Chapter II: Doctrine Of The Trinity (2)

On the other hand there are assertions and implications of Jesus’
ignorance: he did not know the day of the end (_Mark 13:32_),
though even here he intimates his superiority to angels;
_5:30-34—_“Who touched my garments?” though even here power had
gone forth from him to heal; _John 11:34—_“Where have ye laid
him?” though here he is about to raise Lazarus from the dead;
_Mark 11:13—_“seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came,
if haply he might find anything thereon” = he did not know that it
had no fruit, yet he had power to curse it. With these evidences
of the limitations of Jesus’ knowledge, we must assent to the
judgment of Bacon, Genesis of Genesis, 33—“We must decline to
stake the authority of Jesus on a question of literary criticism”;
and of Gore, Incarnation, 195—“That the use by our Lord of such a
phrase as ‘_Moses wrote of me_’ binds us to the Mosaic authorship
of the Pentateuch as a whole, I do not think we need to yield.”
See our section on The Person of Christ; also Rush Rhees, Life of
Jesus, 243, 244. _Per contra_, see Swayne, Our Lord’s Knowledge as
Man; and Crooker, The New Bible, who very unwisely claims that
belief in a Kenosis involves the surrender of Christ’s authority
and atonement.

It is inconceivable that any mere _creature_ should say, “God is
greater than I am,” or should be spoken of as ultimately and in a
mysterious way becoming “subject to God.” In his state of
humiliation Christ was subject to the Spirit (_Acts 1:2—_“after
that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit”;
_10:38—_“God anointed him with the Holy Spirit ... for God was
with him”; _Heb.9:14—_“through the eternal Spirit offered himself
without blemish unto God”), but in his state of exaltation Christ
is Lord of the Spirit (κυρίου πνεύματος—_2 Cor. 3:18_—Meyer),
giving the Spirit and working through the Spirit. _Heb. 2:7_,
marg.—“Thou madest him for a little while lower than the angels.”
On the whole subject, see Shedd, Hist. Doctrine, 262, 351;
Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 1:61-64; Liddon, Our Lord’s
Divinity, 127, 207, 458; _per contra_, see Examination of Liddon,
252, 294; Professors of Andover Seminary, Divinity of Christ.

C. The Holy Spirit is recognized as God.

(_a_) He is spoken of as God; (_b_) the attributes of God are ascribed to him, such as life, truth, love, holiness, eternity, omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence; (_c_) he does the works of God, such as creation, regeneration, resurrection; (_d_) he receives honor due only to God; (_e_) he is associated with God on a footing of equality, both in the formula of baptism and in the apostolic benedictions.

(_a_) _Spoken of as God._ _Acts 5:3, 4—_“lie to the Holy Spirit
... not lied unto men, but unto God”; _1 Cor. 3:16—_“ye are a
temple of God ... the Spirit of God dwelleth in you”; _6:19—_“your
body is a temple of the Holy Spirit”; _12:4-6 _“same Spirit ...
same Lord ... same God, who worketh all things in all”—“The divine
Trinity is here indicated in an ascending climax, in such a way
that we pass from the Spirit who bestows the gifts to the Lord
[Christ] who is served by means of them, and finally to God, who
as the absolute first cause and possessor of all Christian powers
works the entire sum of all charismatic gifts in all who are
gifted” (Meyer in _loco_).

(_b_) _Attributes of God._ Life: _Rom. 8:2—_“Spirit of life.”
Truth: _John 16:13 _“Spirit of truth.” Love: _Rom. 15:30—_“love of
the Spirit.” Holiness: _Eph. 4:30—_“the Holy Spirit of God.”
Eternity: _Heb. 9:14—_“the eternal Spirit.” Omnipresence: _Ps.
139:7—_“Whither shall I go from thy Spirit?” Omniscience: _1 Cor.
12:11—_“all these [including gifts of healings and miracles]
worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one
severally even as he will.”

(_c_) _Works of God._ Creation: _Gen. 1:2_, marg.—“Spirit of God
was brooding upon the face of the waters.” Casting out of demons:
_Mat. 12:28—_“But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons.”
Conviction of sin: _John 16:8—_“convict the world in respect of
sin.” Regeneration: _John 3:8—_“born of the Spirit”; _Tit.
3:5—_“renewing of the Holy Spirit.” Resurrection: _Rom.
8:11—_“give life also to your mortal bodies through his Spirit”;
_1 Cor. 15:45—_“The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”

(_d_) _Honor due to God._ _1 Cor. 3:16—_“ye are a temple of God
... the Spirit of God dwelleth in you”—he who inhabits the temple
is the object of worship there. See also the next item.

(_e_) _Associated with God._ Formula of baptism: _Mat.
28:19—_“baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit.” If the baptismal formula is worship, then
we have here worship paid to the Spirit. Apostolic benedictions:
_2 Cor. 13:14—_“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of
God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” If the
apostolic benedictions are prayers, then we have here a prayer to
the Spirit. _1 Pet. 1:2—_“foreknowledge of God the Father ...
sanctification of the Spirit ... sprinkling of the blood of Jesus
Christ.”

On _Heb. 9:14_, Kendrick, Com. _in loco_, interprets: “Offers
himself by virtue of an eternal spirit which dwells within him and
imparts to his sacrifice a spiritual and an eternal efficacy. The
‘spirit’ here spoken of was not, then, the ‘Holy Spirit’; it was
not his purely divine nature; it was that blending of his divine
nature with his human personality which forms the mystery of his
being, that ‘spirit of holiness’ by virtue of which he was
declared ‘_the Son of God with power_,’ on account of his
resurrection from the dead.” Hovey adds a note to Kendrick’s
Commentary, _in loco_, as follows: “This adjective ‘_eternal_’
naturally suggests that the word ‘_Spirit_’ refers to the higher
and divine nature of Christ. His truly human nature, on its
spiritual side, was indeed eternal as to the future, but so also
is the spirit of every man. The unique and superlative value of
Christ’s self-sacrifice seems to have been due to the impulse of
the divine side of his nature.” The phrase “eternal spirit” would
then mean his divinity. To both these interpretations we prefer
that which makes the passage refer to the Holy Spirit, and we cite
in support of this view _Acts 1:2—_“he had given commandment
through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles”; _10:38—_“God anointed
him with the Holy Spirit.” On _1 Cor. 2:10_, Mason, Faith of the
Gospel, 63, remarks: “The Spirit of God finds nothing even in God
which baffles his scrutiny. His ‘search’ is not a seeking for
knowledge yet beyond him.... Nothing but God could search the
depths of God.”

As spirit is nothing less than the inmost principle of life, and the spirit of man is man himself, so the spirit of God must be God (see 1 Cor. 2:11—Meyer). Christian experience, moreover, expressed as it is in the prayers and hymns of the church, furnishes an argument for the deity of the Holy Spirit similar to that for the deity of Jesus Christ. When our eyes are opened to see Christ as a Savior, we are compelled to recognize the work in us of a divine Spirit who has taken of the things of Christ and has shown them to us; and this divine Spirit we necessarily distinguish both from the Father and from the Son. Christian experience, however, is not an original and independent witness to the deity of the Holy Spirit: it simply shows what the church has held to be the natural and unforced interpretation of the Scriptures, and so confirms the Scripture argument already adduced.

The Holy Spirit is God himself personally present in the believer.
E. G. Robinson: “If ‘Spirit of God’ no more implies deity than
does ‘angel of God,’ why is not the Holy Spirit called simply the
angel or messenger, of God?” Walker, The Spirit and the
Incarnation, 337—“The Holy Spirit is God in his innermost being or
essence, the principle of life of both the Father and the Son;
that in which God, both as Father and Son, does everything, and in
which he comes to us and is in us increasingly through his
manifestations. Through the working and indwelling of this Holy
Spirit, God in his person of Son was fully incarnate in Christ.”
Gould, Am. Com. on _1 Cor. 2:11_—“For who among men knoweth the
things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even
so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God”—“The
analogy must not be pushed too far, as if the Spirit of God and
God were coëxtensive terms, as the corresponding terms are,
substantially, in man. The point of the analogy is evidently
_self-knowledge_, and in both cases the contrast is between the
spirit within and anything outside.” Andrew Murray, Spirit of
Christ, 140—“We must not expect always to feel the power of the
Spirit when it works. Scripture links power and weakness in a
wonderful way, not as succeeding each other but as existing
together. ‘I was with you in weakness ... my preaching was in
power’_ (1 Cor. 2:3)_; ‘when I am weak then am I strong’_ (2 Cor.
12:10)_. The power is the power of God given to faith, and faith
grows strong in the dark.... He who would command nature must
first and most absolutely obey her.... We want to get possession
of the Power, and use it. God wants the Power to get possession of
us, and use us.”

This proof of the deity of the Holy Spirit is not invalidated by the limitations of his work under the Old Testament dispensation. John 7:39—“for the Holy Spirit was not yet”—means simply that the Holy Spirit could not fulfill his peculiar office as Revealer of Christ until the atoning work of Christ should be accomplished.

_John 7:39_ is to be interpreted in the light of other Scriptures
which assert the agency of the Holy Spirit under the old
dispensation (_Ps. 51:11—_“take not thy holy Spirit from me”) and
which describe his peculiar office under the new dispensation
(_John 16:14, 15—_“he shall take of mine, and shall declare it
unto you”). Limitation in the _manner_ of the Spirit’s work in the
O. T. involved a limitation in the _extent_ and _power_ of it
also. Pentecost was the flowing forth of a tide of spiritual
influence which had hitherto been dammed up. Henceforth the Holy
Spirit was the Spirit of Jesus Christ, taking of the things of
Christ and showing them, applying his finished work to human
hearts, and rendering the hitherto localized Savior omnipresent
with his scattered followers to the end of time.

Under the conditions of his humiliation, Christ was a servant. All
authority in heaven and earth was given him only after his
resurrection. Hence he could not send the Holy Spirit until he
ascended. The mother can show off her son only when he is fully
grown. The Holy Spirit could reveal Christ only when there was a
complete Christ to reveal. The Holy Spirit could fully sanctify,
only after the example and motive of holiness were furnished in
Christ’s life and death. Archer Butler: “The divine Artist could
not fitly descend to make the copy, before the original had been
provided.”

And yet the Holy Spirit is “the eternal Spirit”_ (Heb. 9:14)_, and
he not only existed, but also wrought, in Old Testament times. _2
Pet. 1:21—_“men spake from God, being moved by the Holy
Spirit”—seems to fix the meaning of the phrase “the Holy Spirit,”
where it appears in the O. T. Before Christ “the Holy Spirit was
not yet”_ (John 7:39)_, just as before Edison electricity was not
yet. There was just as much electricity in the world before Edison
as there is now. Edison has only taught us its existence and how
to use it. Still we can say that, before Edison, electricity, as a
means of lighting, warming and transporting people, had no
existence. So until Pentecost, the Holy Spirit, as the revealer of
Christ, “_was not yet_.” Augustine calls Pentecost the _dies
natalis_, or birthday, of the Holy Spirit; and for the same reason
that we call the day when Mary brought forth her firstborn son the
birthday of Jesus Christ, though before Abraham was born, Christ
was. The Holy Spirit had been engaged in the creation, and had
inspired the prophets, but _officially_, as Mediator between men
and Christ, “_the Holy Spirit was not yet_.” He could not show the
things of Christ until the things of Christ were ready to be
shown. See Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 19-25; Prof. J. S.
Gubelmann, Person and Work of the Holy Spirit in O. T. Times. For
proofs of the deity of the Holy Spirit, see Walker, Doctrine of
the Holy Spirit; Hare, Mission of the Comforter; Parker, The
Paraclete; Cardinal Manning, Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost;
Dick, Lectures on Theology, 1:341-350. Further references will be
given in connection with the proof of the Holy Spirit’s
personality.

2. Intimations of the Old Testament.

The passages which seem to show that even in the Old Testament there are three who are implicitly recognized as God may be classed under four heads:

A. Passages which seem to teach plurality of some sort in the Godhead.

(_a_) The plural noun אלהים is employed, and that with a plural verb—a use remarkable, when we consider that the singular אל was also in existence; (_b_) God uses plural pronouns in speaking of himself; (_c_) Jehovah distinguishes himself from Jehovah; (_d_) a Son is ascribed to Jehovah; (_e_) the Spirit of God is distinguished from God; (_f_) there are a threefold ascription and a threefold benediction.

(_a_) _Gen. 20:13—_“God caused [plural] me to wander from my
father’s house”; _35:7—_“built there an altar, and called the
place El-Beth-el; _because there God was revealed_ [plural] unto
him.” (_b_) _Gen. 1:26—_“Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness”; _3:22—_“Behold, the man is become as one of us”;
_11:7—_“Come, let us go down, and there confound their language”;
_Is. 6:8—_“Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” (_c_) _Gen.
19:24—_“Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone
and fire from Jehovah out of heaven”; _Hos. 1:7—_“I will have
mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by Jehovah,
their God”; _cf._ _2 Tim. 1:18—_“The Lord grant unto him to find
mercy of the Lord in that day”—though Ellicott here decides
adversely to the Trinitarian reference. (_d_) _Ps. 2:7—_“Thou art
my son; this day have I begotten thee”; _Prov. 30:4—_“Who hath
established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what
is his son’s name, if thou knowest?” (_e_) _Gen. 1:1 and 2,
marg.—_“God created ... the Spirit of God was brooding”; _Ps.
33:6—_“By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made, And all the
host of them by the breath [spirit] of his mouth”; _Is.
48:16—_“the Lord Jehovah hath sent me, and his Spirit”; _63:7,
10—_“loving kindnesses of Jehovah ... grieved his holy Spirit.”
(_f_) _Is. 6:3_—the trisagion: “_Holy, holy, holy_”; _Num.
6:24-26—_“Jehovah bless thee, and keep thee: Jehovah make his face
to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: Jehovah lift up his
countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.”

It has been suggested that as Baal was worshiped in different
places and under different names, as Baal-Berith, Baal-hanan,
Baal-peor, Baal-zeebub, and his priests could call upon any one of
these as possessing certain personified attributes of Baal, while
yet the whole was called by the plural term “Baalim,” and Elijah
could say: “Call ye upon your Gods,” so “Elohim” may be the
collective designation of the God who was worshiped in different
localities; see Robertson Smith, Old Testament in the Jewish
Church, 229. But this ignores the fact that Baal is always
addressed in the singular, never in the plural, while the plural
“Elohim” is the term commonly used in addresses to God. This seems
to show that “Baalim” is a collective term, while “Elohim” is not.
So when Ewald, Lehre von Gott, 2:333, distinguishes five names of
God, corresponding to five great periods of the history of Israel,
_viz._, the “Almighty” of the Patriarchs, the “Jehovah” of the
Covenant, the “God of Hosts” of the Monarchy, the “Holy One” of
the Deuteronomist and the later prophetic age, and the “Our Lord”
of Judaism, he ignores the fact that these designations are none
of them confined to the times to which they are attributed, though
they may have been predominantly used in those times.

The fact that אלהים is sometimes used in a narrower sense, as applicable to the Son (Ps. 45:6; _cf._ Heb. 1:8), need not prevent us from believing that the term was originally chosen as containing an allusion to a certain plurality in the divine nature. Nor is it sufficient to call this plural a simple _pluralis majestaticus_; since it is easier to derive this common figure from divine usage than to derive the divine usage from this common figure—especially when we consider the constant tendency of Israel to polytheism.

_Ps. 45:6_; _cf._ _Heb. 1:8—_“of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O
God, is for ever and ever.” Here it is God who calls Christ
“_God_” or “_Elohim_.” The term Elohim has here acquired the
significance of a singular. It was once thought that the royal
style of speech was a custom of a later date than the time of
Moses. Pharaoh does not use it. In _Gen. 41:41-44_, he says: “I
have set thee over all the land of Egypt ... I am Pharaoh.” But
later investigations seem to prove that the plural for God was
used by the Canaanites before the Hebrew occupation. The one
Pharaoh is called “my gods” or “my god,” indifferently. The word
“master” is usually found in the plural in the O. T. (_cf._ _Gen.
24:9, 51_; _39:19_; _40:1_). The plural gives utterance to the
sense of awe. It signifies magnitude or completeness. (See The
Bible Student, Aug. 1900:67.)

This ancient Hebrew application of the plural to God is often
explained as a mere plural of dignity, = one who combines in
himself many reasons for adoration (אלהים from אלה to fear, to
adore). Oehler, O. T. Theology, 1:128-130, calls it a
“quantitative plural,” signifying unlimited greatness. The Hebrews
had many plural forms, where we should use the singular, as
“heavens” instead of “heaven,” “waters” instead of “water.” We too
speak of “news,” “wages,” and say “you” instead of “thou”; see F.
W. Robertson, on Genesis, 12. But the Church Fathers, such as
Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Theophilus, Epiphanius, and
Theodoret, saw in this plural an allusion to the Trinity, and we
are inclined to follow them. When finite things were pluralized to
express man’s reverence, it would be far more natural to pluralize
the name of God. And God’s purpose in securing this pluralization
may have been more far-reaching and intelligent than man’s. The
Holy Spirit who presided over the development of revelation may
well have directed the use of the plural in general, and even the
adoption of the plural name Elohim in particular, with a view to
the future unfolding of truth with regard to the Trinity.

We therefore dissent from the view of Hill, Genetic Philosophy,
323, 330—“The Hebrew religion, even much later than the time of
Moses, as it existed in the popular mind, was, according to the
prophetic writings, far removed from a real monotheism, and
consisted in the wavering acceptance of the preëminence of a
tribal God, with a strong inclination towards a general
polytheism. It is impossible therefore to suppose that anything
approaching the philosophical monotheism of modern theology could
have been elaborated or even entertained by primitive man....
‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me’_ (Ex. 20:3)_, the first
precept of Hebrew monotheism, was not understood at first as a
denial of the hereditary polytheistic faith, but merely as an
exclusive claim to worship and obedience.” E. G. Robinson says, in
a similar strain, that “we can explain the idolatrous tendencies
of the Jews only on the supposition that they had lurking notions
that their God was a merely national god. Moses seems to have
understood the doctrine of the divine unity, but the Jews did
not.”

To the views of both Hill and Robinson we reply that the primitive
intuition of God is not that of many, but that of One. Paul tells
us that polytheism is a later and retrogressive stage of
development, due to man’s sin (_Rom. 1:19-25_). We prefer the
statement of McLaren: “The plural Elohim is not a survival from a
polytheistic stage, but expresses the divine nature in the
manifoldness of its fulnesses and perfections, rather than in the
abstract unity of its being”—and, we may add, expresses the divine
nature in its essential fulness, as a complex of personalities.
See Conant, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 108; Green, Hebrew Grammar,
306; Girdlestone, O. T. Synonyms, 38, 53; Alexander on _Psalm
11:7_; _29:1_; _58:11_.

B. Passages relating to the Angel of Jehovah.

(_a_) The angel of Jehovah identifies himself with Jehovah; (_b_) he is identified with Jehovah by others; (_c_) he accepts worship due only to God. Though the phrase “angel of Jehovah” is sometimes used in the later Scriptures to denote a merely human messenger or created angel, it seems in the Old Testament, with hardly more than a single exception, to designate the pre-incarnate Logos, whose manifestations in angelic or human form foreshadowed his final coming in the flesh.

(_a_) _Gen. 22:11, 16—_“the angel of Jehovah called unto him
[Abraham, when about to sacrifice Isaac] ... By myself have I
sworn, saith Jehovah”; _31:11, 13—_“the angel of God said unto me
[Jacob] ... I am the God of Beth-el.” (_b_) _Gen. 16:9, 13—_“angel
of Jehovah said unto her ... and she called the name of Jehovah
that spake unto her, Thou art a God that seeth”; _48:15, 16—_“the
God who hath fed me ... the angel who hath redeemed me.” (_c_)
_Ex. 3:2, 4, 5—_“the angel of Jehovah appeared unto him ... God
called unto him out of the midst of the bush ... put off thy shoes
from off thy feet”; _Judges 13:20-22—_“angel of Jehovah
ascended.... Manoah and his wife ... fell on their faces ...
Manoah said ... We shall surely die, because we have seen God.”

The “_angel of the Lord_” appears to be a human messenger in
_Haggai 1:13—_“Haggai, Jehovah’s messenger”; a created angel in
_Mat. 1:20—_“an angel of the Lord [called Gabriel] appeared unto”
Joseph; in _Acts 3:26—_“an angel of the Lord spake unto Philip”;
and in _12:7—_“an angel of the Lord stood by him” (Peter). But
commonly, in the O.T., the “angel of Jehovah” is a theophany, a
self-manifestation of God. The only distinction is that between
Jehovah in himself and Jehovah in manifestation. The appearances
of “_the angel of Jehovah_” seem to be preliminary manifestations
of the divine Logos, as in _Gen. 18:2, 13—_“three men stood over
against him [Abraham] ... And Jehovah said unto Abraham”; _Dan.
3:25, 28—_“the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods....
Blessed be the God ... who hath sent his angel.” The N.T. “_angel
of the Lord_” does not permit, the O.T. “_angel of the Lord_”
requires, worship (_Rev. 22:8, 9—_“See thou do it not”; _cf._ _Ex.
3:5—_“put off thy shoes”). As supporting this interpretation, see
Hengstenberg, Christology, 1:107-123; J. Pye Smith, Scripture
Testimony to the Messiah. As opposing it, see Hofmann,
Schriftbeweis, 1:329, 378; Kurtz, History of Old Covenant, 1:181.
On the whole subject, see Bib. Sac., 1879:593-615.

C. Descriptions of the divine Wisdom and Word.

(_a_) Wisdom is represented as distinct from God, and as eternally
existing with God; (_b_) the Word of God is distinguished from
God, as executor of his will from everlasting.

(_a_) _Prov. 8:1—_“Doth not wisdom cry?” _Cf._ _Mat.
11:19—_“wisdom is justified by her works”; _Luke 7:35—_“wisdom is
justified of all her children”; _11:49—_“Therefore also said the
wisdom of God, I will send unto them prophets and apostles”;
_Prov. 8:22, 30, 31—_“Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his
way, Before his works of old.... I was by him, as a master
workman: And I was daily his delight.... And my delight was with
the sons of men”; _cf._ _3:19—_“Jehovah by wisdom founded the
earth,” and _Heb. 1:2—_“his Son ... through whom ... he made the
worlds.” (_b_) _Ps. 107:20—_“He sendeth his word, and healeth
them”; _119:89—_“For ever, O Jehovah, Thy word is settled in
heaven”; _147:15-18—_“He sendeth out his commandment.... He
sendeth out his word.”

In the Apocryphal book entitled Wisdom, 7:26, 28, wisdom is
described as “the brightness of the eternal light,” “the unspotted
mirror of God’s majesty,” and “the image of his
goodness”—reminding us of _Heb. 1:3—_“the effulgence of his glory,
and the very image of his substance.” In Wisdom, 9:9, 10, wisdom
is represented as being present with God when he made the world,
and the author of the book prays that wisdom may be sent to him
out of God’s holy heavens and from the throne of his glory. In 1
Esdras 4:35-38, Truth in a similar way is spoken of as personal:
“Great is the Truth and stronger than all things. All the earth
calleth upon the Truth, and the heaven blesseth it; all works
shake and tremble at it, and with it is no unrighteous thing. As
for the Truth, it endureth and is always strong; it liveth and
conquereth forevermore.”

It must be acknowledged that in none of these descriptions is the idea of personality clearly developed. Still less is it true that John the apostle derived his doctrine of the Logos from the interpretations of these descriptions in Philo Judæus. John’s doctrine (John 1:1-18) is radically different from the Alexandrian Logos-idea of Philo. This last is a Platonizing speculation upon the mediating principle between God and the world. Philo seems at times to verge towards a recognition of personality in the Logos, though his monotheistic scruples lead him at other times to take back what he has given, and to describe the Logos either as the thought of God or as its expression in the world. But John is the first to present to us a consistent view of this personality, to identify the Logos with the Messiah, and to distinguish the Word from the Spirit of God.

Dorner, in his History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ,
1:13-45, and in his System of Doctrine, 1:348, 349, gives the best
account of Philo’s doctrine of the Logos. He says that Philo calls
the Logos ἀρχάγγελος, ἀρχιερεύς, δεύτερος θεός. Whether this is
anything more than personification is doubtful, for Philo also
calls the Logos the κόσμος νοητός. Certainly, so far as he makes
the Logos a distinct personality, he makes him also a subordinate
being. It is charged that the doctrine of the Trinity owes its
origin to the Platonic philosophy in its Alexandrian union with
Jewish theology. But Platonism had no Trinity. The truth is that
by the doctrine of the Trinity Christianity secured itself against
false heathen ideas of God’s multiplicity and immanence, as well
as against false Jewish ideas of God’s unity and transcendence. It
owes nothing to foreign sources.

We need not assign to John’s gospel a later origin, in order to
account for its doctrine of the Logos, any more than we need to
assign a later origin to the Synoptics in order to account for
their doctrine of a suffering Messiah. Both doctrines were equally
unknown to Philo. Philo’s Logos does not and cannot become man. So
says Dorner. Westcott, in Bible Commentary on John, Introd.,
xv-xviii, and on John 1:1—“The theological use of the term [in
John’s gospel] appears to be derived directly from the Palestinian
_Memra_, and not from the Alexandrian _Logos_.” Instead of Philo’s
doctrine being a stepping-stone from Judaism to Christianity, it
was a stumbling-stone. It had no doctrine of the Messiah or of the
atonement. Bennett and Adeny, Bib. Introd., 340—“The difference
between Philo and John may be stated thus: Philo’s Logos is
Reason, while John’s is Word; Philo’s is impersonal, while John’s
is personal; Philo’s is not incarnate, while John’s is incarnate;
Philo’s is not the Messiah, while John’s is the Messiah.”

Philo lived from B. C. 10 or 20 to certainly A. D. 40, when he
went at the head of a Jewish embassy to Rome, to persuade the
Emperor to abstain from claiming divine honor from the Jews. In
his De Opifice Mundi he says: “The Word is nothing else but the
intelligible world.” He calls the Word the “chainband,” “pilot,”
“steersman,” of all things. Gore, Incarnation, 69—“Logos in Philo
must be translated ‘Reason.’ But in the Targums, or early Jewish
paraphrases of the O. T., the ‘Word’ of Jehovah (_Memra_, _Devra_)
is constantly spoken of as the efficient instrument of the divine
action, in cases where the O. T. speaks of Jehovah himself, ‘The
Word of God’ had come to be used personally, as almost equivalent
to God manifesting himself, or God in action.” George H. Gilbert,
in Biblical World, Jan. 1899:44—“John’s use of the term Logos was
suggested by Greek philosophy, while at the same time the content
of the word is Jewish.”

Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, 174-208—“The Stoics invested the Logos
with personality. They were Monists and they made λόγος and ὕλη
the active and the passive forms of the one principle. Some made
God a mode of matter—_natura naturata_; others made matter a mode
of God—_natura naturans_ = the world a self-evolution of God. The
Platonic forms, as manifold expressions of a single λόγος, were
expressed by a singular term, Logos, rather than the Logoi, of
God. From this Logos proceed all forms of mind or reason. So held
Philo: ‘The mind is an offshoot from the divine and happy soul (of
God), an offshoot not separated from him, for nothing divine is
cut off and disjoined, but only extended.’ Philo’s Logos is not
only form but force—God’s creative energy—the eldest-born of the
‘I am,’ which robes itself with the world as with a vesture, the
high priest’s robe, embroidered with all the forces of the seen
and unseen worlds.”

Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 1:53—“Philo carries the transcendence of
God to its logical conclusions. The Jewish doctrine of angels is
expanded in his doctrine of the Logos. The Alexandrian
philosophers afterwards represented Christianity as a
spiritualized Judaism. But a philosophical system dominated by the
idea of the divine transcendence never could have furnished a
motive for missionary labors like those of Paul. Philo’s belief in
transcendence abated his redemptive hopes. But, conversely, the
redemptive hopes of orthodox Judaism saved it from some of the
errors of exclusive transcendence.” See a quotation from
Siegfried, in Schürer’s History of the Jewish People, article on
Philo: “Philo’s doctrine grew out of God’s distinction and
distance from the world. It was dualistic. Hence the need of
mediating principles, some being less than God and more than
creature. The cosmical significance of Christ bridged the gulf
between Christianity and contemporary Greek thought. Christianity
stands for a God who is revealed. But a Logos-doctrine like that
of Philo may reveal less than it conceals. Instead of God
incarnate for our salvation, we may have merely a mediating
principle between God and the world, as in Arianism.”

The preceding statement is furnished in substance by Prof. William
Adams Brown. With it we agree, adding only the remark that the
Alexandrian philosophy gave to Christianity, not the substance of
its doctrine, but only the terminology for its expression. The
truth which Philo groped after, the Apostle John seized and
published, as only he could, who had heard, seen, and handled “the
Word of life”_ (1 John 1:1)._ “The Christian doctrine of the Logos
was perhaps before anything else an effort to express how Jesus
Christ was God (Θεός), and yet in another sense was not God (ὁ
θεός); that is to say, was not the whole Godhead” (quoted in
Marcus Dods, Expositors’ Bible, on _John 1:1_). See also Kendrick,
in Christian Review, 26:369-399; Gloag, in Presb. and Ref. Rev.,
1891:45-57; Réville, Doctrine of the Logos in John and Philo;
Godet on John, Germ. transl., 13, 135; Cudworth, Intellectual
System, 2:320-333; Pressensé, Life of Jesus Christ, 83; Hagenbach,
Hist. Doct., 1:114-117; Liddon, Our Lord’s Divinity, 59-71; Conant
on Proverbs, 53.

D. Descriptions of the Messiah.

(_a_) He is one with Jehovah; (_b_) yet he is in some sense distinct from Jehovah.

(_a_) _Is. 9:6—_“unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given
... and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace”; _Micah 5:2—_“thou Bethlehem
... which art little ... out of thee shall one come forth unto me
that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old,
from everlasting.” (_b_) _Ps. 45:6, 7—_“Thy throne, O God, is for
ever and ever.... Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee”;
_Mal 3:1—_“I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way
before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to his
temple; and the messenger of the covenant, whom ye desire.”
Henderson, in his Commentary on this passage, points out that the
Messiah is here called “_the Lord_” or “_the Sovereign_”—a title
nowhere given in this form (with the article) to any but Jehovah;
that he is predicted as coming to the temple as its proprietor;
and that he is identified with the angel of the covenant,
elsewhere shown to be one with Jehovah himself.

It is to be remembered, in considering this, as well as other classes of passages previously cited, that no Jewish writer before Christ’s coming had succeeded in constructing from them a doctrine of the Trinity. Only to those who bring to them the light of New Testament revelation do they show their real meaning.

Our general conclusion with regard to the Old Testament intimations must therefore be that, while they do not by themselves furnish a sufficient basis for the doctrine of the Trinity, they contain the germ of it, and may be used in confirmation of it when its truth is substantially proved from the New Testament.

That the doctrine of the Trinity is not plainly taught in the
Hebrew Scriptures is evident from the fact that Jews unite with
Mohammedans in accusing trinitarians of polytheism. It should not
surprise us that the Old Testament teaching on this subject is
undeveloped and obscure. The first necessity was that the Unity of
God should be insisted on. Until the danger of idolatry was past,
a clear revelation of the Trinity might have been a hindrance to
religious progress. The child now, like the race then, must learn
the unity of God before it can profitably be taught the
Trinity,—else it will fall into tritheism; see Gardiner, O. T. and
N. T., 49. We should not therefore begin our proof of the Trinity
with a reference to passages in the Old Testament. We should speak
of these passages, indeed, as furnishing intimations of the
doctrine rather than proof of it. Yet, after having found proof of
the doctrine in the New Testament, we may expect to find traces of
it in the Old which will corroborate our conclusions. As a matter
of fact, we shall see that traces of the idea of a Trinity are
found not only in the Hebrew Scriptures but in some of the heathen
religions as well. E. G. Robinson: “The doctrine of the Trinity
underlay the O. T., unperceived by its writers, was first
recognized in the economic revelation of Christianity, and was
first clearly enunciated in the necessary evolution of Christian
doctrine.”

II. These Three are so described in Scripture that we are compelled to conceive of them as distinct Persons.

1. The Father and the Son are persons distinct from each other.

(_a_) Christ distinguishes the Father from himself as “another”; (_b_) the Father and the Son are distinguished as the begetter and the begotten; (_c_) the Father and the Son are distinguished as the sender and the sent.

(_a_) _John 5:32, 37—_“It is another that beareth witness of me
... the Father that sent me, he hath borne witness of me.” (_b_)
_Ps. 2:7—_“Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee”; _John
1:14—_“the only begotten from the Father”; _18—_“the only begotten
Son”; _3:16—_“gave his only begotten Son.” (_c_) _John 10:36—_“say
ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world,
Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”; _Gal
4:4—_“when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son.”
In these passages the Father is represented as objective to the
Son, the Son to the Father, and both the Father and Son to the
Spirit.

2. The Father and the Son are persons distinct from the Spirit.

(_a_) Jesus distinguishes the Spirit from himself and from the Father; (_b_) the Spirit proceeds from the Father; (_c_) the Spirit is sent by the Father and by the Son.

(_a_) _John 14:16, 17—_“I will pray the Father, and he shall give
you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever, even the
Spirit of truth”—or “_Spirit of the truth_,” = he whose work it is
to reveal and apply the truth, and especially to make manifest him
who is the truth. Jesus had been their Comforter: he now promises
them another Comforter. If he himself was a person, then the
Spirit is a person. (_b_) _John 15:26—_“the Spirit of truth which
proceedeth from the Father.” (_c_) _John 14:26—_“the Comforter,
even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name”;
_15:26—_“when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you
from the Father”; _Gal. 4:6—_“God sent forth the Spirit of his Son
into our hearts.” The Greek church holds that the Spirit proceeds
from the Father only; the Latin church, that the Spirit proceeds
both from the Father and from the Son. The true formula is: The
Spirit proceeds from the Father _through_ or _by_ (not “and”) the
Son. See Hagenbach, History of Doctrine, 1:262, 263. Moberly,
Atonement and Personality, 195—“The _Filioque_ is a valuable
defence of the truth that the Holy Spirit is not simply the
abstract second Person of the Trinity, but rather the Spirit of
the incarnate Christ, reproducing Christ in human hearts, and
revealing in them the meaning of true manhood.”

3. The Holy Spirit is a person.

A. Designations proper to personality are given him.

(_a_) The masculine pronoun ἐκεῖνος, though πνεῦμα is neuter; (_b_) the name παράκλητος, which cannot be translated by “comfort”, or be taken as the name of any abstract influence. The Comforter, Instructor, Patron, Guide, Advocate, whom this term brings before us, must be a person. This is evident from its application to Christ in 1 John 2:1—“we have an Advocate—παράκλητον—with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”

(_a_) _John 16:14—_“He (ἐκεῖνος) shall glorify me”; in _Eph. 1:14_
also, some of the best authorities, including Tischendorf (8th
ed.), read ὄς, the masculine pronoun: “_who is an earnest of our
inheritance_.” But in _John 14:16-18_, παράκλητος is followed by
the neuters ὁ and αὐτό, because πνεῦμα had intervened. Grammatical
and not theological considerations controlled the writer. See G.
B. Stevens, Johannine Theology, 189-217, especially on the
distinction between Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is
another person than Christ, in spite of Christ’s saying of the
coming of the Holy Spirit: “_I come unto you_.” (_b_) _John
16:7—_“if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you.”
The word παράκλητος, as appears from _1 John 2:1_, quoted above,
is a term of broader meaning than merely “Comforter.” The Holy
Spirit is, indeed, as has been said, “the mother-principle in the
Godhead,” and “_as one whom his mother comforteth_” so God by his
Spirit comforts his children (_Is. 66:13_). But the Holy Spirit is
also an Advocate of God’s claims in the soul, and of the soul’s
interests in prayer (_Rom. 8:26—_“maketh intercession for us”). He
comforts not only by being our advocate, but by being our
instructor, patron, and guide; and all these ideas are found
attaching to the word παράκλητος in good Greek usage. The word
indeed is a verbal adjective, signifying “called to one’s aid,”
hence a “helper”; the idea of encouragement is included in it, as
well as those of comfort and of advocacy. See Westcott, Bible
Com., on _John 14:16_; Cremer, Lexicon of N. T. Greek, _in voce_.

T. Dwight, in S. S. Times, on _John 14:16_—“The fundamental
meaning of the word παράκλητος, which is a verbal adjective, is
‘called to one’s aid,’ and thus, when used as a noun, it conveys
the idea of ‘helper.’ This more general sense probably attaches to
its use in John’s Gospel, while in the Epistle (_1 John 2:1, 2_)
it conveys the idea of Jesus acting as advocate on our behalf
before God as a Judge.” So the Latin _advocatus_ signifies one
“called to”—_i. e._, called in to aid, counsel, plead. In this
connection Jesus says: “I will not leave you orphans”_ (John
14:18)_. Cumming, Through the Eternal Spirit, 228—“As the orphaned
family, in the day of the parent’s death, need some friend who
shall lighten their sense of loss by his own presence with them,
so the Holy Spirit is ‘called in’ to supply the present love and
help which the Twelve are losing in the death of Jesus.” A. A.
Hodge, Pop. Lectures, 237—“The Roman ‘client,’ the poor and
dependent man, called in his ‘patron’ to help him in all his
needs. The patron thought for, advised, directed, supported,
defended, supplied, restored, comforted his client in all his
complications. The client, though weak, with a powerful patron,
was socially and politically secure forever.”

B. His name is mentioned in immediate connection with other persons, and in such a way as to imply his own personality.

(_a_) In connection with Christians; (_b_) in connection with Christ; (_c_) in connection with the Father and the Son. If the Father and the Son are persons, the Spirit must be a person also.

(_a_) _Acts 15:28—_“it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us.”
(_b_) _John 16:14—_“He shall glorify me: for he shall take of
mine, and shall declare it unto you”; _cf._ _17:4—_“I glorified
thee on the earth.” (_c_) _Mat. 28:29—_“baptizing them into the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”; _2 Cor.
13:14—_“the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God,
and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all”; _Jude
21—_“praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of
God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ.” _1 Pet. 1:1,
2—_“elect ... according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in
sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the
blood of Jesus Christ.” Yet it is noticeable in all these passages
that there is no obtrusion of the Holy Spirit’s personality, as if
he desired to draw attention to himself. The Holy Spirit shows,
not himself, but Christ. Like John the Baptist, he is a mere
voice, and so is an example to Christian preachers, who are
themselves “made ... sufficient as ministers ... of the Spirit”_
(2 Cor. 3:6)_. His leading is therefore often unperceived; he so
joins himself to us that we infer his presence only from the new
and holy exercises of our own minds; he continues to work in us
even when his presence is ignored and his purity is outraged by
our sins.

C. He performs acts proper to personality.

That which searches, knows, speaks, testifies, reveals, convinces, commands, strives, moves, helps, guides, creates, recreates, sanctifies, inspires, makes intercession, orders the affairs of the church, performs miracles, raises the dead—cannot be a mere power, influence, efflux, or attribute of God, but must be a person.

_Gen. 1:2_, marg.—“_the Spirit of God was brooding upon the face
of the waters_”; _6:3—_“My Spirit shalt not strive with man for
ever”; _Luke 12:12—_“the Holy Spirit shall teach you in that very
hour what ye ought to say”; _John 3:8—_“born of the Spirit”—here
Bengel translates: “_the Spirit breathes where he wills, and thou
hearest his voice_”—see also Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 166;
_16:8—_“convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness,
and of judgment”; _Acts 2:4—_“the Spirit gave them utterance”;
_8:29—_“the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near”; _10:19, 20—_“the
Spirit said unto him [Peter], Behold, three men seek thee.... go
with them ... for I have sent them”; _13:2—_“the Holy Spirit said,
Separate me Barnabas and Saul”; _16:6, 7—_“forbidden of the Holy
Spirit ... Spirit of Jesus suffered them not”; _Rom. 8:11—_“give
life also to your mortal bodies through his Spirit”; _26—_“the
Spirit also helpeth our infirmity ... maketh intercession for us”;
_15:19—_“in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the
Holy Spirit”; _1 Cor. 2:10, 11—_“the Spirit searcheth all
things.... things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God”;
_12:8-11_—distributes spiritual gifts “to each one severally even
as he will”—here Meyer calls attention to the words “as he will,”
as proving the personality of the Spirit; _2 Pet. 1:21—_“men spake
from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit”; _1 Pet.
1:2—_“sanctification of the Spirit.” How can a person be given in
various measures? We answer, by being permitted to work in our
behalf with various degrees of power. Dorner: “To be power does
not belong to the impersonal.”

D. He is affected as a person by the acts of others.

That which can be resisted, grieved, vexed, blasphemed, must be a person; for only a person can perceive insult and be offended. The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost cannot be merely blasphemy against a power or attribute of God, since in that case blasphemy against God would be a less crime than blasphemy against his power. That against which the unpardonable sin can be committed must be a person.

_Is. 63:10—_“they rebelled and grieved his holy Spirit”; _Mat.
12:31—_“Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but
the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven”; _Acts
5:3, 4, 9—_“lie to the Holy Ghost ... thou hast not lied unto men
but unto God.... agreed together to try the Spirit of the Lord”;
_7:51—_“ye do always resist the Holy Spirit”; _Eph. 4:30—_“grieve
not the Holy Spirit of God.” Satan cannot be “grieved.”
Selfishness can be angered, but only love can be grieved.
Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is like blaspheming one’s own mother.
The passages just quoted show the Spirit’s possession of an
emotional nature. Hence we read of “the love of the Spirit”_ (Rom.
15:30)_. The unutterable sighings of the Christian in intercessory
prayer (_Rom. 8:26, 27_) reveal the mind of the Spirit, and show
the infinite depths of feeling which are awakened in God’s heart
by the sins and needs of men. These deep desires and emotions
which are only partially communicated to us, and which only God
can understand, are conclusive proof that the Holy Spirit is a
person. They are only the overflow into us of the infinite
fountain of divine love to which the Holy Spirit unites us.

As Christ in the garden “began to be sorrowful and sore troubled”_
(Mat. 26:37)_, so the Holy Spirit is sorrowful and sore troubled
at the ignoring, despising, resisting of his work, on the part of
those whom he is trying to rescue from sin and to lead out into
the freedom and joy of the Christian life. Luthardt, in S. S.
Times, May 26, 1888—“Every sin can be forgiven—even the sin
against the Son of man—except the sin against the Holy Spirit. The
sin against the Son of man can be forgiven because he can be
misconceived. For he did not appear as that which he really was.
Essence and appearance, truth and reality, contradicted each
other.” Hence Jesus could pray: “Father, forgive them, for they
know not what they do”_ (Luke 23:34)_. The office of the Holy
Spirit, however, is to show to men the nature of their conduct,
and to sin against him is to sin against light and without excuse.
See A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 297-313. Salmond, in
Expositor’s Greek Testament, on _Eph. 4:30_—“What love is in us
points truly, though tremulously, to what love is in God. But in
us love, in proportion as it is true and sovereign, has both its
_wrath-side_ and its _grief-side_; and so must it be with God,
however difficult for us to think it out.”

E. He manifests himself in visible form as distinct from the Father and the Son, yet in direct connection with personal acts performed by them.

_Mat. 3:16, 17—_“Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway
from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he
saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him;
and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased”; _Luke 3:21, 22—_“Jesus also
having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the
Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a
voice came out of heaven, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am
well pleased.” Here are the prayer of Jesus, the approving voice
of the Father, and the Holy Spirit descending in visible form to
anoint the Son of God for his work. “I ad Jordanem, et videbis
Trinitatem.”

F. This ascription to the Spirit of a personal subsistence distinct from that of the Father and of the Son cannot be explained as personification; for:

(_a_) This would be to interpret sober prose by the canons of poetry. Such sustained personification is contrary to the genius of even Hebrew poetry, in which Wisdom itself is most naturally interpreted as designating a personal existence. (_b_) Such an interpretation would render a multitude of passages either tautological, meaningless, or absurd,—as can be easily seen by substituting for the name Holy Spirit the terms which are wrongly held to be its equivalents; such as the power, or influence, or efflux, or attribute of God. (_c_) It is contradicted, moreover, by all those passages in which the Holy Spirit is distinguished from his own gifts.

(_a_) The Bible is not primarily a book of poetry, although there
is poetry in it. It is more properly a book of history and law.
Even if the methods of allegory were used by the Psalmists and the
Prophets, we should not expect them largely to characterize the
Gospels and Epistles; _1 Cor. 13:4—_“Love suffereth long, and is
kind”—is a rare instance in which Paul’s style takes on the form
of poetry. Yet it is the Gospels and Epistles which most
constantly represent the Holy Spirit as a person. (_b_) _Acts
10:38—_“God anointed him [Jesus] with the Holy Spirit and with
power” = anointed him with power and with power? _Rom.
15:13—_“abound in hope, in the power of the Holy Spirit” = in the
power of the power of God? _19—_“in the power of signs and
wonders, in the power of the Holy Spirit” = in the power of the
power of God? _1 Cor. 2:4—_“demonstration of the Spirit and of
power” = demonstration of power and of power? (_c_) _Luke
1:35—_“the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Most High shall overshadow thee”; _4:14—_“Jesus returned in the
power of the Spirit into Galilee”; _1 Cor. 12:4, 8, 11_—after
mention of the gifts of the Spirit, such as wisdom, knowledge,
faith, healings, miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits,
tongues, interpretation of tongues, all these are traced to the
Spirit who bestows them: “_all these worketh the one and the same
Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as he will_.” Here is
not only giving, but giving discreetly, in the exercise of an
independent will such as belongs only to a person. _Rom.
8:26—_“the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us”—must be
interpreted, if the Holy Spirit is not a person distinct from the
Father, as meaning that the Holy Spirit intercedes with himself.

“The personality of the Holy Spirit was virtually rejected by the
Arians, as it has since been by Schleiermacher, and it has been
positively denied by the Socinians” (E. G. Robinson). Gould, Bib.
Theol. N. T., 83, 96—“The Twelve represent the Spirit as sent by
the Son, who has been exalted that he may send this new power out
of the heavens. Paul represents the Spirit as bringing to us the
Christ. In the Spirit Christ dwells in us. The Spirit is the
historic Jesus translated into terms of universal Spirit. Through
the Spirit we are in Christ and Christ in us. The divine Indweller
is to Paul alternately Christ and the Spirit. The Spirit is the
divine principle incarnate in Jesus and explaining his
preëxistence (_2 Cor. 3:17, 18_). Jesus was an incarnation of the
Spirit of God.”