-revelation. As discussed, God’s fatherhood serves as a metaphor for the divine paternal care for the well-being of human beings. At the same time, divine sonship refers to the revelation of divine grace to establish the means to re-establish fellowship with God. Finally, the divine Spirit refers to the involvement of God in the daily lives of human beings, realizing the consciousness of the divine presence and encouraging, warning, and leading them in revealing the divine will and establishing the divine rule on earth.695 Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki provides an alternative: the Father is Presence, Jesus is wisdom, and the Spirit is power.696 Such analogies are extended to include the expectation of the second coming of Christ, which serves as a metaphor for the human hope that God will ultimately establish the divine rule that includes the whole earth and not only the church. God as a life principle and source of life, as defined by the name YHWH revealed to Moses, the Tetragrammaton, implies that the Divinity is more than a “person” as defined by human beings. The self-revealed designation, 694

Willem H. Oliver and Erna Oliver, “God as One,” HTS Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies 75, no. 1 (2019), a4959. 695 Atkinson, Trinity After Pentecost, 154 refers to the Spirit as the pervasion of the being of God. 696 Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, God, Christ, Church: A Practical Guide to Process Theology, rev. ed. (New York: Crossroad, 1989).

320

Chapter 6

“YHWH,” is used more than six thousand times in the Old Testament. The Divinity’s name comes from the verb hƗwƗy, which is an older form of the Hebrew verb hƗyƗh, meaning “to be.” YahwƝh can be parsed as either a third person Qal imperfect of this verb or as the corresponding form of the causative stem. However, the last idea is not acceptable since the causative of the verb occurs nowhere else in Hebrew.697 The idea is that God is the only God that exists or is, the God who is defined as existence or the God who causes existence. According to Henry Thompson, Exodus 3:14, which states “I am who I am,” represents a folk etymology based on this verb.698 Johan Bracken works in the tradition of A.L. Whitehead’s (1861-1947) process philosophy to correct what he perceives as the Western world’s close tie between individualism and a substantialist worldview. He sees the Father as a society of actual entities that consistently offer the Son new possibilities. The Son is a society that always responds positively. The Spirit is another society, inducing the Father to continue offering such possibilities.699 Another aspect of the argument can be found in the theology of Jürgen Moltmann, with his emphasis on relationality. His notion of the Trinity in his influential book, Trinität und Reich Gottes: Zur Gotteslehre (1980), combines reformed insights with the view of the Eastern Orthodox Church. His argument is simple and elegant.700 He argues that the Trinity starts with the Father, but the three persons are equal, existing in the deepest solidarity with each other. However, they are not dissolved into one another, but exist completely independently, although completely unified. Unity does not contrast diversity but supposes it. The inner relations in the Trinity also structure the Church; the solidarity between the persons is to be reflected in the relations between believers. The trinitarian model serves not only as the

697

Henry O. Thompson, “Yahweh (Deity),” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, edited by David N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1011. 698 In Swanson, “know,” 10313. 699 Joseph Bracken, “Process Perspectives and Trinitarian Theology,” Word and Spirit 8 (1986), 51-64. 700 Translated as The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God and published in 1981.

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

321

model for the church, but, even more so, as the ontological foundation for reality as such. Moltmann’s theology represents a new paradigm that rejects classical theism, which traditionally believed that God could not suffer or experience changes. The God who was untouched by death or evil moved out of the divine self, being the one present in the death of Jesus. The content of the doctrine of the Trinity is the cross. As God is in the surrender of the Son, God is in the divine self. For the current discussion, the most significant element of Moltmann’s theology is that he does not work with an individualistic idea of the person. He understands “I” in terms of “you.” He correctly defines a person in relational rather than individualistic terms because that was the custom in the ancient world. He utilizes the concept of perichoresis, like John of Damascus, to explain the circular way of the eternal divine life. The Father exists in the Son, the Son lives in the Father, and both live in the Spirit. The Spirit exists in the Father and the Son. Living in eternal love, they live to such an extent in each other that they exist as a unity in the most perfect and intense empathy. Their personal characteristics can distinguish them, but what separates them is what unites them.701 They do not exist as three different individuals who successively relate to each other; that is tritheism. However, they are also not three ways of life or repetitions of the one God; that represents modalism. Instead, their perichoresis combines the Trinity and unity so that the Trinity is not reduced to unity and the unity is not dissolved in the Trinity.702 Once the fact that the the Divinity exists in three entities or modes of being (Seinsweise) and not three persons is accepted, explaining God in perichoretic terms becomes unnecessary. Now, the emphasis is on the unity of the Divinity, which does not require an explanation of how the three persons relate to each other in the eternal divine Seinsweise. Moltmann rejects a modernist metaphysics of substance that accepts an entity like divine substance or a divine nature that exists analogously to the 701 702

Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 174-5. Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 175.

322

Chapter 6

visible physical reality (although it is invisible.)703 Instead, Moltmann argues that all things consist of a vast perichoretic network. Perichoresis forms the structural dynamic of all reality. The divine unity that holds the three divine persons together so as to render them “one” is perichoresis, and it also functions as the relation between God and the world. The Church traditionally utilized the metaphysics of substance in response to the way of thinking about speculative substance found in philosophy. However, in this way, the Church surrendered creation and the material world from redemption and the spiritual, underemphasizing the incarnation of Jesus and reinforcing the Cartesian and Newtonian dualisms that were foundational and fundamental to modernity, but contrary to the biblical view in John De Gruchy’s opinion.704 In the Church’s way of thinking, the most important events consisted of the exchange of substances, implying a static view of the world. In response, Moltmann develops an ontology of dynamic relationships, implying no distinction between divine immanence and the economic Trinity. He argues that Jesus’ surrender is a revelation of the Trinity through the ages. Therefore, reality does not have as its basis human and divine substances. Still, interactive relationships are implied in the relationship of the Trinity that originated from the surrender of the self, illustrated by Jesus’ prayer that his disciples would be one like the Father and the Son. In this way, Moltmann establishes another ontology where the Divinity is the secret of the world and the most significant factor that determines reality.705 A related aspect of the argument in favour of an alternative God-talk is the consideration of the divine attributes of one God in terms of a social analogy as a solution to the complex problems that the doctrine causes. Kärkkäinen suggests that it provides scope for enriching the traditional doctrine of the Trinity.706 It is agreed that the attributes should be defended against abstract 703

Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 10-12. John W. De Gruchy, Christianity and Democracy, a Theology for a Just World Order (Cape Town: David Philip, 1998). 705 J.A. Bobby Loubser, “Kringdans: Die Heilige Drie-eenheid as Grond vir Eerbied én Verskeidenheid” (“Circle Dance: The Holy Trinity as Ground for Unity and Diversity”), Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 43, no. 3-4 (2003), 149-163 (154-55). 706 Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, 394. 704

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

323

speculation that is unrelated to the Trinity. However, it is not clear how different attributes can be limited to one or other of the “persons” of the Trinity. Kärkkäinen admits that it represents a task that still awaits resolution. For instance, the biblical idea of God as love and as spirit cannot be limited to either the Father or the Son. Instead, love forms the defining characteristic of God, who reveals the divine self to human beings. Divine love can only be analogously related to the best of what human beings define as love, perhaps especially demonstrated in motherly love for a child. As long as love is defined using philosophical concepts, it can never describe divine love.

Comparison With the Views of Oneness Pentecostals The previous chapter contrasted the Pentecostal trinitarian and oneness views. We now have to ask how the alternative views advocated in this research relate to Oneness Pentecostalism. Do they constitute the same line of thought? Although both share a modalist view, there are several vital differences. The focus of this theological study is the inaccessibility of God, implying that no human being can comprehend the essence of God. Our knowledge of God is mainly limited to the divine self-revelation of God’s salvation, Spirit baptism, the work of the Spirit in the life of the believer and the world, and other charismatic encounters with God. The alternative views consciously refuse to make the self-confidential statements about God that traditional theologians made, supposedly based on biblical evidence. Instead, it accepts that it is only possible to refer to the works of God among people in biblical and current times. The hermeneutical implication of this perspective is that the Bible serves as a witness and testimony to God’s work among people of earlier ages, inviting its readers to encounter God in their own lives. One should not read the Bible literally, as a textbook of certain statements about God’s essence, but as testimonies of human witnesses who encountered God in the diversity of their respective experiences.

324

Chapter 6

Is the alternative way to think about God developed here not the same as the modalist views of Oneness Pentecostals? Where does Oneness Pentecostalism fit as an anti-trinitarian movement that grew over the twentieth century and in various denominations and organizations? Its most extensive occurrence can be seen in the United Pentecostal Church International, which started in 1913 at a Pentecostal camp meeting in Arroyo Seco, southern California. Evangelist R. E. McAlister taught what he perceived as the discrepancy between Matthew 28:19’s command to “baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” and the apostles’ reported practice of baptizing in the name of the Lord, or of Jesus (Acts 2:38 et al.).707 The following day, John Scheppe, one of the attendees, ran through the camp proclaiming that he had received a revelation that only baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ represented true and valid baptism. Another person, Frank J. Ewart, found how the two baptisms could be harmonized by stating that the name “Jesus” must be the actual name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In other words, believers must be baptized into the name of Jesus as the only name of God. At a later stage, he said, “I believe that the Apostles knew how to interpret Matt. 28:19,” and used that to explain the references in the book of Acts to the apostles’ exclusive baptizing ministry in one name. He added, “if one single, isolated example of Christian baptism could be found in the Bible to fit the trinitarian interpretation of the Great Commission, there would be some excuse for intelligent people adopting it.”708 Frank J. Ewart eventually played a prominent role in establishing the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI). The most celebrated current Oneness adherent is likely to be T. D. Jakes, the 35,000-member suburban Potter’s House Church leader in Dallas, Texas. As a famous television preacher, he reaches millions of people across fifty countries. Ewart called the discovery of the correct and only name into which to be baptized revolutionary, because Jesus became the exhaustive totality of

707

D.A. Reed, “Oneness Pentecostalism,” in The Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, edited by Stanley M. Burgess and Cary B. McCee (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 644-51. 708 Sanders, “The State of the Doctrine of the Trinity in Evangelical Theology,” 171.

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

325

what had mistakenly been called the Trinity by the early Church.709 For that reason, many people called the movement the “Jesus Only” view. Ewart rejected the traditional trinitarian doctrine to fit his new understanding of baptism, which he called “apostolic” in origin. Jesus comprises everything that is and can be known about God. Ewart’s first conclusion was that rebaptism became a necessity for those baptized incorrectly into the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. This new doctrine of antitrinitarian Jesuscentred modalism is called “the new issue.” Early Pentecostalism, a movement that was only a few years in existence, consisted of a diversity of adherents from different traditions, and was characterized by most leaders without solid (or any) theological training, was influenced immensely. For instance, the newly established Assemblies of God movement was confronted directly by many members who accepted the “truth” of the New Issue. Several general council meetings of the church discussed the matter, demonstrating the extent of the new doctrine’s influence. Eventually, in October 1916, it decided against the teaching and expelled all Oneness teachers. However, the new movement also had a diversity of views on different issues. In most cases, they were accommodated due to the fear that the Spirit might be quenched by strong action. In contrast, the Assemblies of God took bold action to reject the teaching forcibly. Eventually, most classical Pentecostals followed suit and rejected the Oneness’ denial of Jesus’ eternal preexistence. Oneness Pentecostalism shared with its predecessor, the early Pentecostal movement, a high view of the Bible’s authority, an emphasis on worship as the essence of religion, a passion for evangelizing, and a commitment to holy and separated living. They repeated the same message about salvation resulting from boundless divine grace in unilaterally saving human beings through unmerited mercy. They sounded and looked like other Pentecostal believers when they taught, preached, and worshiped. As is the case with many other Pentecostal groups, they also struggled with legalism. 709

Frank J. Ewart, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (St. Louis, MI: Pentecostal Publishing House, n.d.), 16. Reprinted in Donald Dayton (ed.), Seven ‘Jesus Only’ Tracts (New York: Garland, 1985).

326

Chapter 6

However, like Fred Sanders, to state that although Oneness believers are evangelical, they are not Christian, is incorrect.710 He argues that it does not represent “mere Christianity” (in C.S. Lewis’ terms), defined by him as a real and recognizable entity that is trinitarian, based on the baptismal formula (Matt 28:19), the Apostles and Nicene Creed, and Reformers, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox teachings. In the National Association of Evangelicals’ statement of faith, “We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” The “orthodox and right interpretation of the Bible” is the trinitarian interpretation. Additionally, the idea that the early Church was not divided about the issue of Jesus’ essence is historically incorrect. As documented, the Church of the first three or four centuries had many different views of who and what Jesus was. Therefore, it might have been possible that the trinitarian view could have represented a doctrine that not all groups accepted. During the first four centuries, the trinitarian “solution” did not even necessarily represent the majority’s view of believers about Jesus’ relationship with the Father. Oneness teaching is also not necessarily uniform. For example, some of the lecturers at the UPCI’s Urshan Graduate School of Theology explicitly embrace the Chalcedonian doctrine of the two natures of Christ, which may hold implications for how they view the pre-existence of Jesus and trinitarianism.711 Other teachers in the Church, especially in Ethiopia, teach that Christ brought his body with him from heaven; it did not come from Mary. The Church of God General Conference, or Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, holds another anti-trinitarian view: Christ is merely human – however, he is also the ultimate prophet sent by God to establish the kingdom of God.712 In their treatment of texts about God in the Bible that admittedly use paradoxical and dialectical language about God, Oneness Pentecostals read literally to find that the Son is the Father, but also the Spirit. In the process, 710

Sanders, “The State of the Doctrine of the Trinity in Evangelical Theology,” 171. https://ugst.edu/about/doctrinal-statement; accessed 2022-04-21. 712 Julian Clementson, "The Christadelphians and the Doctrine of the Trinity," Evangelical Quarterly 75, no. 2 (2003), 157-76. 711

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

327

they often ignore other texts that distinguish between the three entities because they do not fit their framework of thinking. To get back to the difference between modalist Oneness Pentecostalism and the alternative views presented here, Oneness exclusively views God as contained in and limited to Jesus. In that sense, it does not represent a clear modalist view. The alternative views accept the biblical description of God in terms of various entities and missions; the most popular among biblical authors were the Spirit, the Son, and the Father. It differs in how it views the different modalities: not as persons, but as the revelation of the one God in various fashions, as symbols or metaphors of diverse aspects of the divine self-revelation to human beings. Some biblical authors’ dialectical method of theological consideration should be recovered and appreciated. At the same time, all human-like speaking about God should be hesitant, stuttering, and in the form of questions instead of certain statements. Human beings in their present state cannot understand the holiness that marks the divine presence, the glory that characterizes it, or the eternity that defines the dimension(s) in which the Divinity exists (discussed in the previous chapter). Therefore, all God-talk about the divine essence will always remain dialectical, starting with statements about the divine economy and our charismatic encounters, and the unspeakable and unknown existing as the mystery that is God. God-talk that acknowledges that it cannot explain God because of the divine essence’s mystery is a successful and effective theory. We can only state that God exists because God reveals the divine self to humans. As the principle of creation and life (as the name YHWH implies), God exists outside of the universe, in a frame of reference about which nobody knows anything. However, we can, and do, know that this God revealed the divine self to people, firstly to Israel and then to the world’s nations, in the incarnation of the Son. The views of Oneness Pentecostalism presented in the previous chapter challenge various traditional ideas. The first is concerned with the eternity ascribed to Jesus. Several biblical texts quoted refer to his pre-existence, implying that he came out of heaven from the Father and was the agent of creation. Oneness theologians respond by stating that God, in divine

328

Chapter 6

foreknowledge, created the world with a view towards and for the sake of Jesus, the future man in which the divine would dwell. The Son did not preexist, but only in the mind of God. His actuality only occurred much later in the incarnation. The “Word” was God’s preordained plan and purpose with the world’s creation. Another view shared by the minority is that Jesus did not exist eternally but was a “finitized” dimension of God called God’s image, shape, form, face, or expression.713 The Son was manifested in the Old Testament as “the angel of the Lord.” In conclusion, Oneness Pentecostals differ about Jesus’ pre-existence. Some think the Son pre-existed as the Father, others that he has an ideal preexistence only in the mind of the Father, and the last group argue that Christ pre-existed as a finitized aspect of the Father. The majority, however, reject the teaching that Jesus pre-existed in any substantial form. Instead, they believe God sent Jesus to the world, commissioning him to save humanity as God had also sent individual prophets to Israel.

Justification for the Incarnation and Death of Christ The biblical discourse about the Divinity consistently affirms the existence of the one God.714 The concept of the Trinity of God as different persons became necessary when believers defined the incarnation of Jesus as primarily a means to bring reconciliation between God and sinful human beings. In the process, they also viewed the “Father” in the same terms as the “Son,” as a person. Some Protestants viewed the sin of disobedience committed by the first couple in the garden of Eden following the snake’s advice as something that affected all people of all ages. The snake is traditionally identified with Satan. Next, the curse God placed on Adam and Eve became individually applicable to all people of all ages. The result is that all people are condemned to eternal death because sin brings an inseparable gulf between God and human beings.715 The next part of the argument is that the only way 713

Boyd, Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity, 30. Swain, Trinity, 28. 715 For a further critical discussion of the narrative about the events in the Garden of Eden from a Pentecostal hermeneutical perspective, see Marius Nel, Creation and 714

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

329

to effect reconciliation that restores communion with God and results in eternal life in heaven could be that an innocent and sinless person would pay the price for their guilt to appease God and restore the relationship with the Divinity. For that reason, God sent the Son as a substitute for human beings who are incapable of effecting such reconciliation because of their persistent sinning. In other words, a second person in the divine was needed because God would (or could) not forgive sinners. The traditional view saw this as the justification to account for the incarnation, mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus. When Jesus died on the cross, he paid the price of human sins, affecting their reconciliation with God. He died in their stead. All human beings need to do is trust Jesus and believe that his reconciliatory act of death paid the price of their sins that sentenced them to death. As a result, they are now reconciled with God and able to commune freely with the divine. They will also share in the resurrection of the dead when the return of Christ introduces a new world inhabited by faithful believers. This belief represents the forensic view of original sin. This study proposes that Pentecostals should exchange that word, “original sin,” for “ancestral sin,” as Eastern Orthodox believers also confess. One of their theologians, David Bentley Hart, refers to the theology of original sin as Augustine’s “catastrophic misreading of Paul” that led to his “morbidly forensic understanding of original sin…”716 The human being is an image of God, with the free will to commune freely with God. Humans have received the mission to lead the rest of creation into that divine fullness. We are not created morally perfected, rather we are created in order to become, and with the potential to be, perfected.717 God placed this potential to attain likeness to the divine in human beings; Genesis’ author refers to it as God’s “image” (Greek icon). An individual’s sin interrupts this potential violently, but every human being still keeps the Pentecostals: Hermeneutical Considerations of Genesis 1-2 (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2021). 716 David Bentley Hart, The Hidden and the Manifest (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 139. 717 Kantartzis, Christian’s Pocket Guide to Eastern Orthodox Theology, 27.

330

Chapter 6

potential and possibility to commune effectively with God. Our ancestors already deviated from this potential and estranged themselves from the life of God. We have inherited it as a weakness in our human nature. Therefore, one cannot refer to a fall that includes all human beings. Human beings have not fallen from a particular state. They can choose to fail to fulfill their calling. However, sin remains a personal decision. The solution to sin is found in the incarnation of Christ. Christ came to demonstrate a lifestyle of communing with God by serving his fellow persons, showing how to live a reconciled life in obedience to God. Jesus refers to this kind of life as “eternal life” that consists of knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom God has sent (John 17:3). Therefore, the traditional use of legal or forensic terms to discount the ministry and death of Jesus does not cover the human dilemma. Its concepts of “guilt” and “punishment” do not fit, because God is not the judge condemning humans as the guilty party that needs to be punished, and Jesus is not the substitute to pay the necessary price to atone for their sins. On the contrary, God is disappointed by our behavior when we choose to do what dishonors the divine.718 Vladimir Lossky refers to Irenaeus’ well-known words, “God made Himself man, that man might become God.”719 Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and other Church fathers and Orthodox theologians repeated these same words differently. They summed up the essence of Christianity. God descended ineffably to the ultimate limit of our fallen human condition to open up the path of ascent for human beings. The purpose was that human beings might regain union with the Divinity. The descent of Christ makes human persons capable of an ascent in the Holy Spirit. That is why the cross was necessary. In contrast, Evangelicals interpret the cross nearly exclusively as a sacrifice by one who is not guilty of any sin to atone for the guilt of human beings, who are victims of the guilt caused by original sin due to the sin Adam and Eve committed in the Garden of Eden. We deserved the wrath of God for 718

Kantartzis, Christian’s Pocket Guide to Eastern Orthodox Theology, 36. Vladimir Lossky, In the Likeness and Image of God (Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary, 1974), 97.

719

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

331

their original sin and its effect on how we live. We are born as depraved people who inherited a failure to please God. Our sinful living requires that God should punish us. However, our punishment is diverted by the atonement of Christ’s cross when he offered his life to save ours. The challenge for me was that such a view implies that God’s righteousness required the divine essence to be divided. A second person existing in the divine had to die in place of human beings to effect a reconciliation between human beings and the divine. How is it logically possible that one person in a God characterized by divine unity (“YHWH is our God, YHWH alone” Deut 6:4) must die to appease another person in the divine? This implies that the one God had to divide the divine self to allow the one in God to appease the other one in God. And how can one part of God have appeared in another form and another place? How can one part of God take leave of another part? This did not make sense to me. For that reason, I reconsidered the biblical references to the Father, Son, Spirit, Wisdom, Word, and similar designations for the divine. I started wondering whether it would not make better logical sense and better fit biblical descriptions of Jesus’ death and resurrection if I consider explaining salvation by employing Jesus’ death in another way. Instead, we should not distinguish the three persons of the Trinity from each other by their relations to each other but by their relations to human beings.720 The study referred earlier to another challenge that we also need to consider: how can God expect believers to forgive others, even their enemies, if God is unwilling to forgive them without claiming their punishment as sinners? Such behavior sounds like the unforgiving servant who was forgiven but unwilling to forgive another person (Matt 18:23-35). Why would God only forgive human beings when a victim dies to atone for their sins? Why should Jesus die in their place like the Passover lamb to save the Israelites in Egypt when the angel of death passed their homes on its way to the Egyptian “enemies?” Christians say that the all-powerful God is love, yet God cannot, or will not, forgive human beings unless an innocent person is horribly

720

In contrast to Swain, Trinity, 32-33.

332

Chapter 6

tortured and slaughtered – in this case, the only-begotten divine beloved Son.721 Christians normally do not address these issues, because our traditional faith is so embedded in our religious life that most people never consider the logical consequences of their doctrine of sin, punishment, and Jesus’ death. What is presented here is radical, and few will accept it. The study does not propose to convince readers of its alternative views, but rather to confront them with some of the challenges their traditional doctrines pose. The study’s purpose is a consideration of new and rationally based reformulations of God-talk that will benefit people who have become disillusioned with some of the Church’s illogical traditional ways of God-talk. Most Christians view the cross as the means to be atoned: Jesus died in their place to pay for the guilt caused by their sins. However, as a result, they concentrate only on one aspect related to Jesus’ death. It is not denied that this view is valid. However, we should remember that the early Church also provided various other explanations for the cross event. For instance, Marcus Borg comprehensively discusses some of the reasons why Roman soldiers, with the instigation of Jewish leaders, killed Jesus. The historical answer provided by the few surviving written witnesses (Tacitus in his Annals 115-44; b Sanhedrin 43a; Josephus in Antiquities 18.63-64) stated that Jesus was executed because, as a social prophet, he was a passionate advocate of divine justice.722 He was radically critical of the current domination system of his day, and as a movement initiator, he became dangerous to Jewish interests.723 He also criticized the temple system, at least in the eyes of Jewish leaders, who accused him of declaring that he would destroy the temple made with hands and, in three days, build another not made with hands (Mark 14:58). His relationships with orphans, widows, the poor, and the marginalized also subverted the social norms of the day. His criticism of priestly rule and conduct also embarrassed and angered the Jewish leaders. His death was the consequence of what he was doing.

721

In the words of Pagels, Why Religion, 194. Funk, Dewey and the Jesus Seminar (eds.), 2015:117-118. 723 Borg, The Heart of Christianity,111. This accords with how Borg views Jesus, as a social reformer. 722

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

333

Borg continues the argument by stating that the statement that Jesus is the sacrifice for sin for some parts of the early Church meant something else entirely.724 Certain sins and impurities required sacrifice confined to the temple, implying that temple authorities acquired an institutional monopoly on the forgiveness of sins and access to God. When the early Jewish Christians asserted that Jesus had become the sacrifice for their sins, the implication was that they denied temple authorities’ monopoly on forgiveness and access. It subverted the sacrificial system and represented a radical grace, alienating the temple authorities from Jesus (and later, Jewish Christians). The traditional view, in conclusion, states that human beings are convicted for the sins they commit as a result of sharing in the first couple’s choice and sinning like them, and they are sentenced to death.725 Because God’s judgment is righteous and strict, it requires the conviction of sinful human beings and their sentencing to death.726 If God did not insist on holding human beings responsible for their sinful ways, and instead forgave them just because they asked for forgiveness, it would have implied that God’s righteousness was imperfect. For that reason, the New Testament repeatedly refers to a righteous divine Judge before whom all people will appear at the eschatological end of the existing order (e.g., John 5:22, 24, 27; 9:39; 12:48; Acts 7:7; 10:42; 17:31; 24:25; Rom 2:2, 5; etc.). There were no way human beings could escape their just punishment, except if God decided to substitute the divine self in their place. God did exactly that in divine grace. The trinitarian distinction between Father and Son explains the economy of the price Jesus paid. God sent the divine Son, the Principle of all life. He served the sentence that sinful human beings deserved by dying for them. However, death could not keep its hold on the Principle of life, and Jesus was resurrected.727 For that reason, human beings who trust in Christ’s 724

Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 114-115. The study does not accept the traditional interpretation that Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden of Eden led to the supposed universal result of effecting all people with that first act, as formulated above (original vs. inherited sin). 726 The nonacceptance of the traditional doctrine of original sin leaves room to accept that some people may not be infected by the virus of sin, such as babies who die or people with some kinds of mental disabilities. 727 Gutiérrez, Gustavo. The God of Life. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1991. 725

334

Chapter 6

sacrifice for their sins can now enter the holy divine presence without fear that their sinful existence disqualifies them, even when they persist in sinning due to their human weaknesses. Jesus has become the righteousness they need to remain members of the divine household. The modalist view, in contrast, accepts that Jesus represents a metaphor for divine love for human beings. How does one then explain the events of Jesus’ crucifixion? First, it is essential to realize that the death of Jesus on the cross challenged the early Church to decide about the nature and stature of Jesus. They had to determine whether he was only a prophet, or someone linked to God. Did he die because of his seeming rejection of some elements of the institutionalized Jewish religion? Did his death bring about between humans and God? While (many) Jewish-Christian monotheists seemingly rejected any divine designation to Jesus, the (Hellenist) view eventually prevailed that the human person, Jesus, was also divine. Most Christian believers quickly came from the Hellenized segment, leading parts of the Church to accept a binitarian perspective of God, encompassing the Father and the Son. The Spirit was not initially included in their deliberations of Jesus’ relation to the Father. In time, the divine designation of the person, Jesus, permitted the Church to interpret Jesus’ crucifixion in terms of atonement for sins – however, as Borg says, it probably took a long time for this realization to materialize in the Church. Marcus Borg reminds us that theologians should acknowledge that the historical reason for Jesus’ crucifixion should be separated from the Church’s later (various) interpretations of the meaning of the cross. What was the historical reason? First, it is necessary to ask: why the Romans crucified anyone? What criminal acts justify crucifixion? It became an essential method of capital punishment from about the 6th century BCE to the 4th century CE. Eventually, it was one of the deterrents Romans used to punish rebels. The state’s purpose was clear: it wanted all suppressed people ruled by Rome to clearly understand the price for rebellion. Constantine the Great, who became the first “Christian” Emperor in 306 CE, abolished it

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

335

early in his career to show his veneration of Jesus, the most famous crucifixion victim.728 Crucifixion served as a severe punishment for the victim and a frightful deterrent for fellow criminals because of its brutal nature. Romans first scourged the convicted person, before they, still naked after the scourging, had to carry their own crossbeams to the place of execution. The crucified person then was exposed to public ridicule and death. In addition, the upright stake contained a placard with the victim’s name and crime. Two medical specialists, F. Retief and L. Cilliers, explain that death usually occurs after six hours to four days. It was caused by multifactorial pathology: a combination of the after-effects of the compulsory scourging, haemorrhage, and dehydration, causing hypovolaemic shock and pain. Eventually, progressive asphyxia developed, caused by impairment of respiratory movement due to the position in which the body hangs.729 Hypovolaemic shock probably exaggerated the resultant anoxemia. Death was precipitated by cardiac arrest initiated by severe anoxemia and pain. Attending Roman guards broke the large bones to precipitate death in many cases; they deliberately fractured the tibia and/or fibula, directing spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or using a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim. Their reason for hastening the victims’ death was that they were not allowed to leave the site until they could prove that the victim had died. After death ensued, the soldiers left the body on the cross. They wanted the crushed body to serve as a warning to passers-by about the punishment for crimes against the state.730 Then, vultures, along with other birds and predators, consumed it over time. The Roman authorities reserved crucifixion for the punishment political rebels, slaves (primarily if they had run away from their owners), pirates, 728

https://www.britannica.com/topic/crucifixion-capital-punishment; accessed 2021-02-07. 729 F.P. Retief and L. Cilliers, “The History and Pathology of Crucifixion,” South African Medical Journal 93, no. 12 (2003), 938-41. 730 https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law/crucifixion; accessed 2022-05-18.

336

Chapter 6

and particularly despised enemies and criminals. One such example was when, after the successful siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Roman soldiers, out of rage and hatred, nailed everyone they caught to the crosses “by way of jest,” in the words of Josephus, one on one side and the other one on the other.731 Roman citizens were usually exempt from it because Romans considered crucifixion a most shameful and disgraceful way to die. The only exceptions were when they were convicted of major crimes against the state, such as high treason. As was discussed already, the historical reason for Jesus’ execution was that he, as a social prophet and passionate advocate of divine justice, threatened the interests of Jewish and Roman authorities. Jesus associated in public with women, Jewish people that other Jews considered their enemies because of their association with the Roman authorities such as publicans, and people considered unclean by Jewish religious definitions and rituals. In this way, he transgressed traditional social norms and drew unwelcome attention to his healing and deliverance ministry. It could be argued that the success of his ministry in drawing crowds, not only in Galilee but especially in and around Jerusalem, also earned the attention of Roman authorities. Jews were notorious for their many uprisings against foreign oppressors, especially when crowds visited the temple during religious feasts. Jesus attended these feasts regularly, where he periodically addressed great crowds. He was also critical of the current domination systems of his day, not only of the Romans but also of the Jewish temple and political administrators. As a movement initiator, he threatened temple interests and criticized the temple system, at least in the perception of Jewish leaders. Reference was made to Jesus’ assertion that he would destroy the temple made with hands and build another in three days, not made with hands (Mark 14:58). It seemed that Jewish authorities might have taken his threat literally as a call to Jews to reject temple authorities. Jewish leaders and the local Roman authority sentenced him to death for what he was standing for and doing.

731

Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War (London: Penguin Classics, 1984), 5.11.1.

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

337

Secondly, in post-Easter times, the early Church retrospectively interpreted his death and resurrection. At first, they accepted that he died because the foreign and temple authorities rejected him. After all, he threatened their interests. But, in time, some of them started to interpret both the Roman and Jewish authorities as representations and incarnations of the principalities and powers that rule the universe in opposition to the Creator God, as demonstrated, for instance, in Ephesians 6:12’s terms: believers are involved in a struggle not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. These powers represent the systems of domination built into human institutions. Thirdly, his death was an incarnation of his message. His message was an explanation of the way. Acts 9:1-2 defines Christians as those who belong to “the Way,” and Saul (later Paul) intended to capture Christians belonging to “the Way” and associated with the synagogues at Damascus to bring them bound to Jerusalem. Jesus’ way was a call to self-denial, a taking up of the cross to follow him. It represents the only valid and meaningful way to live: by denying selfishness and serving self-interests for the sake of other people. For that reason, Jesus states that his disciples will only be able to save their lives when they “lose” it (see Mark 8:34-38). Jesus embodied the message by his willingness to take up the cross, deny himself and die for other people, vividly illustrating his message. Fourthly, early Christians interpreted Jesus’ death as a revelation of the greatness of God’s love for people. The last interpretation that developed later, found especially in some Pauline letters and Hebrews, was that Jesus died to forgive humans’ sins as a way to atone for them with God. Eventually, this would become the primary way to view Jesus’ death. For instance, this interpretation determines the content in most hymns and other Christian songs that refer to the crucifixion. The view is held nearly exclusively by Pentecostals: Jesus became the perfect sacrifice to appease God’s wrath for human sins, requiring Jesus to be sinless as well. His sinlessness might also be why Matthew and Luke refer to Jesus’ birth from a virgin mother.

338

Chapter 6

Ironically, many early Christians suffered the same fate as Jesus. Richard J. Goodrich correctly asserts that it is not correct to think that Christians were persecuted because they followed Jesus Christ, as many believe. The Romans were not concerned with which gods any person worshiped, or even whether they worshiped any at all. However, Christians refused to show proper respect to the Roman gods, especially represented in the person of Caesar, who called himself “lord.” Caesar was also deified after his death, and Christian believers were unwilling to partake in the regular public sacrifices to the gods and Caesar because they pleaded their loyalty to another lord, Jesus. The Roman emperors Decius and Valerian in the third century CE freed Christians who were willing to sacrifice to the traditional Roman gods in the presence of magistrates. They were only executed by crucifixion if they refused because of their obedience to the Torah’s first commandment and loyalty to Jesus. When some Roman subjects refused to pray for Caesar, it implied that they had become a threat to the sovereignty of the Roman state. With many subjects from various nations, the Romans were continually faced with the possibility of rebellion.732 Bart Ehrman confirms that Christianity was not viewed as an illegal religion by Roman state authorities in its early days. Christians could confess their faith openly without fear of governmental persecution.733 They did not have to hide in the Roman catacombs as legend asserts. Christianity was no more illegal than any other religion. Only rarely did they need to “lie low.” Persecutions were limited to a specific area, as was the case when Emperor Nero in 64 CE persecuted Christians’ presumable attempt to burn down his palace (the Great Fire), which led to a widespread fire that destroyed parts of Rome and economically devastated the Roman population. His persecution concentrated on Rome and its immediate surrounding regions. At times, Pagans thought Christians were suspicious and possibly scurrilous, as any “new” religion was opposed in the Roman Empire. For the first two hundred years, the state did not issue any imperial decrees or

732

https://historyofyesterday.com/why-did-the-romans-persecute-christians4125b106805e; accessed 2022-02-07. 733 Bart D. Ehrman, Forged Writing in the Name of God: Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (New York: HarperCollins, 2012), 164.

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

339

declarations that the practice of the Christian religion was illegal and did not attempt to stamp it out. Only in 249 CE did Emperor Decius (249-251 CE) start persecuting Christians over a large geographic area. Trebonius Gallus (251-253 CE) and Valerian (253-260 CE) followed suit, and Diocletian (283-305 CE) persecuted them intensively. Finally, Galerius (310-313 CE) ended the persecution, and Constantine the Great issued the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, which permitted tolerating all religions in the Roman Empire. In conclusion, the belief that God expects and sends one person in God to appease the divine wrath of another person in the one God represents a logical challenge. However, combining trinitarian thinking with an aspect of the modalist perspective makes it possible to explain Jesus’s death in various other ways. Firstly, it serves as a divine demonstration to the humanity of the meaning of life found in living communally and in the service of fellow people. In addition, it opens the way into the divine presence with God dying instead of human beings on the cross. God gave the divine life so that humans may live. These logical challenges (and there may indeed be more) require an interpretation of biblical descriptions of God as three separate entities, aspects, or analogies of the divine self-revelation rather than persons. The modalist view leaves space to see God as dying in our place to establish the opportunity for us to enter life, a quality of life so excellent that biblical authors refer to it as eternal life.

Alternative Views and Pentecostal Spirituality Pentecostals emphasize liturgy and worship above all else. Their spirituality figures prominently in any theological endeavors. What would the implications be when such a view of the Trinity is accepted? It is submitted that such a view of the divine would assist them in their worship and prayer practices because it presents them with a more biblical view of divine unity. For example, it regularly happens that the liturgy distinguishes sharply between the three “Persons” in songs and choruses,

340

Chapter 6

testimonies, prayers, and sermons. Now, the different “persons” can be reunited and become a unity. This study connects with Barth’s opinion that the three within the Divinity, signified as the Father, Son, and Spirit, refer to modes of being (Seinsweise) rather than three persons. At the same time, it builds upon the concept of the Divine as incomprehensible in all its aspects. Only what God said in selfrevelation about the divine essence and energy can be stated about God. Biblical authors made some statements about God, using language developed by humanity according to their experience of reality. Because God exists in a dimension unknown to human beings, they keep in mind that their language cannot state anything of God’s essence. We can only repeat what God revealed in the divine work in Israel, the incarnation in Christ and, eventually, through the Spirit in the Church’s existence in the contemporary world. What is vital is that the divine incomprehensibility should be reflected in the Pentecostal liturgy. We serve one God, who reveals the divine self to human beings in various ways. The present study agrees with N.H.G. Robinson’s observation that postBarthian theology is characterized by a radical elimination of all metaphysical utterances and outlooks from the trinitarian dogma. The doctrine states much more than is warranted by biblical material containing the only version of the revelation of God’s intended relationship with humanity.734 The early Church, at some stage, started using Greek philosophical categories to restate their doctrines to make them more palatable to a more learned audience. It is from these efforts that the various trinitarian perspectives developed. The early Pentecostal movement explained its origins as a restoration of the early Church and its charismatic practice, reflected in the New Testament, that the Church started losing in the second and third centuries. Within the Pentecostal movement, the same can be observed, with second and succeeding generations losing some of the zeal and enthusiasm of the early pioneers. It is suggested that Pentecostalism should also consider restoring

734

N.H.G. Robinson, “Trinitarianism and Post-Barthian Theology,” Journal of Theological Studies 20 (1969), 186-201.

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

341

the early Church in terms of its God-talk, reflecting anew on the traditional trinitarian option. The early Oneness thinkers did just that. They applied the restorationist impulse of classical Pentecostalism to theological inquiry. They were willing to press “behind creedal language and philosophical categories to the thought-world of the biblical texts, particularly its Hebraic background.”735 The study argues that such a way of thinking accommodates the characteristic Pentecostal spirituality, piety, praxis, and modes of thought. Trinitarian Pentecostals have uncritically become the theological heirs of orthodox Western Christianity. Pentecostals need new ways of thinking and new trajectories to pursue the restorationist urge at the heart of their movement. This is also the only way to defend their Christ-centered emphasis.736 Pentecostal theology is not concerned with a metaphysical description of the divine essence or inner life. Rather, it is concerned with the charismatic practice of Spirit baptism and the charismata. Its God-talk should keep the movement from worshiping a tritheist interpretation of the Divinity by returning to a pre-Nicene emphasis on economic trinitarianism. It should reject the Hellenistic philosophical formulation of classic trinitarian teaching as the ecumenical creeds of the fourth to the seventh centuries defined their consensus. They should leave the notion of God as three “persons” and return to the term “manifestation” to designate the threefold description of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Much of the discussion hinges on the term “person” that theologians use to refer to “separate persons.” Instead, the more accurate way to refer to the three manifestations would be “distinct.” Human beings see the distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit in the distinct ways the Divinity reveals the divine self to them. As a result of the divine self-revelation, human beings are privileged to know the divine character, holiness, love, and power 735 David K. Bernard, “Oneness Theology: Restoring the Apostolic Faith,” in The Routledge Handbook of Pentecostal Theology, edited by Wolfgang Vondey, Routledge Handbooks in Theology, 195-205 (Oxfordshire: Taylor and Francis, 2020), 198. 736 Bernard, “Oneness Theology,” 198.

342

Chapter 6

because of their experiences and encounters with God in Jesus and the Spirit. However, that does not imply they can contain the Divinity in their theological propositions. Their God-talk is always stammering, looking for words without diminishing the glory of the Divinity. Robinson also emphasizes that it is impossible to speak of the very being of God.737 He refers to Rudolf Bultmann, who applied the principle that one can talk about God only in a “non-objectifying sense.”738 When the New Testament refers to the pre-existence of Christ, it implies, according to Bultmann, that it refers to the existence of “a divinely authorized proclamation of the prevenient grace and love of God.” The expression “pre-existence of Christ” is a mythological expression that should be further interpreted to relate it to the idea found in the New Testament.739 Robinson interprets the concept “Spirit” as “the factual possibility of a new life realized in faith,”740 a new life made possible by God’s eternal love for human beings embodied in Jesus’ incarnation. Another post-Barthian theologian working in the same tradition is the English linguist philosopher, I.T. Ramsey. He considered religious and theological language to be empirical because it reflects an experience, evokes a religious situation, and commences a commitment. But, as is the case of all language related to human experience, it is not as precise as scientific endeavors require it to be, and it does not describe trans-empirical facts. Ramsey writes that in speaking of the eternal generation of the Son, it does not refer to what always goes on in some sort of heavenly laboratory or labor-ward.741 In terms of the Church’s doctrine of trinitarianism, he argues that it refers to how religion perceives the way God reveals the divine self.

737

Robinson, “Trinitarianism and Post-Barthian Theology,” 192. Robinson, “Trinitarianism and Post-Barthian Theology,” 193. Robinson refers to the work of Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, Vol. 1 (New York: Scribner’s, 1951), 305. 739 Robinson, “Trinitarianism and Post-Barthian Theology,” 194. 740 Robinson, “Trinitarianism and Post-Barthian Theology,” 194. 741 I.T. Ramsey, Religious Language (London: SCM, 1957), 150. 738

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

343

When it comes to the exercise of spirituality, a relational view of the three distinctive entities in one God serves to enrich the images and associations connected to God that people necessarily use. The “Father” carries the connotation of the awesome Creator God establishing a universe by speaking it into existence, and who maintains all the powers that hold the universe together on its way to its renewal. The divine “Son” represents a loving mother caring for her children, who illustrated her love and concern by dying for them when she could save their lives. The divine “Spirit” represents the presence and involvement of the divine in the present world and circumstances of believers trusting in God. In this way, worship is enriched by including various forms of God’s relationship with human beings.

Ways of God-Talk among Early Christians: Distinction Between Supernatural Theism and Panentheism Further arguments for such alternative views are considered as a way to stimulate further thinking. In the previous chapter, Marcus Borg’s observation proved to be helpful. He asserts that it is significant that the history of Christianity shows the existence of two primary ways of thinking about God; he refers to it as “supernatural theism” and “panentheism.”742 As explained, he quotes Karen Armstrong, who relates how these two concepts of God ran side by side throughout the history of both Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and determined theological developments.743 She indicates that in all these religions, both concepts of God go back to their very beginnings. The distinction between the two forms is of interest for discussing the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. It illustrates why and how the doctrine was eventually accepted widely by both the Eastern and Western Churches, even though it must be admitted that such attempts at limiting the

742

Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 81. Karen Armstrong, A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (New York: Ballantine, 1994). 743

344

Chapter 6

discussion to only two forms of God-talk can represent a simplification of a very complex historical process. Borg defines “supernatural theism” as the idea that God can be represented as a person-like being, although the Divinity represents a superlative person-like being as a supreme being.744 Supernatural theism asserts that when God was finished with creating the Earth and all life therein, God went back to heaven. In other words, the Divinity and the world, including humans, are sharply distinguished; they exist separately from one another. God exists as a different being somewhere “out there,” above the stars and the waters.745 This God has to intervene in the affairs of the Earth and human beings because God is “out there;” such divine interventions occurred only occasionally, and the biblical narratives refer to some of these encounters. Such interventions include the events of the divine revelation to Israel and the incarnation of Jesus. As adherents of such a supernatural theistic view, Pentecostals affirm that God continues to intervene through miracles and wonders in response to their prayers. They view their movement as the restoration of God’s revelation in the early Church and expect the same charismatic phenomena in their worship services that the New Testament ascribes to the early Church’s encounters with the Spirit. It is an important reason why the prevailing biblicist hermeneutic among Pentecostals is inauthentic. The building blocks of Evangelical literalism and biblicism require that the divine self-revelation cease somewhere around the end of the first century, with the death of the last apostle, a direct eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry. However, Pentecostals’ continuationist stance reflects the opposite. Borg describes the alternative, “panentheism,” as the view that God is the encompassing Spirit. Therefore, everything that exists is in God. The concept “panentheism” was coined only two hundred years ago, although the notion is as ancient as the Abrahamitic religions. It asserts that God is not “out there;” God is with and in people and the world. “Panentheism” implies literally that everything that is exists in God. In Christian theology, 744

Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 81. Today we obviously know that “above” is not correct, given the planet’s nearly spherical shape.

745

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

345

perichoretic panentheism refers to the life of God. For Moltmann, it forms the basis and “archetype” of the God-world relation because divine creative and suffering love has always been a part of the divine eternal nature. As a result, the world is a “counterpart” to God. In Pentecostal parlance, believers are filled with the divine Spirit, living from the awareness of the divine presence that changes their lives into holy living. Therefore, the universe does not exist for them as separate from God. Instead, they see the world soaked in God and God’s love for humans. It is suggested that Pentecostals should consider this significant and vital distinction between the two ways the early Church used in their God-talk. However, the term “panentheism” is not probably suitable for this task, since it contains the idea that everything exists in God. Pentecostals (and many other Christians) should instead think of believers living in the presence of God and being soaked by the Spirit of God, while the rest of creation exists due to the divine existence and will of, but in distinction from, God. As in the case of supernatural theism, it is not difficult to find references to this notion in the Bible. Borg refers to Acts 17:28, which states that “in him we live and move and have our being; as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’” As part of Paul’s speech on the Areopagus in Athens, Ben Witherington emphasizes that Paul does not argue that God lives and moves and has the divine being in us, which would be a pantheistic assertion.746 Instead, he thinks that on the lips of a Jewish Christian, it should rather be translated as “by him, we live and move and have our being.” He argues that the speaker wants to emphasize that God is the source of human life and activities; they depend on this one God for their very being and all they do. They exist in and for God and live through divine empowerment and life. He asserts that the first statement may be words that worshipers originally addressed to Zeus in a poem attributed to the Cretan poet, Epimenides. A part of the same poem is quoted in Titus 1:12 as well. The original poem got lost, but some ancient resources refer to it. Such a reference to the poem is found in the work of Aratus, a Cilician poet who 746

Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998).

346

Chapter 6

was possibly personally known to Paul, as reflected in some manuscripts that use “our poets” instead of “your poets.” The last remark Witherington makes is relevant. From a rhetorical point of view, Paul’s use of quotations is to authorize his words before a skeptic Greek philosophical audience by citing an authority recognized by his audience since they are mostly ignorant of the Jewish Scriptures.747 He concludes that one’s arguments are only persuasive if they work within the plausibility structure existing in the hearers’ minds. However, it should be admitted that Paul was certainly not very successful in convincing his audience of the validity of his message. The same idea of the world living in the Divinity occurs in Psalm 139:1-18, which explains that YHWH knows the psalmist, hems them in, behind, and before, and lays the divine hand upon them (v. 5). Moreover, the One who formed the psalmist in wonderful ways in the mother’s womb is everywhere – in heaven, on Earth, and even in the abode of the dead (sheol) (v. 8). Panentheism asserts that humanity is in God. They are living, moving, and having their being in God. God is not (only) “out there,” but “right here,” all around human beings. This does not imply that God is the universe, or that the universe can be identified with God; God is more than everything, even as everything is in God. In other words, the world, and Christian believers specifically, may find their identity in the Creator but cannot be identified with the Divinity. As Creator God, the Divinity is always more than right here. Though the word “panentheism” is unfamiliar to many Christians, the notion is certainly not. The traditional terms for these two dimensions of God are more well-known as transcendence and immanence. Panentheism combines God’s transcendence and immanence so that God is out there and right here. Most traditional theology views the divine in transcendental terms. That many early Christians did not do the same is clear in the Gnostic Christian literature found at Nag Hammadi. Their view of God, in many cases showing diversity between different writings, is of a transcendent Divinity that is immanent in the world, a God that does not have to intervene from outside the sphere of the earth because God is

747

Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, 530.

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

347

directly involved in the affairs of the world, and in particular the lives of those humans who belong to the divine household. Therefore, when thinking in panentheist terms, one does not wait for God to intervene in one’s affairs because God is far away. When God is here as the mighty Creator-Maintainer of the universe, the Mother-God and immanent Divinity who is transcendent and holy, characterized by the bright light of glory, believers expect divine intention and interaction in their lives. God in, with, and under everything is not the direct cause of events, but the divine presence beneath and within their everyday lives.748 In a way that one can only imagine, God, in divine love for human beings, also stretched eternity to be in the universe. Supernatural theists expect and pray that God intervenes in their lives, which sometimes happens. If panentheists do not expect divine intervention, how do they expect God to arrange their affairs? Do they use petitionary and intercessory prayers to intercede for themselves and others? This is a crucial point, because supernaturalists and panentheists define prayer differently. While the first group intercedes for what they expect God to do for them, panentheists bring their needs and desires before God and wait in silence for insights into how such needs and wants fit into God’s will and plan for their lives. Instead of expecting divine intervention, they make themselves available to become agents to change the situation for the better because they reflect on their part in the situation and their potential contribution to addressing it. In some cases, they may become convinced of divine intervention and leave with the expectation and trust that God will provide. Nevertheless, they rule out “extraordinary” events because God is present in their lives. If an agnostic or atheist argues about the existence of God with believers who view God as immanent-transcendent, the believer’s response is clear. They know that God lives because their existence is based on the experience of the divine presence in their lives. They sense the Presence, and at times

748

Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 81.

348

Chapter 6

they experience it so vividly in charismatic encounters that their lives testify to the power of divine love that transforms them. In terms of developing the concept of the Trinity that virtually all Christian believers eventually accepted, the distinction between supernatural theists and panentheists is illuminating. The voice of the panentheists in the early Church was finally and forcefully silenced after accepting the doctrine of the Trinity in the creeds after stormy and divisive discussions. All adherents of other views were forced to recant or were exiled by the state-church cooperative pact under Constantine and his successors, and their writings were destroyed. As a result, the only knowledge about the post-Constantine Church’s “heretics” came from the “orthodox” authors who discussed their work, at times at length. For instance, Bishop Irenaeus, leader of the Church in Lyons, c. 180, wrote five volumes entitled The Destruction and Overthrow of Falsely So-called Knowledge (Gnosis). He starts with the promise to prove the absurdity and inconsistency of their statements. His books intended to keep believers from falling into an abyss of madness and blasphemy against Christ.749 Another exponent of orthodoxy was the African Tertullian (approx. 160 CE), from Carthage, a Roman province, who wrote Adversus Valentinianos, De Pudicitia, Ad Scapulam, Apology, and De Virginibus Velandis, among other books, to refute the “heretics.” Supernatural theism has been reinforced since the Enlightenment of the seventeenth century. A vital element of the new scientific discoveries was a new vision of the universe that consists of a natural system existing separate from and excluding God. In contrast, the universe comprised, for ancients, a small world consisting of the earth, surrounded by water, and above the clouds keeping the water at bay, the heavenly abode. The Earth existed as the center of the universe, with the sun, moon, planets, and stars mounted on a dome just above the Earth. God’s abode was just above this dome. When supernatural theists referred to the God out there in “heaven,” premodern believers saw God as accessible and near enough to intervene in their lives.750 Previously, scientists thought that the universe consisted of 749

Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 10-11. The discovery of the universe as heliocentric changed the notion of the universe. Copernicus’ (1473-1543) assertion that the Earth is not the centre of the solar 750

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

349

ten billion stars. However, we know now, thanks to the New Horizons space probe, that there are trillion galaxies or more consisting of 1x1024 stars – more than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the Earth. The Earth finds itself way out in one such galaxy, the Milky Way, with the sun serving as its star. The nearest galaxy to the Milky Way is Andromeda, which is 780 000 parsecs away.751 The Milky Way is not in the center of the universe, and the Earth is not even in the center of its galaxy. Instead, a black hole, Sagittarius A*, is near the center of the Milky Way. A network of eight radio observatories at six different locations worldwide took a photo of this supermassive black hole with a mass of four million suns. The image was revealed on May 12, 2022. The God out there has been transferred to a very distant existence. A transcendent God cannot be intimately close to human beings.752 In the contemporary world, few Christians realize there is any way thinking about God other than supernatural theism. Borg advocates panentheism as such a valid option, especially for believers who no longer find supernatural theism compelling or persuasive. Moreover, he argues that it is just as biblical or even more orthodox than supernatural theism because it balances both the divine transcendence and presence, in contrast to supernatural theism that, in its modern form, one-sidedly overemphasizes the divine transcendence.753 In thinking about an alternative way of God-talk that leads to a different conception of God than the traditional doctrine of the Trinity provides, it

system, rather it is the sun, caused a widespread stir. One implication was that it rejected the biblical and ecclesiastical view supported by Joshua 10’s assertion that YHWH commanded the sun to stand still for a certain period of time. 751 https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-new-horizons-reaches-a-rare-space-milestone; accessed 2022-01-14. The scale of the solar system can be explained as follows: if a typical neighborhood street represents the solar system, the sun would be one house to the left of “home” (Earth), Mars would be the next house to the right, and Jupiter would be four houses to the right. New Horizons, the first spacecraft to explore Pluto up close, would be 50 houses down the street, 17 houses beyond Pluto (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-new-horizons-reaches-a-rare-spacemilestone; accessed 2022-01-27. 752 Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 85. 753 Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 86.

350

Chapter 6

was stated that all human language of God is by definition limited. In speaking about God, human beings refer to an entity that falls outside their frame of reference. Although they may testify to encounters with God as a part of the divine self-revelation, as biblical authors also did, it is essential to realize that divine self-revelation is limited to the divine economy. It excludes God’s essence because God exists beyond all words as the ineffable. In naming the ineffable one, one is no longer talking about it. A definition of the ineffability of God refers to the divine incomprehensibility human beings experience when God reveals the divine self. They can get some knowledge of God by considering the works of God in nature, through their reason, and the divine self-revelation through Moses and the Hebrew prophets, but especially in Jesus. However, the Divinity as a separate entity remains incomprehensible to them.754 Because humans observe the divine presence in nature, science, their professions, and religious encounters with the divine, human beings necessarily need to speak about God. They should remember that their language is inadequate to do so, and they need to exercise the humility that acknowledges the limited capabilities that human language entails. Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology, seems to be more adequate for theological speaking and religious practice. It attempts to approach God, the Divine, by negation instead of self-assured positive statements that sound like “facts” and “truth.” It speaks only in terms of what may not and cannot be said about God’s perfect goodness, without denying the importance of humans’ experience of divine love, and even provides the opportunity to describe and discuss such encounters. Even in stating something that they believe about God’s essence, like saying that God is love, believers should realize that their definitions of love, even the love of a mother for her baby, are totally inadequate to describe divine love. Perhaps Dante, in his La Divina Commedia of 1321, faced with the vision of God, states it the best in the last sentence of the poem: “God is not merely a blinding vision of glorious light, but the Divinity is, most of all, l’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle” (“the love that moves the sun and the other stars”). The best way to attempt to speak of the ineffable God is by way of 754

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcriptsand-maps/ineffability-god; accessed 2021-01-14.

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

351

stammering, because we are stalking the borderland of the limits of language, using the words employed by Belden Lane.755 We attempt to use speech to confound speech in order to say something about the unsayable. We speak in riddles and constantly need to be reminded that the only language available to communicate with God is worship and awe, which requires humble silence in the divine presence and the humility to honor God for His divine works. Christians must refrain from attempting to grasp God and the divine character through their words. Does panentheism imply that God is an impersonal being? Why, then, do human beings worship God? Biblical authors presented their encounters with God by characterizing the divine as having personal characters. Their descriptions create the impression that God is a person-like being. Believers today still use the same language that personifies God; they address God as if the Divinity were a person. It presents no problem unless they literalize or semi-literalize these personifications.756 For example, most believers would not argue that the phrase “the right hand of God” implies that God has a human body. However, many believe that the designations of “Father” and “Son” denote that God is gendered as a person, specifically a male person. The worshiper may experience the divine like a person. However, to state that God is person-like ascribes to the divine more than the Bible does and does not do justice to the ineffable Divinity. Pentecostals testify to the presence of God in them and refer to the Presence as the work of the Spirit. Again, it is impossible to think of one person inhabiting another, indicating the quality of divine being as spiritual. William Atkinson refers to the relation between the Father and Jesus, especially in John’s Gospel, and Jesus’ claims of the Father's utterly pervasive influence in all his being and doing rather than claiming an ontological pervasion.757 It is precisely this “utterly pervasive influence” of the Divinity that inhabits Spirit-filled people, denoting the divine being’s essence as spiritual. The only difference 755

“We must speak, yet we cannot speak without stammering … [Language about God] stalks the borderland of the limits of language, using speech to confound speech, speaking in riddles, calling us to humble silence in the presence of mystery” (Belden Lane, The Solace of Fierce Landscapes [New York: Oxford University Press, 1998], 69). 756 Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 88-89. 757 Atkinson, Trinity After Pentecost, 155.

352

Chapter 6

between our experience and Jesus’ is that he encountered the Father without limit, as John 3:34 explains: he speaks God’s words and gives the Spirit without measure because he is God. Human beings will never know what God is ultimately like; perhaps in a future life, they will get a better impression when they can comprehend the perfect (Heb 12:2, 23). However, in encountering the divine, believers experience that there is something personal in their relationship with God, as the people in biblical times experienced. Jesus’ disciples had the privilege of being witnesses to his ministry, and their personal relationship with him changed their lives. In thinking about God, their reference point was the person of Jesus they had accepted as divine before he left the Earth to be united with the Divinity. The human relationship with the divine engages them as persons at their deepest, most passionate and intuitive level, leading to Borg’s argument that God has the quality of a “presence” rather than being encountered as a nonpersonal “energy” or “force.”758 Christians experience the “voice” of God imperceptibly when the Bible, nature, or an event prods them spiritually and provides insights that enrich their lives. It implies that the divine again emptied himself, as Philippians 2:7 explains was the case with the incarnation of Jesus. Jesus is defined as what can be seen of God embodied in human life, the divine revelation and incarnation of divine character and passion. He shows what God is like and what God is most passionate about – the heart of God.759 As the decisive revelation of what a life full of God looks like, he is radically centered in God and filled with the Spirit. He discloses what God looks like in human life.760 However, it should be remembered that Jesus is not the revelation of “all” of God, but only of what can be seen of God in human life.761 In the Spirit’s work in current times, the Divinity still fills human beings with spiritual prodding and insights that enrich and change their lives radically.

758

Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 90. Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 98. 760 Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 107. Although using the definition of Marcus Borg, his denial of Jesus’ divinity is not accepted here. He accepts that God is defined by Jesus, but not that God is confined to Jesus. He views Jesus as a Jewish mystic, healer, wisdom teacher, social prophet, and movement initiator. 761 Borg, Jesus, 7. 759

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

353

The Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner remarks, “We should be willing to admit that, should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false, the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged.”762 This is a significant statement; the human invention of the Trinity does not add much to the divine self-revelation in the Bible. Jürgen Moltmann confirms this sentiment by stating that whether God is one or triune evidently makes as little difference to the doctrine of faith as it does to ethics.763 In fact, Western Christians are, in effect, practical modalists, because they view God in terms of oneness rather than three-ness, as Robert Letham explains.764 The reason for this observation is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not selfevident, as Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schleiermacher, among others, already showed. This is why nearly all systematic theological treatises of the Trinity start with an apology, noting the logical objections and reservations to the doctrine before the author(s) starts providing a defense.765 Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, supporting the traditional doctrine, does not think it is justified; he reasons that the doctrine is established as a viable and vibrant topic that still energizes many contemporary theological endeavors.766 However, Millard Erikson admits that the universal Church’s subscription to this doctrine presents strange paradoxes that have led to many discussions throughout Christianity’s existence.767 From the very start, the early Church struggled to make sense of the relation between the Son and the Father, and later the Spirit as well. It was one of the first issues that the Church had to deal with, because it is part of the question of who and what Jesus was – that is whether he was only a human person, or divine as well. It was always 762

Rahner, The Trinity, 10–11. Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 1. 764 Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004), 5. 765 As Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, xii observes. 766 Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, xii. 767 In books such as Millard Erikson, Christian Theology. 3rd ed. (Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2013); Introducing Christian Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2001); Making Sense of the Trinity: 3 Crucial Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000); and Who’s Tampering with the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2009). 763

354

Chapter 6

a widely disputed doctrine, defended by most parts of the Church with much vigor and even vehemence. However, when most believers reply to the question of what the Church means when it speaks of the Trinity, they seem to lack confidence, especially if the conversation progresses to the relation between the implication of three-ness as well as oneness inherent in the doctrine. Many believers are unsure what the exact meaning of their belief is. This study agrees with Leonardo Boff that the existence of one God in trinitarian shape presents more of a mysterium logicu (logical mystery) than a mysterium saluti (mystery of salvation).768 Gilles Emery argues that displaying the intelligibility that he presumes trinitarian faith possesses is not an exercise of mathematical sophistication (where three is one), nor a reflection detached from Christian experience. “Rather, Trinitarian theology is an exercise of contemplative wisdom and a work of purification of understanding based upon receiving the revelation of God in faith (it is “faith seeking understanding” or fides quaerens intellectum).”769 Trinitarian theology is a contemplative exercise oriented toward beatitude, an exercise of wisdom tending toward the blessed vision of God the Trinity in eternal life. Kärkkäinen defines a mystery as an apparent contradiction for which there is good reason to believe in. In this way, he escapes the problem an unexplainable mystery presents to believers who find it hard to overcome the logical hurdles they see in the confession of God as a Trinity. A mystery cannot, by definition, exist as a contradiction. Therefore, he finds no reason not to believe in it because it does not present any contradiction as a mystery.770 However, his reasoning is not sound, because he does not address the logical impossibility that three persons can form one Person. The same is true in Steven Studebaker’s study that discusses the Triune God from the perspective of Pentecostal theology. He acknowledges that the language of 768

Leonardo Boff, Trinity and Society. Translated by Paul Burns (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1998), 111. 769 Emery, The Trinity, 143. 770Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, xiii.

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

355

“person” is not biblical, per se. The Church utilizes the term in terms of philosophical and theological usages. Nevertheless, he argues that the Spirit, Father, and Son act in the biblical accounts of salvation history in ways that can best be described as personal. He refers to their distinct existence from one another, their acting as different agents, and how they relate and respond differently from human persons. He concludes that it is proper that theology should apply the term “person” to the Father, Son, and Spirit.771 This study argues that to speak of God is to face an unexplainable mystery. It has to do with the ontological existence, hypostatic being, or essence of God, a recognizable entity that reveals the divine self in encountering human beings. The entity exists in a dimension that falls outside the human frame of reference. It is characterized by elements that cannot be explained in terms of humans’ experience of reality. Therefore, it disqualifies them from saying anything more than what the entity reveals to them about the divine self. As discussed above, human language must necessarily be used to describe these encounters and change the Divinity into a person human beings can relate to. In a certain sense, to understand the Divinity, Christians must create an image of the divine, and then they need to find the words to describe said image – but they may never forget that their idea can never equal God or be identified with God. It remains imperative that Pentecostal Christians should never lose sight of the critical objective of knowing and experiencing God. In Philipp Melanchthon’s words, adoring the mysteries of the Godhead is much more profitable than investigating them.772 In fact, it is impossible to reach their unfathomable riches. Doxological language is the best and only language to talk about God, because the only way to know God is through worshiping the divine. Learning to know implies that one participates in the person’s life that one learns to know; participating in the divine always and necessarily leads to adoration, awe, and wonder, resulting in worship. Theological enterprises that do not occur in the context of worship are sterile and worthless because the only language fit for the purpose of speaking about God is borne of encountering the divine. This remark explains the 771 772

Studebaker, “From Pentecost to the Triune God,” 6. Quoted in Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, xvi.

356

Chapter 6

importance of glossolalia as a worship language for Pentecostals. It is a truth that Pentecostals have always held in their “anti-intellectualist” urge to protect the importance of personally encountering God. It was always essential for them to know what the Bible says about God, but what is even more vital is to know God. This is an insight Christians can learn from the Eastern Church; Pentecostals forget it at the cost of their identity and essence. Some have argued that God is a person, since one of the creation narratives explains God created human beings in the divine image. It is accepted that these narratives provide vital clues to the divine creative task of creating life on the planet Earth. However, there are two narratives, because the authors had different interests and objectives in relating their narratives.773 The concept of the “image of God” can also be explained in various ways. As previously discussed, some scholars based their trinitarian perspective on the distinctions they find between the entities within the Divinity in the different origins assigned to the Son and Spirit from each other and the Father. The Father is the one who begets the Son, the Son is distinguished from the Father in being generated by the Father, and both breathe forth the Spirit, discerning the Spirit as another person. Paternity, filiation, and spiration are then the only real distinctions between the three agencies, implying that three different persons exist to form one God. However, I argued that in distinguishing between the three entities or agencies in terms of their different origins, one should ask whether that necessarily implies that they represent different persons. It might be that the depiction of their different origins only serves as a metaphor to explain how the specific agency started to serve divine purposes. However, I disagree that the only real distinctions between the three agencies exist in their origins, explained in terms of paternity, filiation, and spiration. Their different missions and purposes regarding self-revelation to human beings form more significant distinctions. The Son supports the Father as creator and maintainer of the universe as co-creator and savior, and the Spirit as the means for human beings to be aware of the presence 773

Nel, Creation and Pentecostals.

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

357

and influence of the divine in their daily lives (see, e.g., Eph 1:13-14; Rev 4-5). The Apostles’ (or Apostolic) Creed (Symbolum Apostolorum or Symbolum Apostolicum) probably originated in Gaul in the fifth century CE. As a further development of the Old Roman Symbol, the Latin creed was used in the fourth century CE. Since the eighth century CE, the Western church’s liturgy has been using it. It refers to the same issue and appropriates creation to the Father, redemption to the Son, and sanctification to the Spirit. The presupposition of the proposed Pentecostal view of the Trinity is based on the statement of Leonard Hodgson that the history of Christianity’s early days shows that it began as a trinitarian religion with a unitarian theology of the concept of God.774 In attempting to relate Jesus Christ to God, early Christians found it difficult to provide the necessary language. It took four centuries before they solved the challenge in a way eventually accepted as the consensus perspective. In the process, they were forced to use words that do not occur in the Bible (e.g., homoousios, hypostatis, substance), and it is submitted that these concepts do not represent how the Old Testament thinks about God. Moreover, the words were not even commonly used in the fourth century CE when the church coined them. The challenge of finding the necessary grammar to deal with the Trinity is closely linked to the essence of God that human beings can never comprehend – at least not while they are limited to the experience and knowledge the existing universe provides. Human language is characterized by its limitedness and scarcity when describing God’s hypostatic being.775 God is infinitely or limitlessly greater and more complex than anything we could possibly imagine, as Isaiah 40:25, among many other texts, explains in vivid terms. Humanity does not know anything about the divine existence except that God revealed something of the divine self to human beings within their planetary context. Therefore, it is impossible to compare God to anyone or anything we know. God is unique to anything we have ever experienced. For that reason, God does not allow members of the divine 774

Leonard Hodgson, The Doctrine of the Trinity (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1944), 103. 775 Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, xiii.

358

Chapter 6

household to make images of God fashioned after their own fetishes in order to attempt to bring God within their grasp (Ex 20:4–5).776 Therefore, I submit that the commandment includes all doctrines that attempt to contain the divine essence. If God did not reveal something about the divine self in a way that humanity could comprehend, then they would have no knowledge about God. Humanity needs God’s self-disclosure because in their finite state, limited to the earthly dimensions of time and space, they cannot discern spiritual matters. In words contained in 1 Corinthians 2:14-16, only spiritual people who have received the gifts of God’s Spirit are able to sense the divine presence and all other things, because only those who have Christ’s mind can know the mind of the Lord. “Spiritual people” refers to those who have the Holy Spirit or, in Pentecostal jargon, Spirit-filled believers.777 In this regard, Kärkkäinen refers to Augustine’s observation that human language suffers from poverty and so cannot solve the challenge of explaining the problem.778 David Meyer also quotes Augustine, who writes that in no other subject is error more dangerous, inquiry more laborious, or the discovery of truth more rewarded than the Trinity.779 When the Church at last coined the formula of three “persons,” she realized that it is impossible to provide a complete explanation through human words. However, in order that the Church was not forced to remain silent when speaking about God, it dared to speak.780 The difficulty in speaking about God does not imply that believers should instead remain silent. They must find the words to describe their encounters. They need to integrate these encounters into their lives by verbalizing them. It is also required as a tool to relate their experiences to others in the hope that they may be convinced to experience the advantages that such encounters bring. Especially in the early days, Pentecostal worship services 776

Macchia, The Trinity, Practically Speaking, 7. Douglas Mangum (ed.), 1 Corinthians Lexham Context Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2020), 1 Co 2:6–16. 778 Kärkkäinen, The Trinity, xiii. 779 Myer, “Teaching the Trinity,” 88. 780 https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130115.htm; accessed 2021-12-04. 777

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

359

were characterized by striking and convincing testimonies of believers who found in their encounters with Christ the grace to leave a life of sin and the destruction it necessarily and by definition brings in its wake, in the form of deliverance from several addictions that destroyed people’s health and the devastation of broken marriages and families, and other broken relationships, participation in crime, etc. Fortunately, believers found such language in the Bible, especially the charismatic encounters described in the book of Acts.781 For that reason, they emphasized the books of Luke-Acts in their testimonies and theological musings, sometimes at the cost of excluding other books in the New and Old Testaments. Pentecostal theology cannot but use theological language, relying on certain concepts formulated to define what we can understand as to what the Bible states about different aspects of human life. Even in earlier times when Pentecostals denied the necessity to engage in any theological labor because of their propensity to prefer their own personal charismatic experiences above theological assertions, they still used theology, albeit uncritically, to frame their own experiences and how they understood the Bible. To be a believer requires that one speaks about God, implying that one theologizes. The only difference is in the quality of the theology that resulted from the enterprise, defined as a coherent way of connecting own charismatic encounters to the biblical witness to provide the necessary (human!) language to describe the experience in an understandable way. A few more matters need to be discussed to complete the picture of the alternative views of the Divinity, including ethical challenges of the Trinity and pastoral concerns related to trinitarian views.

781

See, e.g., William Mittelstadt, Reading Luke-Acts in the Pentecostal Tradition (Cleveland, TN: CPT, 2010) and Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke: Trajectories from the Old Testament to Luke-Acts. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: BakerAcademic, 2012.

360

Chapter 6

Trinity as Ethical Challenge A vital reason for rethinking the traditional doctrine of the Trinity regards ethical concerns. The postmodern world became sensitized to the effects of sexism, consisting of, among others, discrimination against women and LGBTIQ+ people because of the prejudices born from patriarchy. Like the surrounding world, ancient Israelite society ordered their society traditionally in patriarchal ways. Patriarchy represents the social system that primarily resists males, excluding women from most political, religious, and cultural leadership roles. Women’s place was in the kitchen, and they should subject themselves carefully to the “stronger” sex. The male sex determined morality, social privilege, and property control. Women were, in effect, seen as the property of men, a part of either her father’s, husband’s, or brothers’ belongings, in the same way enslaved people “belonged” to their owners. The Israelite patriarchal society was essentially patrilineal. For that reason, male lineage inherited property and title rights. It relegated women to an inferior position, where they needed men to represent them legally. It resulted from the stereotypes and gender roles patriarchy attached to women. Patriarchy considered the female sex as intrinsically inferior to the male sex. For that reason, the Israelite deity was also depicted consistently as male. When she discusses perichoresis, Karen Kilby raises some concerns about the “use” of the doctrine of the Trinity for one’s own agendas.782 It implies that the concept is filled out rather suggestively with notions borrowed from one’s own experience of relationships and relatedness and, as such, presented to reflect on relationships and relatedness. She calls it projection, and explains that it reflects back what it projects onto God. One such agenda is that of far-right, conservative Christians who abuse the Bible to discriminate against others and justify their hate speech. Such projection is found in a “complementarian doctrine of the Trinity” with its theological anthropology that subjects and subordinates women to men. It functions in

782

Karen Kilby, “Perichoresis and Projection: Problems with Social Doctrines of the Trinity,” New Blackfriars 81 (2000), 432-445 (442).

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

361

contrast to an “egalitarian doctrine of the Trinity” with its theological anthropology in which women are not subordinate to men.783 This publication discussed some (semi-) divine agents of divine activity found in the Old Testament that stood in a special relationship with God and at times identified with the divine. One of these agents was wisdom; a significant part of the Old Testament consists of wisdom literature dedicated to descriptions of wisdom and her influence on humanity. It is interesting to note that wisdom is a feminine term, in contrast to the Israelite divine portrayed in masculine terms, even though wisdom is identified with the divine. The biblical terms employed to provide the early Church with the instruments to describe the relationship between Jesus and God also betray the preferences of a patriarchal society. All the terms, Father, Son, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, etc., represent male roles, strengthening the idea established by the authors of the Old Testament that YHWH was a male God.784 By clothing it in this way, it accepted its patriarchal sentiments, supporting the suppressing potential inherent in patriarchy. Patriarchy is, by definition, based on the inequality of sexes.

Trinity as a Challenge to Faith Another significant motivating factor for reconsidering the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is the devastating effect of New Atheism on the Church, due to its challenges in logically justifying the doctrine. The issue was discussed more completely in the first chapter. Some theologians use the same argument to promote more interest in the doctrine by claiming that the reason for the rise of atheism lies in the neglect of the Trinity by

783

McCall, Which Trinity?, 226-227. “Spirit” in Hebrew is a feminine noun, in Greek, it is a neuter one, and in Latin, it is a male noun (Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, 73, 75), as is “wisdom” (hokmah; Pagels, Why Religion?, 42). The Western church practiced their theology in Latin, and this explains why the male concept of God was accepted nearly universally among them. In contrast, there are several sentiments for divine femininity found in the East and (especially) Gnostic literature. 784

362

Chapter 6

established Churches.785 However, it is more probable that the Church’s inability to justify the doctrine in a logically acceptable way is one of the important reasons for the popularity of atheism, or agnosticism, among a growing group of contemporary people. The term “New Atheism” was coined in 2006 by Gary Wolf, a journalist, to refer to the beliefs of some atheists developed in the twenty-first century. It advocates intolerance toward superstition and religion because of its supposed irrationality and purports to criticize and challenge it by confronting it with scientifically based arguments. In addition, it accuses religion of many social harms supposedly founded on the belief in the supernatural, especially its indoctrination of children.786 In attempting to define “atheism,” it is necessary to explain theism’s origins. Theism is the phenomenon that describes God’s distanced involvement with the divinely initiated creation, referred to above as an emphasis on divine transcendence at the cost of immanence. It started during the early Enlightenment as a reaction against the trinitarian doctrine of God. After the religious wars that divided Europe and destroyed its economy, many people looked for a view of God that could unite the human race as a whole rather than divide them and justify their conflicts with one another. As a result, it rejected views of the Divinity of Christ in order to define a universal view of God. Their God was a supreme being that was absolute, infinite, and eternal, a beneficent being that served as a moral paragon for humanity. For some of them, God was nothing more than the moral principle thought to uphold a just society. God was the first cause of creation and bound to the progress and development of humankind. Descartes (1596-1650) is a proponent of this position. He attempted to prove the existence of God through human thought; he states that because someone thinks the person exists and because humanity thinks about God, the divine exists. Feuerbach later concurred that God is nothing more than the projection of human needs and desires.

785

Like Michael J. Buckley, At the Origins of Modern Atheism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987). 786 See, e.g., the USA title of Christopher Hitchens’ book, “God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.”

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

363

Atheism can be defined as the denial of anything divine. It occurs when humankind accepts its ability to explain scientifically and logically everything without needing the divine to fill in specific gaps in its knowledge. It consists of many forms that acknowledge and understand human beings as autonomous. It asserts that God is no longer needed to explain nature and life; science has completed that task successfully in its different forms. Some forms of atheism protest the evil and wrong found in nature and human beings and religion’s propensity to deflect responsibility for the evil to spiritual forces that oppose God. Sometimes it is based on suffering that characterizes all forms of life. God’s supposed silence and inability or unwillingness to do anything about it reflect a challenge that implies the world is meaningless and empty. Still, others rebel against the illogicality they find in the concept that the Christian God is one divine being existing as three persons.

Pastoral Concerns Another concern of this study is of a pastoral nature. Many people suffer because the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is closely linked to patriarchy. It is also some Christian groups’ justification for abuses against women and LGBTIQ+ people. To shed its patriarchal background and grounding, Godtalk should accept the neutrality of God and avoid references to God as “persons,” which the Church has seen, through the ages, as male.

Assessment and Conclusion This publication attempted to provide alternative ways to think about the Trinity from the perspective of Pentecostal hermeneutics. The challenges of New Atheism, the traditional way of seeing the cross as a means to appease an angry God about human sinfulness, ethical challenges, and pastoral concerns motivated the reconsideration. Most Pentecostals support an unarticulated Pentecostal hermeneutic, defined as an uncritical literalist and biblicist way of interpreting the Bible. “Biblicism” is an adherence to the Bible’s letter that views the Bible’s function as the exclusive and sole source for God to reveal the divine self to human beings. No other extrabiblical revelation is possible. Interpreting the

364

Chapter 6

text as it stands literally asserts that it is possible to define the truth about the divine and the divine will propositionally. As a result, it is not important to gain more information about the genre, historical background, literature of surrounding nations, or the cultural, economic, and social worlds in which the authors and listeners/readers lived in order to place the text and attempt to understand what the first listeners heard when they received the messages centuries ago.787 It also denies the existence of multiple manuscripts showing many variants in which the Bible, especially the New Testament, was handed down. It also mistrusts all newer translations not based on the Textus Receptus. Biblicism also maintains that the Bible contains answers to every one of contemporary people’s conceivable ethical issues. It also provides correct and accurate descriptions of all scientific and biological questions that one could pose to the Bible. Finally, it consists of the absolutization of Reformation principles such as sola Scriptura, clarity of Scripture, the sufficiency of Scripture, and the authority of Scripture.788 In contrast, we agree with Andrew Davies’ argument that Pentecostals no longer need to consent to the evangelical doctrine of sola Scriptura in postmodern times, because they realize that the divine revelation to a new generation is not transmitted by the Bible alone. God still reveals the divine self in the work of the Spirit.789 Pentecostal exegesis attempts to listen to the message the first readers heard within their context. They experienced it as the divine word addressed to them, and for that reason, Jews and Christians had decided that specific writing should be included in the canon. Contemporary readers experience that they hear the divine word when the Spirit addresses them. At the same time, they expect the Spirit who inspired the earliest messengers to reveal relevant insights about their situation to them.

787

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2020/08/what-is-biblicism/; accessed 2021-12-09. 788 https://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2020/08/what-is-biblicism/; accessed 2021-12-09. 789 Robby Waddell, The Spirit of the Book of Revelation, JPTSup. 30 (Blandford Forum: Deo, 2006), 127.

Alternative Pentecostal Ways of God-Talk and the Trinity

365

However, they also expect extrabiblical divine revelation. God speaks with people in nature as well as charismatic encounters. The hermeneutic leaves room for the development of theological insights from various sources. This study’s reconsideration of the Trinity included observing the human inability to comprehend the essence of God. The most we can know of the divine is God’s revelation in the relationship with Israel and the incarnation of the Son. It understands the different aspects of God as modes of being of one God and explains that we should interpret the modes of being in terms of divine relationality. It understands divine essence in terms of divine eternity, holiness, and glory that are, by definition, indefinable, because they refer to phenomena falling outside the human frame of reference.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Albrecht, Daniel. Rites in the Spirit: A Ritual Approach to Pentecostal / Charismatic Spirituality. JPT Sup. 17. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Allert, Craig D. A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament. Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Anderson, Alan. An Introduction to Pentecostalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Anderson, Alan. “Introduction: World Pentecostalism at a Crossroads.” In Pentecostals After a Century: Global Perspectives on a Movement in Transition, edited by Allan H. Anderson and Walter J. Hollenweger, 209-23. JPT Sup. 15. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Anderson, Mark. “God for Now: Theology Through Evangelical and Charismatic Experience.” Book Review. Journal of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity 41, no. 1 (2021), 1-3. DOI: 10.1080/27691616.2021.2006515 Anonymous, The Cloud of Unknowing, edited by William Johnson. Baltimore, MD: Image, 1996. Aquinas, Thomas. “First Part: Question 29.” In Summa Theologiae, 2nd ed. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 1920. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1029.htm; accessed 2022-05-17. Archer, Kenneth. “Early Pentecostal Biblical Interpretation.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18 (2001), 32-70. Archer, Kenneth J. A Pentecostal Hermeneutic for the Twenty-First Century: Spirit, Scripture and Community. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Archer, Kenneth J. A Pentecostal Hermeneutic: Spirit, Scripture and Community. Cleveland, TN: CPT, 2009. Archer, Kenneth J. “Pentecostal Hermeneutics: Retrospect and Prospect.” In Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Reader, edited by Lee R. Martin, 131148. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity: Some Hermeneutical Considerations

367

Archer, Kenneth J. “A Pentecostal Way of Doing Theology: Method and Manner.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 9, no. 3 (2007), 301-314. Argyle, Aubrey W. God in the New Testament. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott, 1965. Armstrong, Karen. Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence. New York: Anchor, 2015. Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. New York: Ballantine, 1994. Arrington, French L. “The Use of the Bible by Pentecostals.” Pneuma 16, no. 1 (1994), 101-107. Athanasius of Alexandria. “Four Discourses Against the Arians.” In St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Translated by John Henry Newman and Archibald T. Robertson. Vol. 4: A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892. Athanasius, Serapion. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806054.htm; accessed 2022-05-17. Athenagoras, “A Plea for the Christians.” In Early Christian Doctrines, edited by J.N.D. Kelly, 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1960. Atkinson, William P. Trinity After Pentecost. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2013. Augustine, Letters. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102169.htm; accessed 2022-05-17. Augustine, On the Trinity. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130101.htm; accessed 2022-05-17. Augustine, Sermon. http://www.augnet.org/en/works-of-augustine/ writingsof-augustine/his-sermons/2150-about-his-sermons/; accessed 2022-01-21. Baik, Chung-Hyun. The Holy Trinity: God for God and God for us: Seven Positions on the Immanent-Economic Trinity Relation in Contemporary Trinitarian Theology. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 145. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011. Baker, Robert O. “Pentecostal Bible Reading: Toward a Model of Reading for the Formation of the Affections.” In Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Reader, edited by Lee R. Martin, 95-108. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

368

Bibliography

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, Vol. I: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. Translated by Geoffrey William Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2003 (1932). Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, Vol. I: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 2. Translated by Geoffrey William Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2000 (1938). Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, Vol. II: The Doctrine of God, Part 1. Translated by Geoffrey William Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2004 (1957). Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics: Vol. IV The Doctrine of Reconciliation, Part 1. Translated by Geoffrey William Bromiley, Thomas F. Torrance. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2010 (1986). Barth, Karl. The Humanity of God. Translated by Thomas Wieser and John Newton Thomas. Louisville: John Knox, 1960. Barth, Karl. “Scripture as the Word of God,” in Karl Barth: Selections from Twentieth-Century Theologians Edited with an Introduction and Notes, edited by E.J. Tinsley, 67-72. London: Epworth, 1973. Bartos, Emil. “The Three Waves of Spiritual Renewal of the PentecostalCharismatic Movement.” RES: Biblical Exegesis Between East and West 7, no. 1 (April 2015), 20-42. Bauckham. Richard. God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Bauer, Walter. Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum. Tübingen: JCB Mohr, 1934. Becker, Matthias. “A Tenet Under Examination: Reflections on the Pentecostal Hermeneutical Approach.” Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association XXIV (2004), 30-48. Ben-Zvi, Ehud. “Zechariah.” In The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Z. Breetler, 2nd ed., 345-428. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Bernard, David. The Oneness of God. Series in Pentecostal Theology, vol. 1. Hazelwood, MI: Word Aflame, 1983. Bernard, David K. “Oneness Theology: Restoring the Apostolic Faith.” In The Routledge Handbook of Pentecostal Theology, edited by Wolfgang Vondey, 195-205. Routledge Handbooks in Theology. Oxfordshire: Taylor and Francis, 2020.

Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity: Some Hermeneutical Considerations

369

Bertocci, Peter A. “The Essence of a Person.” The Monist 61, no. 1 (January 1978), 28-41. Betteridge, Walter R. “Glory,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, 1235. Chicago, Ill: Howard-Severance, 1915. Bevans, Stephen B. and Roger P. Schroeder. Constants in Context: A Theology of Mission for Today. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2004. Blumhofer, Edith. The Assemblies of God: A Popular History. Springfield, MI: Gospel Publishing House, 1985. Boff, Leonardo. Church, Charism and Power: Liberation Theology and the Institutional Church. London: SCM, 2011. Boff, Leonardo. Trinity and Society. Translated by Paul Burns. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1998. Borg, Marcus J. The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith. New York: HarperCollins, 2003. Borg, Marcus J. Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary. New York: HarperCollins, 2006. Boyd, Gregory A. Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity: A World-Wide Movement Assessed by a Former Oneness Pentecostal. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992. Bracken, Joseph. “Process Perspectives and Trinitarian Theology.” Word and Spirit 8 (1986), 51-64. Bräutigam, Michael. “Adolf Schlatter on Scripture as Gnadenmittel: Remedy for a Hypertensive Debate?” Scottish Journal of Theology 69, no. 1 (February 2016), 81-94. Bray, Gerald. Creeds, Councils and Christ: Did the Early Christians Misrepresent Jesus? Dublin: Mentor, 1997. Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1997. Brumback, Carl. God in Three Persons. Cleveland, TN: Pathway, 1959. Brunner, Emil. The Misunderstanding of the Church. Translated by Harold Knight. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1953. Buckley, Michael J. At the Origins of Modern Atheism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987. Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament, Vol. 1. New York: Scribner’s, 1951.

370

Bibliography

Burger, Isak and Marius Nel. The Fire Falls in Africa: A History of the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa. Centennial Edition 1908-2008. Vereeniging: Christian Art, 2008. Burgess, Stanley M. “Neocharismatics.” In The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, edited by Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. van der Maas, 20. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002. Buzzard, Anthony F. and Charles F. Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1998. Byrd, Joseph. “Paul Ricoeur’s Hermeneutical Theory and Pentecostal Proclamation.” Pneuma 15, no. 2 (1993), 203-14. Cairns, Alan. Dictionary of Theological Terms. Belfast: Ambassador Emerald International, 2002. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. Cargal, Timothy B. “Beyond the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy: Pentecostals and Hermeneutics in a Postmodern Age.” Pneuma 15, no. 2 (1993), 163-87. Carson, Thomas (ed.) “Trinity.” In The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., 299-300. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Research Inc., 2002. Cartledge, Mark J. “Empirical-Theological Models of the Trinity: Exploring the Beliefs of Theology Students in the United Kingdom.” Journal of Empirical Theology 19, no. 2 (2006), 137-162. Cartledge, Mark J. “Trinitarian Theology and Spirituality: An Empirical Study of Charismatic Christians.” Journal of Empirical Theology 17, no. 1 (2004), 76-84. Cartwright, Richard. “Philosophical Essays, 17.” http: www.kmgsleymc.com/Clark/lists/Eyrmg/Notes/Trinity.html; accessed 2021-01-20. Caulley, Thomas Scott. “Abba.” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry et al. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016. Chan, Simon. Pentecostal Theology and the Christian Spiritual Tradition. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity: Some Hermeneutical Considerations

371

Chang-Soung, Lee. “In the Beginning There Was a Theology: The Precedence of Theology over Experience in Pentecostal Movement.” Journal of Yongsan Theology 32 (2014), 71-96. Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Language of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflections on the Christian Bible. London, SCM, 1992. Chrysostom, John. “Against Marcionists and Manichæans.” In Saint Chrysostom: On the Priesthood, Ascetic Treatises, Select Homilies and Letters, Homilies on the Statues, edited by Philip Schaff. Translated by W.R.W. Stephens, vol. 9 of A Select Library of the Nicene and PostNicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889. Clementson, Julian. “The Christadelphians and the Doctrine of the Trinity.” Evangelical Quarterly 75, no. 2 (2003), 157-76. Clines, D.J.A. “The Image of God in Man.” Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968), 53103. Coffey, David M. Deus Trinitas: The Doctrine of the Triune God. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Conradie, Ernst M. “South African Discourse on the Triune God: Some Reflections.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 75, no. 1 (2019). a5483. https://doi.org/ 10.4102/hts.v75i1.54832019 Conradie, Ernst and Sakupapa, T.C. “‘Decolonising the Doctrine of the Trinity’ or ‘The Decolonising Doctrine of the Trinity’?” Journal of Theology in Southern Africa 161 (July 2018), 37–53. Coulter, D. “What Meaneth This? Pentecostal and Theological Inquiry.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 10, no. 1 (2001), 38-64. Cox, Harvey G. “Make Way for the Spirit.” In God’s Life in Trinity, edited by Miroslav Volf and Michael Welker, 93-100. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2006. Cunningham, David S. “The Trinity.” In The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology, edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Dabney, D. Lyle “Saul’s Armor: The Problem and Promise of Pentecostal Theology Today.” Pneuma 23 (2001), 115–46. Davies, Andrew. “What Does it Mean to Read the Bible as a Pentecostal?” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18, no. 2 (2009), 216-229.

372

Bibliography

Davis, Stephen T. “John Hick on Incarnation and Trinity.” In The Trinity, edited by Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall and Gerald O’Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Davis, Stephen T., Daniel Kendall and Gerald O’Collins, (eds). The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Dawes, Gregory W. “God Beyond Theism? Bishop Spong, Paul Tillich and the Unicorn.” Pacifica 15, no. 1 (Feb. 2002), 65–71. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1030570X0201500105; accessed 2021-11-30. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. London: Transworld, 2007, 2016. Dayton, Donald (ed.) Seven ‘Jesus Only’ Tracts. New York: Garland, 1985. D’Costa, Gavin. “Christ, the Trinity and Religious Plurality.” In Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, edited by Gavin D’Costa, 16-29. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1990. Deere, Jack. Surprised by the Power of the Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993. De Gruchy, John W. Christianity and Democracy, a Theology for a Just World Order. Cape Town: David Philip, 1998. Dewey, Joanna. “Glory.” The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary. rev. ed., 331-332. New York: HarperCollins, 2011. Dunn, James D.G. “The Authority of Scripture According to Scripture.” Churchman 96 (1982), 104-125. Dunn, James D.G. Christology in the Making. London: SCM, 1980. Dupuis, Jacques. Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997. Edwards, James R. From Christ to Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the Church in Less Than a Century. Grand Rapids, MI: BakerAcademic, 2021. Ehrman, Bart D. Forged Writing in the Name of God: Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. New York: HarperCollins, 2012. Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity: Some Hermeneutical Considerations

373

Ellington, Scott A. “History, Story, and Testimony: Locating Truth in a Pentecostal Hermeneutic.” Pneuma 23, no. 2 (2001), 245-264. Ellington, Scott A. “Locating Pentecostals at the Hermeneutical Round Table.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 22, no. 2 (2013), 206-225. DOI:10.1163/17455251-02202008 Ellington, Scott A. “Pentecostalism and the Authority of Scripture.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 9 (1996),16-38. Elwell, Walter A. and Barry J. Beitzel. “Eternity.” In Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1988. Elwell, Walter A. and Philip Wesley Comfort. Tyndale Bible Dictionary. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 2001. Emery, Gilles. The Trinity: An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God. Thomistic Resourcement Book 1. Translated by Matthew Levering. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2011. Erikson, Millard. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2013. Erickson, Millard J. Introducing Christian Doctrine, 2nd ed. Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 2001. Erickson, Millard J. Making Sense of the Trinity: 3 Crucial Questions. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000. Erickson, Millard J. Who’s Tampering with the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2009. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998). Ewart, Frank J. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. St. Louis, MI: Pentecostal Publishing House, n.d. Farrelly, M. John. The Trinity: Rediscovering the Central Christian Mystery. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. Fee, Gordon D. Gospel and the Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics. Ada, MI: Baker Academic, 1991. Fee, Gordon. “Hermeneutics and Historical Precedent: A Major Problem in Pentecostal Hermeneutics,” in Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism, edited by R.P. Spittler, 118-133. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1976. Fee, Gordon D. “Why Pentecostals Read Their Bibles Poorly: And Some Suggested cures,” Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 24, no. 1 (2004), 4-15. DOI: 10.1179/jep.2004.24.1.002

374

Bibliography

Fee, Gordon and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All it is Worth. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982. Ferguson, Sinclair B. and J.I. Packer. New Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Foos, H.D. and P.L. Patterson. “The Revelation, Inspiration, and Inerrancy of the Bible.” In The Fundamentals for the Twenty-First Century: Examining the Crucial Issues of the Christian Faith, edited by M. Couch, 85-110. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2000. Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York, NY: Random House, (1966) 1970. Franke, John R. and Stanley J. Grenz. Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. French, Talmadge L. Our God is One: The Story of the Oneness Pentecostals. Indianapolis, IN: Voice and Vision, 1999. Funk, Robert W., Arthur J. Dewey and the Jesus Seminar. The Gospel of Jesus: According to the Jesus Seminar, 2nd ed. Salem, OR: Polebridge, 2015. Gabaitse, Rosina Mmannana. “Toward an African Pentecostal Feminist Biblical Hermeneutic of Liberation: Interpreting Acts 2:1-47 in the Context of Botswana. DPhil diss., University of KwaZulu-Natal, 2012. Gilbert, Elizabeth. Eat Pray Love: One Woman’s Search for Everything Across Italy, India and Indonesia. New York: Penguin, 2007. Gillespie, T.W. The First Theologians: A Study in Early Christian Prophecy. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994. Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology. Vol. 1: Israel’s Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003. Green, Chris E.W. Toward a Pentecostal Theology of the Lord’s Supper: Foretasting the Kingdom. Cleveland, TN: CPT, 2012. Grenz, Stanley J. Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2004 Grey, Jacqueline. Three’s a Crowd: Pentecostalism, Hermeneutics, and the Old Testament. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011. Griffin, David Ray. God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1976. Gutiérrez, Gustavo. The God of Life. Maryknoll, NY: Books, 1991.

Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity: Some Hermeneutical Considerations

375

Hamilton, Matthew James. “Sons of God.” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry et al. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Hanson, R.P.C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381 AD. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Hart, David Bentley. The Hidden and the Manifest. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017. Heim, S. Mark. The Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends, Sacra Doctrina: Christian Theology for a Postmodern Age. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Hinze, Bradford E. and D. Lyle Dabney. “Introduction.” In Advents of the Spirit: An Introduction to the Current Study of Pneumatology, edited by Bradford E. Hinze and D. Lyle Dabney. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, WI, 2001. Hodgson, Leonard. The Doctrine of the Trinity. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1944. Hollenweger, Walter J. “The Pentecostal Elites and the Pentecostal Poor: A Missed Dialogue?” In Charismatic Christianity as a Global Culture, edited by Karla Poewe, 200-216. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, 1994. Hollenweger, Walter. The Pentecostals: The Charismatic Movement in the Churches. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1972. Hollenweger, Walter J. “Priorities in Pentecostal Research: Historiography, Missiology, Hermeneutics and Pneumatology,” in Experiences of the Spirit, edited by Jan A.B. Joneneel, Conference on Pentecostalism and Charismatic Research in Europe at Utrecht University 1989, 7-22. Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang, 1999. Holmes, Stephen R. The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History, and Modernity. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2012. Hudson, W. Donald. “The Concept of Divine Transcendence” Religious Studies 15, no. 2 (Jun 1979), 197-210. Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 4. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103404.htm; accessed 2022-05-17. James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience. New York: Macmillan, 1961.

376

Bibliography

Jeffreys, George. Elim Evangel 17, no. 6 (7.2.1936), 625. https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/elim-evangel/017-40_1936-1002.pdf; accessed 2022-05-17. Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1971. Johns, Cheryl. Pentecostal Formation: A Pedagogy Among the Oppressed. JPT Sup. 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Johns, Cheryl B. and Jackie D. Johns, “Yielding to The Spirit: A Pentecostal Approach to Group Bible Study.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 1 (1992), 109-134. Johns, Jackie D. “Yielding to the Spirit: The Dynamics of a Pentecostal Model of Praxis.” In The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel, edited by Murray W. Dempster et al., 70-84. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999. Josephus, Flavius.The Jewish War. London: Penguin Classics, 1984. Kantartzis, Panagioti. A Christian’s Pocket Guide to Eastern Orthodox Theology: An Evangelical Perspective. Fearn: Christian Focus, 2021. Kärkkäinen, Velli-Matti. Christian Understandings of The Trinity: The Historical Trajectory. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2017. Kärkkäinen, Velli-Matti. The Doctrine of God: A Global Introduction, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: BakerAcademic, 2004 (2017). Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. “Trinity as Communion in the Spirit: Koinonia, Trinity, and Filioque in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue.” Pneuma 22, no. 2 (Fall 2000), 209-230. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. The Trinity: Global Perspectives. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007. Kärkäinnen, Veli-Matti and William K. Kay. “Pentecostals and the Bible.” Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 24, no. 1 (2004), 71-83. DOI: 10.1179/jep.2004.24.1.006 Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009. Keener, Craig S. Spirit Hermeneutics: Reading Scripture in Light of Pentecost. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016. Kelly, J.N.D. (ed.) Early Christian Doctrines, 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1960.

Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity: Some Hermeneutical Considerations

377

Koyama, Kosuke. Waterbuffalo Theology: A Thailand Theological Notebook. Singapore: Private, 1971. Kilby, Karen, “Perichoresis and Projection: Problems with Social Doctrines of the Trinity.” New Blackfriars 81 (2000), 432-445. Kilby, K. “Trinity.” In Cambridge Dictionary of Christian Theology, edited by I.A. McFarland, D.A.S. Fergusson, K. Kilby et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. LaDaria, Luis F. The Living and True God: The Mystery of the Trinity. Translated by Evelyn Harrison. Miami, FL: Convivium, 2009. La Due, William J. The Trinity Guide to the Trinity. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2003. Lambert, J.C. “Holiness.” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, edited by James Orr, 1403-404. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1939). Land, Steven J. Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom. JPT Sup 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Lane, Belden. The Solace of Fierce Landscapes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Lapide, Pinchas. Jewish Monotheism and Christian Trinitarian Doctrine: A Dialogue by Pinchas Lapide and Jürgen Moltmann. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1981. Lease, Emory B. “The Number Three, Mysterious, Mystic, Magic.” Classical Philology 14, no. 1 (Jan. 1919), 56-73. https://www.jstor.org/stable/263620 Letham, Robert. The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004. Levinson, Bernard M. “Deuteronomy.” In The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Z. Breetler, 345-428, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Lindquist, F.J. The Truth About the Trinity and Baptism in Jesus’ Name. Minneapolis, MN: Northern Gospel, 1961. Livingstone, Elizabeth A. “Spirit.” In The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by F.L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, 122, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Lossky, Vladimir. In the Likeness and Image of God. Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary, 1974.

378

Bibliography

Lossky, Vladimir. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Cambridge: Lutterworth, 1991. Loubser, J.A. Bobby. “Kringdans: Die Heilige Drie-eenheid as Grond vir Eerbied én Verskeidenheid” (“Circle Dance: The Holy Trinity as Ground for Unity and Diversity”). Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 43, no. 3-4 (2003), 149-163 Luz, Ulrich, “A Response to Emerson B. Power,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 14 (1999), 19-26. Ma, W. “Biblical Studies in the Pentecostal Tradition: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.” In The Globalization of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel, edited by M. Dempster, B. Klaus and D. Peterson, 5269. Irvine, CA: Regnum 1999. Macchia, Frank. “Theology, Pentecostal.” In New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, edited by Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. van der Maas, 1120-41. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002. Macchia, Frank D. The Trinity, Practically Speaking. Westmont, IL: IVP, 2012. MacGregor, K.R. Nicene Creed: Document Analysis ca. 325 CE, in Milestone Documents of World Religions: Exploring Traditions of Faith Through Primary Sources, edited by Grey House Publishing, 2nd ed. Pasadena, CA: Salem, 2017. Mangum, Douglas (ed.). 1 Corinthians Lexham Context Commentary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2020. Manser, Martin H. Dictionary of Bible Themes: The Accessible and Comprehensive Tool for Topical Studies. London: BookBaby, 2009. Manser, Martin and Mike Beaumont (eds.), “Introduction to the New Living Translation.” In The Spiritual Growth Bible, edited by Martin Manser and Mike Beaumont. Carol Stream, ILL: Tyndale, 2021. Martin, Lee R. “Hearing the Voice of God: Pentecostal Hermeneutics and the Book of Judges.” In Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Reader, edited by Lee R. Martin, 205-232. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Martin, Lee R. “Introduction to Pentecostal Biblical Hermeneutics. In Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Reader, edited by Lee R. Martin, 1-9. Leiden: Brill, 2013.

Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity: Some Hermeneutical Considerations

379

McCall, Thomas H. Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. McDougall, Joy Ann. “The Return of Trinitarian Praxis? Moltmann on the Trinity and the Christian Life.” The Journal of Religion 83, no. 2 (April 2003), 177-203. DOI: 10.1086/491276. McGuire-Moushon, J. Amanda. “Divine Beings.” In Lexham Theological Wordbook, edited by Douglas Mangum et al. Lexham Bible Reference Series. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2014. McIntyre, John. The Shape of Pneumatology: Studies in the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. London: T&T Clark, 2004. McKay, John W. “When the Veil is Taken Away: The Impact of Prophetic Experience on Biblical Interpretation.” In Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Reader, edited by Lee R. Martin, 57-80. Leiden: Brill, 2013. McKenna, Stephen. Augustine: On the Trinity. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy, edited by Gareth B. Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. McNally, Randal G., Richard D. Israel and Daniel E. Albrecht. “Pentecostals and Hermeneutics: Texts, Rituals and Community.” Pneuma 15, no. 2 (1993), 137-61. Meyendorff, John. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality. Crestwood, N.Y.: St Vladimirs Seminary, 1974. Meyer, David P. “Teaching the Trinity.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 67, no. 3 (2003) 288-94. Meyer, Marvin and James M. Robinson (eds.), The Nag Hammadi Scriptures: The Revised and Updated Translation of Sacred Gnostic Texts. New York: Harper-One, 2007. Miller, P. Cox. “‘Words with an Alien Voice:’ Gnostics, Scripture, and Canon.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 57 (1989), 45983. Mittelstadt, William. Reading Luke-Acts in the Pentecostal Tradition. Cleveland, TN: CPT, 2010. Moe, David Thang. “Identity and Otherness: A Trinitarian Theological Exploration of Engaging the Other and Embracing The Otherness in a Pluralistic World.” Ecclesiology 14 (2018), 261-283.

380

Bibliography

Moe, David Thang. “A Trinitarian Theology of Religions: Themes and Issues in Evangelical Approaches.” Evangelical Review of Theology 41, no. 3 (2017), 234-253. Möller, Francois P. Understanding the Greatest Truths. Words of Light and Life. Vol. I. Pretoria: JL Van Schaik, 1998. Moltmann, Jürgen. The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God. Translated by Margaret Kohl. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1981. Montgomery, John. How Do We Know There is a God? and Other Questions Inappropriate in Polite Society. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship, 1973. Moore, Rickie D. “A Pentecostal Approach to Scripture.” In Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Reader, edited by Lee R. Martin, 11-13. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Müller, Retief. “The (Non-)Translatability of the Holy Trinity.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 75, no. 1 (2019). a5405. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v75i1.5405 Mundy, Simon. Race for Tomorrow: Survival, Innovation, and Profit on the Front Lines of the Climate Crisis. London: William Collins, 2021. Myer, David O. “Teaching the Trinity.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 67, no. 3-4 (2003), 288-94. Myers, Allen C. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987. Nadar, S. “‘The Bible Says!’ Feminism, Hermeneutics and Neo-Pentecostal Challenges.” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 134 (2009), 131146. Nel, Marius. An African Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Distinctive Contribution to Hermeneutics. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2019. Nel, Marius. Creation and Pentecostals: Hermeneutical Considerations of Genesis 1-2. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2021. Nel, Marius. God, Suffering, and Pentecostals. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2022. Nel, Marius. LGBTIQ+ People and Pentecostals: An African Pentecostal Hermeneutic Perspective. Münster: LIT, 2020. Nel, Marius. “The Notion of the Holy Spirit as Paraclete from a Pentecostal Perspective,” In Luce Verbi 50, no. 1 (2016), a2095. http://dx.doi. org/10.4102/ids.v50i1.2095

Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity: Some Hermeneutical Considerations

381

Nel, Marius. “Pentecostalism and the Early Church: On Living Distinctively from the World.” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 153 (2016), 141-159. Norris, David S. I AM: A Oneness Pentecostal Theology. Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame, 2003. Norris, Thomas J. The Trinity–Life of God, Hope for Humanity: Towards a Theology of Communion. Hyde Park, NJ: New City, 2009. O’Collins, Gerald. The Tripersonal God: Understanding and Interpreting the Trinity. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1999. Ogden, Graham S. and Lynell Zogbo. A Handbook on Ecclesiastes. UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 1998. Oliver, Willem H. and Erna Oliver. “God as One.” HTS Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies 75, no. 1 (2019), a4959. https://doi.org/ 10.4102/hts.v75i1.4959 Oneness-Trinitarian Pentecostal Dialogue. “Oneness-Trinitarian Pentecostal Final Report, 2002-2007.” Pneuma 30 (2008) 203-224. Origen. Commentary on the Gospel According to John. Translated by Ronald E. Heine. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989. Origen. Contra Celsum. Translated by Henry Chadwick, rev. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Origen, First Principles. Translated by G.W. Butterworth. Internet Archive: Christian Classics, 2013. Origen, Homilies on Numbers. Translated by Thomas P Scheck. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2009. Otto, Randall E. “The Use and Abuse of Perichoresis in Recent Theology.” Scottish Journal of Theology 54, no. 3 (August 2009), 366-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600051656 Packer, J.I. John Calvin: A Biography. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1975. Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage, 1989. Pagels, Elaine. Why Religion? New York: HarperCollins, 2018. Palamas, Gregory. The Triads, edited by John Meyendorff. London: SPCK, 1983. Palmer, G.E.H., Philip Sherrard, and Kallistos Ware (translators). The Philokalia. Volume 4: The Complete Text Compiled by St. Nikodimos of

382

Bibliography

the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth. London: Faber & Faber, 1999. Panikkar, Raimon. “The Jordan, the Tiber and the Ganges: Three Kairological Moments of Christic Self-consciousness.” In The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, edited by J. Hick and P.F. Knitter, 89–116. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1987. Panikkar, Raimon. The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man: IconPerson-Mystery. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1973. Panikkar, Raimon. The Unknown Christ of Hinduism: Towards an Ecumenical Christophany. London: Darton, 1981. Panikkar, Raimon and S. Eastham. The Cosmotheandric Experience: Emerging Religious Consciousness. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1993, Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology. Vol. 1. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991. Parker, Stephen. Led By The Spirit: Toward a Practical Theology of Pentecostal Discernment and Decision Making. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Paulson, Shirley. “Jesus by Many Other Names.” In Erin Vearncombe, Scott Erin and Taussig Brandon, After Jesus Before Christianity, 247-264. New York: HarperCollins, 2021. Pienaar, Abel. Die Dans met God (“The Dance with God”). Tygervallei: Naledi, 2015. Pinnock, Clark H. “Baptists and the ‘Latter Rain’: A Contemporary Challenge and Hope for Tomorrow.” In Costly Vision: The Baptist Pilgrimage in Canada, edited by Jarold K. Zeman, 255-72. Burlington, ON: Welch, 1988. Pinnock, Clark H. “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 2 (1993), 2-23. Pinnock, Clark H. “The Work of the Spirit in the Interpretation of Holy Scripture from the Perspective of a Charismatic Biblical Theologian.” In Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Reader, edited by Lee R. Martin, 23348. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Plata, Przemyslaw. “Gavin D’Costa’s Trinitarian Theology of Religions.” Louvain Studies 30 (2005), 299-324.

Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity: Some Hermeneutical Considerations

383

Poloma, Margaret M. Assemblies of God at the Crossroads: Charisma and Institutional Dilemmas. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1989. Powers, Janet E. “‘Your Daughters Shall Prophesy’: Pentecostal Hermeneutics and the Empowerment of Women.” In The Globalisation of Pentecostalism: A Religion Made to Travel, edited by M. Dempster, B. Klaus and D. Petersen, 313-337. Irvine: Regnum, 1999. Pseudo-Tertullian, “Five Books in Reply to Marcion.” In Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian. Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Translated by S. Thelwall. Vol. 4 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature, 1885. Rahner, Karl. “Remarks on the Dogmatic Treatise ‘De Trinitate,’” in Theological Investigations 4. Translated by Kevin Smyth. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1966. Rahner, Karl. The Trinity. Translated by Joseph Donceel. New York: Herder & Herder, 1970. Ramsey, I.T. Religious Language. London: SCM, 1957. Reed, David A. “‘In Jesus’ Name:’ The History and Beliefs of Oneness Pentecostals. Blandford Forum, UK: Deo, 2008. Reed, David A. “Oneness (Apostolic) Pentecostalism.” In Handbook of Pentecostal Christianity, edited by Adam Stewart, 158-162. De Kalb, ILL: Northern Illinois University Press, 2012. Reed, David A. “Oneness Pentecostalism.” In The Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, edited by Stanley M. Burgess and Cary B. McGee, 644-51. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988. Retief, F.P. and L. Cilliers. “The History and Pathology of Crucifixion.” South African Medical Journal 93, no. 12 (2003), 938-41. PMID: 14750495 Reventlow, Henning Graf. History of Biblical Interpretation: From the Old Testament to Origen, edited by Susan Ackerman and Tom Thatcher. Translated by Leo G. Perdue. Vol. 1 of Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009.

384

Bibliography

Robeck, Cecil M. “Canon, Regulae Fidei, and Continuing Revelation in the Early Church,” in Church, Word, and Spirit, edited by J.E. Brandley and R.A. Muller, 65-91. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987. Robinson, N.H.G. “Trinitarianism and Post-Barthian Theology.” Journal of Theological Studies 20 (1969), 186-201. Rosato, Philip J. “Spirit-Christology as Access to Trinitarian Theology.” In God’s Life in Trinity, edited by Miroslav Volf and Michael Welker, 166176. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2006. Sakupapa, T.C., “‘The Trinity in African Christian Theology: An Overview of Contemporary Approaches,” HTS Teologiese Studies/ Theological Studies 75, no. 1, a5460. https://doi.org/ 10.4102/hts.v75i1.5460 Sanders, Fred. “The State of the Doctrine of the Trinity in Evangelical Theology.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 47, no. 2 (Spring 2005), 153-175. Schwarz, Hans. The God Who Is: The Christian God in a Pluralistic World. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011. Shaka, Richard. “A Trinitarian Pentecostal Response.” Pneuma 30 (2008), 240-244. Smith, Andrew L. “Truth,” in Walter E. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, electronic ed. Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. Smith, James K.A. “The Closing of the Book: Pentecostals, Evangelicals, and the Sacred Writings.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 11 (1997), 47-71. Spong, John S. Here I Stand: My Struggle for a Christianity of Integrity, Love, and Equality. New York: HarperOne. 2002. Spong, John S. A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith is Dying and How a New Faith is Being Born. Morristown, NJ: HarperOne, 2001. Spong, John S. Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers in Exile. Morristown, NJ: HarperOne, 1999. Stavrakopoulou, Francesca. God: An Anatomy. London: Picador, 2021. Stefan, Matt. “Monarchianism.” In Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 15th ed. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Monarchianism#ref16825; accessed 2022-04-28.

Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity: Some Hermeneutical Considerations

385

Stock, Brian. The Implications of Literacy: Written Language and Models of Interpretation in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983. Stronstad, Roger. The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke: Trajectories from the Old Testament to Luke-Acts, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: BakerAcademic, 2012. Studebaker, Steven M. “From Pentecost to the Triune God: A Pentecostal Trinitarian Theology.” In Pentecostal Manifestos, edited by James K. A. Smith and Amos Yong. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. Studebaker, Steven M. “Trinitarian Theology: The Spirit and the Fellowship of the Triune God.” In Wolfgang Vondey (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Pentecostal Theology, Routledge Handbooks in Theology. Oxfordshire: Taylor and Francis, 2020. Suchocki, Marjorie Hewitt. God, Christ, Church: A Practical Guide to Process Theology, rev. ed. New York: Crossroad, 1989. Swain, Scott. “The Trinity: An Introduction.” In Short Studies in Systematic Theology. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020. Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Aramaic (Old Testament). Oak Harbor, Was: Logos Research Systems, 1997. Tataryn, Myroslaw and Maria Truchan-Tataryn. Discovering Trinity in Disability: A Theology for Embracing Difference. Toronto: Novalis, 2013. Thomas, Christopher. “Women Pentecostals and the Bible: An Experiment in Pentecostal Hermeneutics.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 5 (1994), 41-56. Thomas, John. “Women, Pentecostals and the Bible: An Experiment in Pentecostal Hermeneutics.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 2, no. 5 (1994), 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/096673699400200504 Thompson, Henry O. “Yahweh (Deity).” In The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, edited by David N. Freedman, 1011. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Tillich, Paul. The Courage to Be. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1952. Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology: Combined Volume. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1968.

386

Bibliography

Tinsley, E.J. “Introduction to the series.” In Karl Barth: Selections from Twentieth-Century Theologians Edited with an Introduction and Notes, edited by E.J. Tinsley, 11-36. London: Epworth, 1973. Thompson, John. Modern Trinitarian Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Tobias, Mark F. “Is it Possible to Experience God? The Draw of Eastern Orthodox Spirituality to Twenty-First Century Charismatics and Pentecostals. Written from a Pentecostal Perspective Examining the Church Fathers and the St. Gregory Palamas-Barlaam Controversy of the 14th century.” MA dissertation, Balamand University Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, 2012. Van Aarde, Andries G. Fatherless in Galilee: Jesus as Child of God. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2001. Van Ruler, A.A. Calvinist Trinitarianism and Theocentric Politics: Essays Towards a Public Theology, edited by J. Bolt. Lampeter: Edwin Mellen, 1989. Vearncombe, Erin, Brandon Scott and Hal Taussig. After Jesus Before Christianity: A Historical Exploration of the First Two Centuries of Jesus Movements, The Westar Christianity Seminar. New York: HarperCollins, 2021. Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Volf, Miroslav. “Being as God is: Trinity and Generosity.” In God’s Life in Trinity, edited by Miroslav Volf and Michael Welker, 3-12. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2006. Volf, Miroslav. “‘The Trinity Is Our Social Program’: The Doctrine of the Trinity and the Shape of Social Engagement.” Modern Theology 14, no. 3 (July 1998), 403-423. Volf, Miroslav and Michael Welker (eds.) God’s Life in Trinity. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2006. Von Bruck, Michael. The Unity of Reality: God, God-Experience and Meditation in the Hindu-Christian Dialogue. New York: Paulist Press, 1991. Vosloo, Robert R. “The Bible and the Justification of Apartheid in Reformed Circles in the 1940s in South Africa: Some Historical,

Pentecostals and the Doctrine of the Trinity: Some Hermeneutical Considerations

387

Hermeneutical and Theological Remarks.” Stellenbosch Theological Journal 1, no. 2 (2015), 195-215. Waddell, Robby. The Spirit of the Book of Revelation. JPTSup. 30. Blandford Forum: Deo, 2006. Warrington, Keith. Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Webber, Christopher L. Welcome to the Episcopalian Church: An Introduction to its History, Faith, and Worship. New York: Morehouse, 1999. Wiebe, Philip H. Visions of Jesus. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Witherington III, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Witherington III, Ben. The Christology of Jesus. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1990. Witherington III, Ben and Laura M. Ice. The Shadow of the Almighty: Father, Son, and Spirit in Biblical Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002. Wright, David P. “Holiness: Old Testament.” In The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, edited by David N. Freedman, 237–249. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Wright, N.T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991. Würthwein, Ernst. Der Text des Alten Testaments: Eine Einführung in die Biblia Hebraica von Rudolf Kittel. Stuttgart: Bibelanstalt, 2009. Yeago, David. “The New Testament and the Nicene Creed: A Contribution to the Recovery of Theological Exegesis.” In The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Classic and Contemporary Readings, edited by Stephen E. Fowl, 152-166. Oxford: Blackwell, 1977. Yong, Amos. An Amos Yong Reader: The Pentecostal Spirit, edited by Christopher A. Stephenson. Eugene, OR: Cascades, 2020. Yong, Amos. “On Divine Presence and Divine Agency: Toward a Foundational Pneumatology.” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 3, no. 2 (2000), 167–88.

388

Bibliography

Yong, Amos. “Oneness and the Trinity: The Theological and Ecumenical Implications of Creation Ex Nihilo for an Intra-Pentecostal Dispute.” Pneuma 19, no. 1 (Spring 1997), 81-107. Yong, Amos. The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005. Yong, Amos. Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006. Yong, Amos. “Toward a Trinitarian Theology of Religions: A PentecostalEvangelical and Missiological Elaboration.” International Bulletin of Mission Research I 40, no. 4 (2016), 294-306. DOI: 10.1 177/2396939316656712 Yong, Amos and Jonathan A. Anderson. Renewing Christian Theology: Systematics for a Global Christianity. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014. Zizioulas, John. Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and Communion. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.