A case for the Son and the Holy Spirit

I was recently sent an article published in The Gleaner on March 13, 2020, entitled ‘Father, Son And Holy Spirit – Do They Make A Trinity?’ The author concluded: “What the facts show is that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit do not make a Trinity.” I would like to look at the facts as were rendered by the writer and examine these against Scripture.

In the article, the deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit was renounced, and it was suggested that though Jesus can be worshipped, the Holy Spirit must not be worshipped. The writer made an assumption that was not supported anywhere in the article by scriptures. It was posited that the fact that the Father sent the Son, and the Son sent the Spirit, there is a hierarchical authority at play, and that discounts the belief that the three are co-equals. This logic doesn’t make much sense against the background of functional authority as opposed to hierarchical authority.

JESUS IS GOD

I want to first address the equality claims of Jesus in the hearing of his Ancient Near East (ANE) counterparts. John 5 says that those who formed the immediate audience in this discourse over Jesus healing on the Sabbath concluded that “not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making himself equal with God”. Jesus didn’t rebuke those who said this. He allowed it to be concluded that it was what was meant. This would set the stage for the Jews wanting to kill Him.

What the writer seems to not understand are the implications of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Colossians 1:15-20 speaks about the Son being the image of the invisible God in whom the fullness of God dwells. But Philippians 2:6ff says though He was in the form of God (the Greek term morphe translated form speaks to more than just a likeness, but in very essence, in nature. The NIV brings this out in its translation. He emptied Himself of this equality and didn’t cling to it. Jesus took on the form of a slave and came in human form. This is the implication of the incarnation that must be taken into consideration when one tries to speak about hierarchical authority between the Father and the Son. The evidence is that the Son and the Father are equals, but the Son assumed a functional “lesser than” for the sake of redemption.

The writer used Hebrew 1:7 and 9 but didn’t quote verse 8, which is a pointed testimony of the Son from the Father. “8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” If the conclusion is that the Son must be worshipped because the Father gives that edict, it must also be concluded that the Son is God because the Father said it. This is the right and logical conclusion following the writer’s arguments. I am not sure if this was purposely avoided orif the writer didn’t know what to make of it.

I will mention a couple of other verses that support the deity of Jesus for the consideration of the writer and others who hold the same views. “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” John 1:18 uses the word Monogenes, which is translated “only begotten” in the King James Version. This rendering has been discovered to be less than ideal, linguistically. A more correct translation is “only and unique”. Why is this important? The Greek manuscripts have the phrase monogenes theo - and not monogenēs vios - as is translated in the KJV as “only begotten son”. It couldn’t be translated as “only begotten God” since God is not begotten. The NIV in this cause has the correct rendering though it also takes some steps to make it clear.

The final verse on this matter is again a proclamation that Jesus allows to stand instead or debunking. In John 20:28, Thomas, having seen the wounds of Jesus, exclaimed, “My Lord and my God!” Thomas was not making an exclamation of surprise as some have said. As an ANE Jew, this would have been tantamount to taking the Lord’s name in vain, and he would have been sharply rebuked. Jesus say this as a picture of someone finally coming from doubt to belief. “Jesus said to him: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”” (v29) Jesus acknowledges the truth of His exclamation and commends those who will believe it without having seen Him.

THE HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD

I want to use the same argument for functional authority used above here as well. Since the writer didn’t offer any proper evidence against such, I will allow it to stand here and say that not because the Son sends the Spirit means that the Spirit is not equal to the Son. John 14:16 states, “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.” A look at the word translated another way gives us a very essential truth that can be missed if we are just reading from an English version. The term allos doesn’t just mean someone else. HELPS Word Study states: “ állos (a primitive word) – another of the same kind; another of a similar type”. Strongs New Testament states “ állos … denotes numerical in distinction from qualitative difference”. If my evidence above about the Son holds true, then the Holy Spirit being of the same kind as the Son holds true as well. Again, that logically follows.

A presupposition of Christians is that ONLY GOD is eternal. Though the writer stated that the Son existed before Creation, I am not sure if the belief of the eternity of the Son is held by the writer. If it is a held position, then that needs to be explained as to whether the Son can be eternal and not be God, and if the Holy Spirit is eternal, why is He not God as well?

The biblical authors had no problem using the Holy Spirit and God interchangeably. One power occurrence of this is during the encounter with Gabriel and Mary. Gabriel stated that it was the Holy Spirit who would come upon Mary, and then she would give birth to the Son of God. ““The Holy Spirit will come on you. The power of the Most High will cover you. The holy Child you give birth to will be called the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35) I will need to step outside the UNITY of the three to argue this point, but please note that the UNITY is far come crucial than the separateness. If it is that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and she conceived the SON OF GOD, shouldn’t this, in a real way, be rendered that GOD visited Mary during the conception? For the biblical writers, this was what they obviously meant.

Acts 5 offers yet another use of this seamless interchangeability between the Holy Spirit and God. This episode pertains to Ananias and his lie. Verse 4 states: “4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” So though they stood before the disciples and lied, their lie was actually a lie to God. The verse before, however, says, ““Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?” The Apostle Luke did not see any distinction between both. For the writer to avoid these verses is disingenuous and should have at least been wrestled with as these are verses used to support the pnuematological positions held by the Church.

I already alluded to the truth that the Holy Spirit is eternal. This is supported by Hebrews 9:14: “14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” He is omnipotent as His power is considered to be the Power of the Most High (Luke1:35). He is also spoken of as omniscient “He searches all things … teaches all things … and guides into all truth … .” (1 Corinthians 2:10-11, John 14:26, John 16:13) These attributes are given only to God, and if God lacks any of these, He isn’t God. The writer would need to explain to the audience his rationale for denying the Holy Spirit’s deity and equality with God when the Bible doesn’t.

ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION

During the conclusion, the writer of the article made a less-than-articulate point. “Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is of the same nature as God and is worshipped just as God the Father is worshipped … . “God is a spirit” means that God is a spirit-being. That is His nature. We do not worship God’s nature. We worship God, Himself, as a Person.” Here again is a classic point, where, as the proverbial saying goes, cock mout’ kill cock.

If there is allowance to worship Jesus, who is by the writer’s summation only of the same nature of God and not God, why is the same point used to discredit the case of the Holy Spirit? The precedence was set by the writer and then discredited by the same. This doesn’t follow the logical propulsion of the article. One point is made redundant by the next and, as such, lacks agreement. It would be prudent to clarify this point for us.

CONCLUSION

Based on the evidence offered above, a verdict is demanded, or at least an address by the writer of the article that takes these into account.

The Son is shown as God and is testified of the Father to be God. The Holy Spirit is called God in the Scripture, and the biblical authors didn’t think it necessary to make a distinction as they wrote under the inspiration of the very same Holy Spirit.

I would like to offer the thought of the UNITY of the three as we consider the ascription of worship. The only argument against worshipping the Holy Spirit is if HE is either not a “person” or “personal entity” and if HE is not God. The writer made the point for the former, and I think I have made the point for the latter. Since the UNITY must be preserved above the latter, the conclusion of worship ascription is self-concluding.