PUNThepun, also calledparonomasia, is a form ofword playwhich
suggests two or more meanings, by exploiting multiple meanings of
words, or of similar-sounding words, for an
intendedhumorousorrhetoricaleffect.These ambiguities can arise from
the intentional use and abuse ofhomophonic,homographic,metonymic,
ormetaphoricallanguage. A pun differs from amalapropismin that a
malapropism uses an incorrect expression that alludes to another
(usually correct) expression, but a pun uses a correct expression
that alludes to another (sometimes correct but more often absurdly
humorous) expression.Henri Bergsondefined a pun as a sentence or
utterance in which "two different sets of ideas are expressed, and
we are confronted with only one series of words".Puns may be
regarded asin-jokesoridiomaticconstructions, given that their usage
and meaning are entirely local to a particular language and its
culture. For example, camping is intense (in tents).Puns are used
to createhumorand sometimes require a large vocabulary to
understand. Puns have long been used by comedy writers, such
asWilliam Shakespeare,Oscar Wilde, andGeorge Carlin. The Roman
playwrightPlautusis famous for his tendency to make up and change
the meaning of words to create puns inLatin.
TypologyPuns can be classified in various ways:Thehomophonic
pun, a common type, uses word pairs which sound alike (homophones)
but are not synonymous. Walter Redfern exemplified this type with
his statement "To pun is to treat homonyms assynonyms".For example,
inGeorge Carlin's phrase "Atheism is a non-prophet institution",
the word "prophet" is put in place of its homophone "profit",
altering the common phrase "non-profit institution". Similarly, the
joke "Question: Why do we still have troops in Germany? Answer: To
keep the Russians inCzech" relies on the aural ambiguity of the
homophones "check" and "Czech". Often, puns are not strictly
homophonic, but play on words of similar, not identical, sound as
in the example from the "Pinky and the Brain" cartoon film series:
"I think so, Brain, but if we give peas a chance, won't the lima
beans feel left out?" which plays with the similar but not
identical sound of "peas" and "peace".Some words are homophones
only when spoken in certain accents. Here are some examples of puns
that depend on being pronounced in a particular accent:"Caesar
salad" (Scissor salad) in an Italian accent:Customer: "I'd like
aCaesar salad.Italian waiter: "Sir! Are you sure you want
theScissor salad? You'll cut your mouth!""Space" (Spice) in certain
Australian accents:Spice...The final frontier. So much flavour!
Space, on the other hand, is mostly devoid of flavour and
matter.(alternatively...)Q:What was the name of the first group of
female astronauts?A:TheSpaceGirls."The Nail River" (The Nile River)
in certain Australian accents:Never take your raft down the nail
river. It'll pop instantly.
Ahomographic punexploits words which are spelled the same
(homographs) but possess different meanings and sounds. Because of
their nature, they rely on sight more than hearing, contrary to
homophonic puns. They are also known asheteronymic puns. Examples
in which the punned words typically exist in two differentparts of
speechoften rely on unusual sentence construction, as in the
anecdote: "When asked to explain his large number of children, the
pig answered simply: 'The wild oats of my sow gave us many
piglets.' " An example which combines homophonic and homographic
punning isDouglas Adams's line "You can tune a guitar, but you
can'ttunafish. Unless of course, you playbass." The phrase uses the
homophonic qualities of "tune a" and "tuna", as well as the
homographic pun on "bass", in which ambiguity is reached through
the identical spellings of/bes/(astring instrument), and/bs/(akind
of fish).Homonymicpuns, another common type, arise from the
exploitation of words which are both homographs and homophones. The
statement "Being inpoliticsis just like playinggolf: you are
trapped in one badlieafter another" puns on the two meanings of the
wordlieas "a deliberate untruth" and as "the position in which
something rests". An adaptation of a joke repeated byIsaac
Asimovgives us "Did you hear about the little moron who strained
himself while running into the screen door?", playing on 'strained'
as "to give much effort" and "to filter".A homonymic pun may also
bepolysemic, in which the words must be homonymic and also possess
related meanings, a condition which is often subjective. However,
lexicographers definepolysemesas listed under a single
dictionarylemma(a unique numbered meaning) while homonyms are
treated in separate lemmata.Acompound punis a statement that
contains two or more puns. For example, a complex statement
byRichard Whatelyincludes four puns: "Why can a man never starve in
theGreat Desert? Because he can eat the sand which is there. But
what brought the sandwiches there? Why,Noahsent Ham, and his
descendants mustered and bred."This pun uses "sand which is
there/sandwiches there, "Ham/ham", "mustered/mustard", and
"bred/bread". Compound puns may also combine two phrases that share
a word. For example, "Where domathematiciansgo on weekends? To a
Mbius strip club!" puns onMbius stripandstrip club.Arecursive punis
one in which the second aspect of a pun relies on the understanding
of an element in the first. For example the statement "is only half
apie." (radiansis 180degrees, or half a circle, and apieis a
completecircle). Another example is "Infinityis notin finity,"
which means infinity is not infiniterange. Another example is
"AFreudian slipis when you say one thing but meanyour
mother."[9]Finally, we are given "Immanueldoesn't pun, he Kant"
byOscar Wilde.Visual punsare used in many logos, emblems, insignia,
and other graphic symbols, in which one or more of the pun aspects
are replaced by a picture. In Europeanheraldry, this technique is
calledcanting arms. Visual and other puns and word games are also
common in Dutchgable stonesas well as in somecartoons, such asLost
ConsonantsandThe Far Side.Another type of visual pun exists in
languages which use non-phonetic writing. For example, in Chinese,
a pun may be based on a similarity in shape of the written
character, despite a complete lack of phonetic similarity in the
words punned upon. Mark Elvindescribes how this "peculiarly Chinese
form of visual punning involved comparing written characters to
objects. Richard J. Alexander notes two additional forms which puns
may take:graphologicalpuns, such asconcrete poetry;
andmorphologicalpuns, such asportmanteaus.
USEComedy and jokesPuns are a common source
ofhumourinjokesandcomedy shows. They are often used in thepunch
lineof a joke, where they typically give a humorous meaning to a
rather perplexing story. These are also known asfeghoots. The
following example comes from the movieMaster and Commander: The Far
Side of the World, though the punchline stems from far
olderVaudevilleroots.The final line puns on the stock phrase "the
lesser of two evils".Captain Aubrey: "Do you see those twoweevils,
Doctor?...Which would you choose?"Dr. Maturin: "Neither. There's
not a scrap of difference between them. They're the same species
ofCurculio."Captain Aubrey: "If you had to choose. If you were
forced to make a choice. If there were no other option."Dr.
Maturin: "Well, then, if you're going to push me. I would choose
the right-hand weevil. It has significant advantage in both length
and breadth."Captain Aubrey: "There, I have you!...Do you not know
that inthe Service, one must always choosethe lesser of two
weevils?"Puns often are used in the titles of comedicparodies. A
parody of a popular song, movie, etc., may be given a title that
hints at the title of the work being parodied, substituting some of
the words with ones that sound or look similar. Such a title can
immediately communicate both that what follows is a parody and also
which work is about to be parodied, making any further "setup"
(introductory explanation) unnecessary.LiteratureNon-humorous puns
were and are a standard rhetorical and poetic device
inEnglishliterature. Puns and other forms of word play have been
used by many famous writers, such asAlexander Pope,James
Joyce,Vladimir Nabokov,Robert Bloch,Lewis Carroll,John Donne,
andWilliam Shakespeare, who is estimated to have used over 3,000
puns inhis plays.[citation needed]Some promoters of the Shakespeare
Authorship theory believe that the name Will Shake-spear was itself
a pun, chosen to hide the true author's name while revealing it as
a mask.Here is an example fromShakespeare'sRichard III:"Now is the
winter of our discontent made glorious summer by thissonof York"
(Son/sun)Shakespeare was also noted for his frequent play with less
serious puns, the "quibbles" of the sort that madeSamuel
Johnsoncomplain, "A quibble is to Shakespeare what luminous vapours
are to the traveller! He follows it to all adventures; it is sure
to lead him out of his way, sure to engulf him in the mire. It has
some malignant power over his mind, and its fascinations are
irresistible."Elsewhere, Johnson disparagingly referred to punning
as "the lowest form of humour".[citation needed]In the poemA Hymn
to God the Father,John Donne, married toAnne More, reportedly puns
repeatedly: "Son/sun" in the second quoted line, and two compound
puns on "Donne/done" and "More/more". All three are homophonic,
with the puns on "more" being both homographic andcapitonymic. The
ambiguities serve to introduce several possible meanings into the
verses."When Thou hastdone, Thou hast notdone/ For I havemore.that
at my death ThySon/ Shall shine as he shines now, and heretoforeAnd
havingdonethat, Thou hastdone; / I fear nomore."DesignationLike
other forms of wordplay, paronomasia is occasionally used for its
attention-getting or mnemonic qualities, making it common in titles
and the names of places, characters, and organizations, and in
advertising and slogans. Many restaurant and shop names use
puns:Cane & Ablemobility healthcare, Tiecoon tie shop,Planet of
the Grapeswine and spirits,[17]as do books, such asPies and
Prejudice, comics (YU+ME: dream) and films (Good Will Hunting).
TheJapaneseanimeSpeed Racer'soriginal title,Mach GoGoGo!refers to
the English word itself, the Japanese word for five (theMach 5's
car number), and the name of the show's main character, Go
Mifune.Names of characters also often carry puns, such asAsh
KetchumandGoku("kakarot"), the protagonists of the anime
seriesPokmonandDragonball, respectively, both franchises which are
known for including second meanings in the names of many of their
characters. A recurring motif in theAustin Powersfilms repeatedly
puns on names which suggest male genitalia. In thescience
fictiontelevision seriesStar Trek, "B-4" is used as the name of one
of fourandroidsmodels constructed "before" the androidData, a main
character.Theparallel sequelThe Lion King 1advertised with the
phrase "You haven't seen the 1/2 of it!".Wyborowa Vodkaemployed the
slogan "Enjoyed for centuries straight", whileNorthern Telecomused
"Technology the world calls on." Confusion and alternate usesThere
exist subtle differences between paronomasia and other literary
techniques, such as thedouble entendre. While puns are often simple
wordplay for comedic or rhetorical effect, a double entendre
alludes to a second meaning which is not contained within the
statement or phrase itself, often one which purposefully disguises
the second meaning. As both exploit the use of intentional double
meanings, puns can sometimes be double entendres, and vice versa.
Puns also bear similarities
withparaprosdokian,syllepsisandeggcorns. In addition, homographic
puns are sometimes compared to thestylistic deviceantanaclasis, and
homophonic puns topolyptoton.Science and computingScientificpuns
rely on the contrast between precise technical and imprecise
informal definitions of the same word. Instatisticalcontexts, for
example, the wordsignificantis usually assumed to mean
"statistically significant", which has a precisely defined
technical meaning. Usingsignificantwith the layperson meaning "of
practical significance" in such contexts would qualify as punning,
such as thewebcomicxkcd's double pun "statisticallysignificant
other".In formallinguistics, puns can often be found embedded
within the etymological meaning or usage of words, which in turn
may be buried over time and unknown to native speakers. Puns may
also be found insyntax, wheremorphologicalconstructions have
derived from what may have originally been humorousword play,
slang,or otherwiseidiosyncraticword usage.Incomputing,esoteric
programming languages(EPLs) are based in or contain what may be
regarded as conceptual puns, as they typically misuse common
programming concepts in ways which are absurd, or functionally
useless. Some EPL puns may be obvious, such as in the usage oftext
images, while other puns are highly conceptual and understandable
to experts only.Incomputer science, the termtype punningrefers to a
programming technique that subverts or circumvents thetype systemof
aprogramming language, by allowing a value of a certain type to be
manipulated as a value of a different type.HistoryPuns were found
in ancient Egypt, where they were heavily used in development of
myths and interpretation of dreams. In China, Shen Tao (ca. 300 BC)
used "shih", meaning "power", and "shih", meaning "position" to say
that a king has power because of his position as king.In ancient
Iraq, about 2500 BC, punning was used by scribes to represent words
incuneiform. The Maya are known for having used puns in their
hieroglyphic writing, and for using them in their modern languages.
In Japan, "graphomania" was one type of pun.
Flibbertigibbet & PurreThis is the chronicle of how I
started out researching the word "flibbertigibbet" and ended up
finding a selcouth pun of Shakespeare's from King Lear that's lain
undiscovered by all but one or two people since 1603, amongst other
things.TheCastle of Perseverance, a medieval morality play written
around 1425, isnotablefor having the first recorded instances of
the words flepergebet, flypyrgebet, and flepyrgebet, which were to
crystalise later as flibbertigibbet. The OED records this origin as
being "apparently an onomatopic representation of unmeaning
chatter" and gives its foremost meaning as a chattering or
gossiping person. But in 1603, Samuel Harsnett, the forty-two year
old then Vicar of Chigwell, used Fliberdigibbet (with a "d") in his
hilarious polemicA Declaration of Egregious Popish Imposturesto
denote not a gossiping fishwife, but a demon.Entered in the
Stationers' Register on the 16th of March, theDeclarationis a
retort at the actions of Catholics at the time who were using
possession by demons and subsequent exorcisms as methods to
frighten the public into Catholicism. Chapter Ten is a deposition
of "the trange names of their deuils", and contitutes an
extraordinary nomenclature bazaar: Maho, Modu, Pippin, Philpot,
Hilco, Smolkin, Hillio, Hiaclito, Lustie huffe-cap, Soforce,
Cliton, Bernon, Hilo, Motubizanto, Killico, Hob, Portirichio,
Frateretto, Fliberdigibbet, Hoberdidance, Tocobatto, Lustie Jollie
Jenkin, Delicat, Puffe, Purre, Lustie Dickie, Cornerd-cappe, Nurre,
Molkin, Wilkin, Helcmodion, and Kellicocam.Note that not only
Fliberdigibbet is lifted from comic colloquial words of the time,
but Hoberdidance too. Michael Quinion, in his treatment of the
wordhobbledehoysuggests that "it may well be related to
Hoberdidance or Hobbididance, which was the name of a malevolent
sprite associated with the Morris dance (and whose name is from
Hob, an old name for the Devil; nothing to do with hobbits)." In
fact, Tolkien subconsciously took the word hobbit from a list of
untoward creatures even more staggering than Harsnett's in a piece
inThe Denham Tractsby Michael Aislabie Denham, so "hobbit" and
"Hob" are indeed related. Denham himself called his staggering
piece "Ghosts Never Appear on Christmas Eve!", which is a
reference, of course, to Hamlet.Shakespeare evidentally took to
Harsnett's list of demons as he used several of them inKing Lear,
in Act III Scenes iv and vi. Specifically, Edgar, feigning the
madness of aTom O'Bedlam, mentions Smulkin (Smolkin), Obidicut
(Haberdicut), Hobbididence (Hoberdidance), Mahu (Maho), Modo
(Modu), Flibbertigibbet (Fliberdigibbet), Frateretto, and
Hoppedance (Hoberdidance). In trying to find out more about this
list, I came across an apparently unheeded observation by Thomas
Alfred Spalding in his 1880 workElizabethan Demonologythat deserved
further investigation:In addition to these, Killico has probably
been corrupted into Pillicocka much more probable explanation of
the word than either of those suggested by Dyce in his glossary;
and I have little doubt that the ordinary reading of the line,
"Pur! the cat is gray!" in Act III. vi. 47, is incorrect; that Pur
is not an interjection, but the repetition of the name of another
devil, Purre, who is mentioned by Harsnet. The passage in question
occurs only in the quartos, and therefore the fact that there is no
stop at all after the word "Pur" cannot be relied upon as helping
to prove the correctness of this supposition. On the other hand,
there is nothing in the texts to justify the insertion of the note
of exclamation.It is also on Spalding's word alone that I take
Obidicut to be a derivation of Harsnett's "Haberdicut", since I was
unable to find Haberdicut in theDeclarationmyself. But as to the
observations of Spalding quoted above, I note firstly that in place
of his suggestion that Pillicock is a corruption of Killico, the
more likely source is either Kellicocam or a portmanteau of Killico
and Kellicocam. In the quartos, Edgar is recorded to say "Pilicock
ate on pelicocks hill", even though the First Folio normalises
thisor perhaps records this more accuratelyas "Pillicock sat on
Pillicock hill". Killico may have the vowels of the First Folio,
but only Kellicocam has the "cock" sound. It is most likely too, of
course, that the former is an abbreviation of the latter.But the
Pur claim is much more fascinating, and I wanted to corroborate
Spalding's claim. On a close examination of Harsnett's work, page
50, it seemed to me that the word used couldn't possibly be Purre
since the context of its use was "Puffe, and?urre" where the ?
denotes an italicised capital letter that's different from the
clear P of Puffe, but that is somewhat difficult to make out. If it
turned out to be an F, it might have made sense for Pur to be a pun
on Puffe and Furre, but in comparing it to both other instances of
F and T, it didn't fit. Then it dawned on me thatinitialcapital
letters used a different, more lavish, glyph and that for some
reason the typographer had used an initial italic P here even
though it wasn't initial. This was affirmed by the use of the same
glyph earlier on in the work, on page 21, in the name of "SirGeorge
Peckham". It's used inconsistently there too.I then went to the
trouble of examining each of the five quartos of King Lear that the
British Library haspublished online. In each one the phrase is
exactly the same, as it occurs in the last line of the
following:Ed. Let vs deale iutly, leepet or waket thou iolly
hepheard,Thy heepe bee in the corne, and for one blat of thy
minikinmouth, thy heepe hall take no harme, Pur the cat is gray.The
capitalisation after a comma reinforces Spalding's conjecture to a
point where I think the modern interpretation, which every version
that I can find uses, of "Pur! the cat is gray" on a new line is
entirely erroneous; Pur is the name of the demon, and hence a pun
on the sound of the cat-like shape that it's assumed. There's such
a long chain of bad editorialisations of Shakespeare from before
Warburton and onwards that it's important to remember that we're
just at the latest stage of understanding, and not the
goal.Incidentally, in the Halliwell-Phillipps (C.34.k.17) quarto of
1608, an annotator has gone through amending some of the errors in
the text, and has occasionally underlined a passage. "Pur the cat
is gray" is one of those passages which has been underlined, though
for what reason it's difficult to tell.It occurred to me that the
list of names in theDeclarationmay also help to clear up the
strange word of Edgar's which is given first (III.iv) as "Seey" in
the First Folio and in quartos one, two, and three as "caese",
"cease", and "ceas"; and second (III.vi) as "see" in the First
Folio only. It's amended by contemporary editors as "Sessa!", which
is an interjection thatsome takeas meaning "be off with you!", and
which has its canonical spelling taken from the only other possible
use, in I.i of The Taming of the Shrew. On this mysterious word,
the OED reports:[perh. var. of SA, SA, or possibly a. F. cessez
'cease!' It is not certain that modern editors are right in
inserting the form sessa in all the passages; the word may not be
the same in the three places.]1. An exclamation of uncertain
meaning.Thecessezidea is from Dr. Johnson in his notes on King
Lear. On "Dolphin my Boy, BoySesey" specifically, Dr.
Johnsoninsightfully commentsthat "of this passage I can make
nothing. I believe it corrupt: for wildness, not nonsense, is the
effect of a disordered imagination." The closest match in Harsnett
for Sesey is Soforce, and for Dolphin Delicat, but I believe both
too far removed to merit too serious a consideration. At best, it
is possible that Shakespeare had invented another name as far
removed as Obidicut is from Haberdicut, but that it's now lost to
us due to the transcription errors for which the scriveners of the
time were well known. Compare, for example, how in one of the first
quartos (C.34.k.17) Flibbertigibbet
isSriberdegibet(orSriberdegibit), inanotherit'sSirberdegibit, and
in both Smulkin is the rather wonderful "snulbug".Snulbug could
even be a word from Shakespeare own pen, later changed to accord
more closely to Harsnett's original. Even though for centuries we
have tried, in the words of H.H. Furness, to "comprehend each
syllable that is uttered, or strain our ears to catch every measure
of the heavenly harmony, or trace the subtle workings of consummate
art" from Shakespeare, it's a shame and a relief that we'll always
have a long way to go.
Trinity
Part of a series on
Christianity
Christians hold Jesus to be Christ
JesusChrist[hide]Virgin birth
Crucifixion
Resurrection
EasterJesus in Christianity
Bible / Foundations[hide]Old Testament
New Testament
GospelBooks
Canon(Christian canons)
Apocrypha
Apostles
Church
Creeds
KingdomNew Covenant
Theology[hide]Apologetics
Baptism
Christology
FatherSon
Holy Spirit
History of theology
Salvation
Trinity
Ten Commandments
Historyandtraditions[hide]Timeline
Mary
Peter
Paul
Fathers
EarlyConstantine the Great
Ecumenical councilsMissions
EastWest Schism
CrusadesProtestant Reformation
General topics[hide]Art
Criticism
Ecumenism
Liturgical yearLiturgy
Music
Other religions
PrayerSermon
Symbolism
Denominations[show]
Christianity portal
v
t
e
TheChristiandoctrineof theTrinitydefinesGodas three
divinepersons(Greek:):[1]theFather, theSon(Jesus Christ), and
theHoly Spirit. The three persons are distinct yet coexist in
unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal andconsubstantial(Greek:). Put
another way, the three persons of the Trinity are of
onebeing(Greek:).[2]The Trinity is considered to be
amysteryofChristian faith.[3]According to this doctrine, there is
only one God in three persons. Each person is God, whole and
entire. They are distinct from one another in their relations of
origin: as theFourth Lateran Councildeclared, "it is the Father who
generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who
proceeds". While distinct in their relations with one another, they
are one in all else. The whole work of creation and grace is a
single operation common to all three divine persons, who at the
same time operate according to their unique properties, so that all
things are from the Father, through the Son and in the Holy
Spirit.[4]Trinitarianism (one deity/three persons) contrasts with
Christiannon-Trinitarianpositions which includeBinitarianism(one
deity/two persons),Unitarianism(one deity/one person),
theOnenessorModalismbelief, andThe Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints' view that theGodheadis a council of three
deities, perfectly united in purpose and will, but nevertheless
separate and distinct individuals.[5]EtymologyPart of a series on
the
AttributesofGod
AseityEternityGraciousnessHolinessImmanenceImmutabilityImpassibilityImpeccabilityIncorporealityLoveMissionOmnibenevolenceOmnipotenceOmnipresenceOmniscienceOnenessProvidenceRighteousnessSimplicityTranscendenceTrinityVeracityWrath
vte
The"Shield of the Trinity" or "Scutum Fidei" diagramof
traditional Western Christian symbolism.The English wordTrinityis
derived fromLatinTrinitas, meaning "the number three, a
triad".[6]This abstract noun is formed from the
adjectivetrinus(three each, threefold, triple),[7]as the
wordunitasis the abstract noun formed fromunus(one).The
corresponding word inGreekis, meaning "a set of three" or "the
number three".[8]The first recorded use of this Greek word in
Christian theology (though not about the Divine Trinity) was
byTheophilus of Antiochin about 170. He wrote:[9][10]"In like
manner also the three days which were before the luminaries,
aretypesof the Trinity [], of God, andHis Word, andHis wisdom. And
the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may
be God, the Word, wisdom, man."[11]Tertullian, a Latin theologian
who wrote in the early 3rd century, is credited with using the
words "Trinity",[12]"person" and "substance"[13]to explain that the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one in essencenot one in
Person".[14]About a century later, in 325, theFirst Council of
Nicaeaestablished the doctrine of the Trinity asorthodoxyand
adopted theNicene Creed, which described Christ as "God of God,
Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of
one substance (homoousios) with the Father".PersonhoodIn the
Trinity doctrine, eachpersonis understood as having the identical
essence or nature, not merely similar natures.[15]The being of
Christ can be said to have dominated theological discussions and
councils of the church until the 7th century, and resulted in the
Nicene and Constantinopolitan creeds, the Ephesine Formula of 431,
the Christological statement of the Epistola Dogmatica of Leo I to
Flavianus, and the condemnation of Monothelism in theSixth
Ecumenical Council(680-681). From these councils, the following
christological doctrines were condemned as
heresies:Ebionism,Docetism,Basilidianism,AlogismorArtemonism,Patripassianism,Sabellianism,Arianism,Apollinarianism,Nestorianism,Eutychianism,Monophysitism,
andMonothelitism.[16]Since the beginning of the3rd century[17]the
doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as "the one God exists in
three Persons andone substance, Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit."[18]Trinitarianism, belief in the Trinity, is a mark
ofRoman Catholicism,EasternandOriental Orthodoxyas well as of the
"mainstream traditions" arising from theProtestant Reformation,
such
asAnglicanism,Baptist,Methodism,LutheranismandPresbyterianism.The
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Churchdescribes the Trinity as
"the central dogma ofChristian theology".[18]References used from
Scripture
God the Father(top), and theHoly Spirit(represented by a dove)
depicted aboveJesus, painting byFrancesco AlbaniAlthough theNew
Testamentdoes not use the word "" (Trinity) nor explicitly teach
it, it provided the material upon which the doctrine of the Trinity
was formulated.[19]Reflection by early Christians on passages such
as theGreat Commission: "Go therefore and makedisciplesof all
nations,baptizingthem in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit"[Matt28:19]andPaul the Apostle's blessing: "The
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and thelove of Godand the fellowship
of the Holy Spirit be with you all,"[2 Cor. 13:13]while at the same
time the JewishShema Yisrael: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God,
the Lord is one."[Deuteronomy6:4][20]led the early Christians to
question which way the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in unity.
Later, the diverse references to God, Jesus, and the Spirit found
in the New Testament were systematized into a Trinityone God
subsisting in three persons and one substanceto combat heretical
tendencies of how the three are related and to defend the church
against charges of worshiping two or three gods.[21]In addition,
theOld Testamenthas also been interpreted as foreshadowing the
Trinity,[22]by referring to God's word,[Ps33:6]his
spirit,[Isa61:1]and Wisdom,[Prov9:1]as well as narratives such as
the appearance of the three men toAbraham.[Gen18][18]However, it is
generally agreed that it would go beyond the intention and spirit
of the Old Testament to correlate these notions directly with later
Trinitarian doctrine.[23][24]Some Church Fathers believed that a
knowledge of the mystery was granted to the prophets and saints of
the "OldDispensation", and that they identified the divine
messenger ofGenesis16:7,21:17,31:11,Exodus3:2and Wisdom of the
sapiential books with the Son, and "the spirit of the Lord" with
the Holy Spirit.[23]Other Church Fathers, such asGregory Nazianzen,
argued in hisOrationsthat the revelation was gradual:The Old
Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely.
The New manifested the Son, and suggested the deity of the Spirit.
Now the Spirit himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a
clearer demonstration of himself. For it was not safe, when the
Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim
the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us
further.[25]Some scholars dispute the authenticity of the Trinity
and argue that the doctrine is the result of "later theological
interpretations of Christ's nature and function."[26][27]The
concept was expressed in early writings from the beginning of the
2nd century forward, and other scholars hold that the way the New
Testament repeatedly speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit is such as to "compel a trinitarian understanding of
God".[28][edit]References to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
The earliest known depiction of the Trinity,Dogmatic
Sarcophagus, 350 AD[29]Vatican Museums.Some biblical verses
specifically reference the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct
entities in a single narrative. While trinitarians interpret these
passages as support for the notion of a Trinity, because these
verses speak of distinct entities mentioned by name, and not of a
Trinity, non-trinitarians also appeal to these verses in support of
their argument that a Trinity was not envisioned at the time of
their authorship."As soon as Jesus Christ was baptized, he went up
out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the
Spirit of God descending like a dove and landing on him. And a
voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am
well pleased.'"[Mt3:1617][Mk1:1011][Luke3:22][John1:32]"The angel
answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and
the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason
the holy Child shall be called theSon of God.'"[Luke1:35]"How much
more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal
Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences
from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living
God!"[Heb9:14]"But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to
heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right
hand of God."[Acts7:55]The eighth chapter of Paul's letter to the
Romans, which contains many complex formulations of the
relationship between God, Christ, and Spirit, including "the Spirit
of him who raised Jesus from the dead,"[Rom8:11]"all who are led by
the Spirit of God are sons of God,"[8:14-17]and "the Spirit
intercedes for the saints according to the will of
God."[8:26-27]Some verses also reference the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit as part of a single formula, which trinitarians view as
support of a Trinity, though not explicitly stated.
Non-trinitarians argue that because these verses are conclusions to
their respective books, they may be later trinitarian formulaic
additions to the original works, which were added after the
doctrine of the Trinity had begun to be debated and accepted as
dogmatic.[30]"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit"[Mt28:19](seeTrinitarian formula). It has been claimed
that writings ofEusebiusshow the mention of Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit to have displaced a request by Jesus that his disciples
baptize people in his name.[31]However, all extant manuscripts of
the Gospel of Matthew unanimously contain the trinitarian baptismal
formula without variation at 28:19.[32]"The grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be
with all of you."[2 Cor. 13:14]Comma JohanneumMain article:Comma
JohanneumIn addition to these,1 John 5:7, which is found in theKing
James Versionbut not in modern English translations, states: "For
there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." However, thisComma
Johanneumis not considered to be part of the genuine text.[33]It is
not included in the official Latin text of the Roman Catholic
Church,[34]nor inVulgatemanuscripts earlier than about AD
800.[35][36]Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, seems not to have
known the text.[37]The earliest undoubted reference to it is by
4th-centuryPriscillian,[36]but some hold that it was referred to by
3rd-centuryCyprian.[37][38]It is commonly found in Latin
manuscripts other than the earliest, but is absent from the Greek
manuscripts except for a few late examples, where the passage
appears to have been back-translated from the Latin.Erasmus, the
compiler of theTextus Receptus, on which the King James Version was
based, noticed that the passage was not found in any of the Greek
manuscripts at his disposal and refused to include it until
presented with a manuscript containing it, while still suspecting,
as is now agreed, that the phrase was agloss.[39][edit]Jesus as
God
God the Father (top), the Holy Spirit (represented by a dove),
and child Jesus, painting byBartolom Esteban MurilloAs opposed to
theSynoptic Gospels, theGospel of Johnhas been seen as aimed at
emphasizing Jesus' divinity, presenting Jesus as theLogos,
pre-existent and divine, from its first words, "In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God."[John1:1][40]John also portrays Jesus as thecreator of the
universe, such that "without him was not any thing made that was
made."[John1:3]Some render John 1:1 as "the Word was a god", "the
word was godlike", "the word was divine", denying that the doctrine
of the Trinity is supported by the verse.The Gospel of John ends
with Thomas's apparent confession of faith to Jesus, "My Lord and
my God!"[John20:28][21]There is no significant tendency among
modern scholars to deny that John 1:1 and John 20:28 identify Jesus
with God.[41]Other passages of John's Gospel interpreted in this
sense include, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I
am.",[8:58]"I and the Father are one.",[10:30]"....the Father is in
me and I am in the Father.",[10:38][42]and "....he was even calling
God his own Father, making himself equal with God."[John5:18]John
is also seen to identify Jesus as the Lord whom Isaiah
saw,[John12:34-45][Isa6:1-10]while other texts[Heb1:1-12]are also
understood as referring to Jesus as God.[43][44][45]There are also
a few possible biblical supports for the Trinity found in
theSynoptic Gospels. The Gospel of Matthew, for example, quotes
Jesus as saying, "all things have been handed over to me by my
Father".[Mt11:27]This is similar to John, who wrote that Jesus
said, "All that the Father has is mine".[John16:15]These verses
have been quoted to defend the omnipotence of Christ, having all
power, as well as the omniscience of Christ, having all
wisdom.Expressions also in thePauline epistleshave been interpreted
as attributing divinity to Jesus. They include: "For by him all
things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and
invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all
things were created by him and for him"[Colossians1:16]and "For in
Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily
form",[Colossians2:9]and inPaul the Apostle's claim to have been
"sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the
Father".[Galatians1:1][46]InDaniel7the prophet records his vision
of "one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven", who
"was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples,
nations and men of every language worshiped him" (v. 14).
Christians believe that worship is only properly given to God, and
that considering other Bible passages this "son of man" can be
identified as the second person of the Trinity. Parallels may be
drawn between Daniel's vision and Jesus' words to the Jewish high
priest that in the future those assembled would see "the son of Man
sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the
clouds of heaven."[Mt26:64-65]Jesus was immediately accused of
blasphemy, as at other times when he had identified his unity with
the Father.[John10:33]Christians also believe that John saw the
resurrected, glorified Jesus and described him as "One like theSon
of Man."[Rev1:13]
God in the person of the Son confrontsAdam and EveSome believe
the Trinity was also introduced in the Old Testament book
ofIsaiahwritten around 700 years before Jesus, copies of which were
preserved from 300 years before Jesus in theDead Sea
Scrolls.Isaiah9:6prophesies "For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a
Son is given; And the government will be upon his shoulder. And his
name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting
Father, Prince of Peace." Thus a son who will be born at a
particular point in history who is called "Mighty God". Some
non-Trinitarians argue that this passage would also imply that
Jesus is the Father, the first person in the Trinity. However,
Trinitarians contend that Jesus is the second person in the
Trinity, and he is called "Everlasting Father" because of his role
as Creator of men.Another possible biblical demonstration of the
deity of Jesus comes from the biblical scholar[47]Granville
Sharpwho noted the construction of a particular Greek idiom, which
is now called Granville Sharp's rule.[48]According to the rule,
when two nouns that are personal, singular, and not proper names
are connected in a TSKS pattern (TheSubstantiveKaiSubstantive,
where 'kai' is Greek for 'and') then the two nouns refer to the
same person.[49]Passages likeTitus2:13and2Peter1:1fit this pattern.
Therefore, when Paul says:[Titus2:13]"The great God and savior,
Jesus Christ" he is grammatically identifying Jesus Christ as the
great God. Proper nouns are not used in this phrase.[50]In his
review of over 1,000 years of Greek literature, Christopher
Wordsworth confirmed that early church Fathers had this same
understanding of the text.[51]An opposing view of the Granville
Sharp rule, however, argues that in Matthew 21:12 Jesus cast out
all those that were selling and buying in the temple, ( ). So, too,
in Mark 11:15, the two classes are made distinct by the insertion
of before . Because of this, they argue that no one can reasonably
suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling
and buying, yet they fit within the Granville Sharp rule's
construction. Therefore, according to this view, there is biblical
evidence to distinguish between "the great God" and "our Saviour,
Jesus Christ" in Titus 2:13, and by extension, 2 Peter
1:1.[52]However, unlike 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13, Matthew 21:12
and Mark 11:15 do not fit Sharp's rule, since they use
pluralparticiples, not singular personal nouns.Some have suggested
that John presents a hierarchy when he quotes Jesus as saying, "The
Father is greater than I",[14:28]a statement which was appealed to
by non-trinitarian groups such asArianism.[53]However, Church
Fathers such asAugustine of Hippoargued this statement was to be
understood as Jesus speaking in the form of a man.[54]Others have
suggested that passages in the Synoptic Gospels contradict the
Trinity. For example, theAgnoetaesect argued that Jesus himself
denied omniscience, when he said "but of that day and that hour
knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the
Son, but the Father".[Mark13:32][Matthew24:36]However, the Church
Fathers reasoned that, in the Bible, "to know" can sometimes mean
"to reveal". For example, Augustine of Hippo argued that when
Deuteronomy 13:3 said "the LORD your God is testing you, to know
whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart", "to know"
here meant "to reveal".[55]So too, Mark 13:32 could be saying that
the Father alonerevealsthat day, but Jesus himself could know the
day as well. This is supported by passages that seem to argue that
Jesus did know all things, such as, "He said to him the third time,
'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter was grieved because he
said to him the third time, 'Do you love me?' and he said to him,
'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' Jesus said
to him, 'Feed my sheep.'"[John21:17][edit]Holy Spirit as GodAs the
Arian controversy was dwindling down, the debate moved from the
deity of Jesus Christ to the equality of the Holy Spirit with the
Father and Son. On one hand, thePneumatomachisect declared that the
Holy Spirit was an inferior person to the Father and Son. On the
other hand, theCappadocian Fathersargued that the Holy Spirit was
an equal person to the Father and Son.Although the main text used
in defense of the deity of the Holy Spirit was Matthew 28:19,
Cappadocian Fathers such asBasil the Greatargued from other verses
such as "But Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart
to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the
proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain
your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why
is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not
lied to men but to God.'"[Acts5:3-4][56]Another passage the
Cappadocian Fathers quoted from was "By the word of the Lord the
heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their
host."[Psalm33:6]According to their understanding, because "breath"
and "spirit" in Hebrew are both "" ("ruach"), Psalm 33:6 is
revealing the roles of the Son and Holy Spirit as co-creators. And
since, according to them,[56]because the holy God can only create
holy beings such as the angels, the Son and Holy Spirit must be
God.Yet another argument from the Cappadocian Fathers to prove that
the Holy Spirit is of the same nature as the Father and Son comes
from "For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that
person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of
God except the Spirit of God."[1Cor.2:11]They reasoned that this
passage proves that the Holy Spirit has the same relationship to
God as the spirit within us has to us.[56]The Cappadocian Fathers
also quoted, "Do you not know that you are God's temple and that
God's Spirit dwells in you?"[1Cor.3:16]and reasoned that it would
be blasphemous for an inferior being to take up residence in a
temple of God, thus proving that the Holy Spirit is equal with the
Father and the Son.[57]They also combined "the servant does not
know what his master is doing"[John15:15]with 1 Corinthians 2:11 in
an attempt to show that the Holy Spirit is not the slave of God,
and therefore his equal.[58]The Pneumatomachi contradicted the
Cappadocian Fathers by quoting, "Are they not all ministering
spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit
salvation?",[Hebrews1:14]in effect arguing that the Holy Spirit is
no different than other created angelic spirits.[59]The Church
Fathers disagreed, saying that the Holy Spirit is greater than the
angels, since the Holy Spirit is the one who grants the
foreknowledge for prophecy[1Cor.12:8-10]so that the angels could
announce events to come.[56]Claims of Old Testament
prefigurations
The Holy Trinity, c. 13001350. English or
Spanish.Alabaster.National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.Genesis
1819 have been interpreted by Christians as a Trinitarian
text.[60]The narrative has the Lord appearing to Abraham, who was
visited by three men.[Gen18:1-2]Then inGenesis19, "the two angels"
visitedLotat Sodom. The interplay between Abraham on the one hand,
and the Lord/three men/the two angels on the other was an
intriguing text for those who believed in a single God in three
persons.Justin Martyr, andJohn Calvinsimilarly, interpreted it such
that Abraham was visited by God, who was accompanied by two
angels.[61]Justin supposed that the god who visited Abraham was
distinguishable from the god who remains in the heavens, but was
nevertheless identified as the (monotheistic) god. Justin
appropriated the god who visited Abraham to Jesus, the second
person of the Trinity.Augustine, in contrast, held that the three
visitors to Abraham were the three persons of the Trinity.[61]He
saw no indication that the visitors were unequal, as would be the
case in Justin's reading. Then inGenesis19, two of the visitors
were addressed by Lot in the singular: "Lot said to them, 'Not so,
my lord.'"[Gen 19:18 KJV][61]Augustine saw that Lot could address
them as one because they had a single substance, despite the
plurality of persons.[62]Some Christians see indications in the Old
Testament of a plurality and unity in God, an idea that is rejected
by Judaism.Some Christians interpret thetheophaniesor appearances
of theAngel of the Lordas revelations of a person distinct from
God, who is nonetheless called God.[63]This interpretation is found
in Christianity as early asJustin MartyrandMelito of Sardis, and
reflects ideas that were already present inPhilo.[64]The Old
Testament theophanies were thus seen asChristophanies, each a
"preincarnate appearance of the
Messiah".[65]Theophanies:Genesis12:7andGenesis18:1God appeared to
AbrahamGenesis26:2andGenesis26:24God appeared to
IsaacGenesis35:1,Genesis35:9andGenesis48:3God appeared to
JacobExodus3:16andExodus4:5God appeared to MosesExodus6:3God
appeared to Abraham, Isaac, JacobLeviticus9:4andLeviticus6:2God
appeared to AaronDeuteronomy31:15God appeared to Moses and Joshua1
Samuel 3:21God appeared to Samuel1 Kings 3:5,1 Kings 9:2and1 Kings
11:9God appeared to Solomon2 Chronicles 1God appeared to David2
Chronicles 7:12God appeared to SolomonThe angel (messenger) of the
Lord:Genesis16:714Genesis22:914Exodus3:2Exodus23:20,21Numbers22:2135Judges2:15Judges6:1122Judges13:3Possible
references in the Deuterocanonical booksInWisdom,Sirach, andBaruch,
the personifications of wisdom have been seen in the Christian
traditions as prefigures for Christ. The most explicit reference to
the Trinity is in Wisdom of Solomon:Who has learned your counsel,
unless you have given wisdom and sent your holy spirit from on
high? And thus the paths of those on earth were set right, and
people were taught what pleases you, and were saved by
wisdom.Wisdom of Solomon 9:17-18
History
PopeClement Iprays to the Trinity, in a typical post-Renaissance
depiction byGianbattista Tiepolo.Main article:Trinity of the Church
FathersThe first of the early church fathers recorded as using the
word Trinity wasTheophilus of Antiochwriting in the late second
century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His
Wisdom (Sophia)[66]in the context of a discussion of the first
three days of creation. The first defence of the doctrine of the
Trinity was in the early third century by the early church
fatherTertullian. He explicitly defined the Trinity as Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit and defended the Trinitarian theology against the
"Praxean" heresy.[67]Although there is much debate as to whether
the beliefs of theApostleswere merely articulated and explained in
the Trinitarian Creeds,[68]or were corrupted and replaced with new
beliefs,[69][70]all scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves
were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies, however, were
great and many, and took some centuries to be resolved.Of these
controversies, the most significant developments were articulated
in the first four centuries by theChurch Fathers[68]in reaction
toAdoptionism,Sabellianism, andArianism. Adoptionism was the belief
that Jesus was an ordinary man, born of Joseph and Mary, who became
the Christ and Son of God at his baptism. In 269, theSynods of
AntiochcondemnedPaul of Samosatafor his Adoptionist theology, and
also condemned the term "homoousios" in the sense he used
it.[71]Sabellianism taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
areaspectsof how humanity has interacted with or experienced God.
In the role of the Father, God is the provider and creator of all.
In the role of the Son, God is manifested in the flesh as a human
to bring about the salvation of mankind. In the role of the Holy
Spirit, God manifests himself from heaven through his actions on
the earth and within the lives of Christians. This view was
rejected asheresyby the Ecumenical Councils.[which?]Arianism, which
was coming into prominence during the 4th century along with
Trinitarianism, taught that the Father came before the Son, and
that the Son was a distinct being from the Holy Spirit. In 325,
theCouncil of Nicaeaadopted a term for the relationship between the
Father and the Son that from then on was seen as the hallmark of
orthodoxy; it declared that the Son is "of the same being" () as
the Father. This was further developed into the formula "three
persons, one being".SaintAthanasius, who was a participant in the
Council, stated that the bishops were forced to use this
terminology, which is not found in Scripture, because the Biblical
phrases that they would have preferred to use were claimed by
theAriansto be capable of being interpreted in what the bishops
considered to be a heretical sense.[72]They therefore "commandeered
the non-scriptural[73]termhomoousios('of the same being') to
safeguard the essential relation of the Son to the Father that had
been denied byArius."[74]Moreover, the meanings of "ousia" and
"hypostasis" overlapped then, so that the latter term for some
meantessenceand for othersperson.Athanasius of Alexandria(293373)
helped to clarify the terms.[75]The Confession of the Council of
Nicaea said little about the Holy Spirit.[76]The doctrine of the
divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by
Athanasius in the last decades of his life.[77]He defended and
refined the Nicene formula.[76]By the end of the 4th century, under
the leadership ofBasil of Caesarea,Gregory of Nyssa, andGregory of
Nazianzus(theCappadocian Fathers), the doctrine had reached
substantially its current form.[76]The Ante-Nicene Fathers,
although likely foreign to the specifics of Trinitarian theology
because they were not defined until the 4th century, nevertheless
affirmed Christ's deity and referenced "Father, Son and Holy
Spirit". Trinitarians view these as elements of the codified
doctrine.[78]By the end of the4th century, as a result of
controversies concerning the proper sense in which to apply to
God,Christand the Holy Spirit terms such as "person", "nature",
"essence", and "substance", the doctrine of the Trinity took the
form that has since been maintained in all the historic confessions
of Christianity.[20][18][79][80]TheologyBaptism as the beginning
lesson
Baptism of Christ, byPiero della Francesca, 15th centuryBaptism
is generally conferred with theTrinitarian formula, "in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit."[Mt28:19]Trinitarians identify this name with the Christian
faith into which baptism is an initiation, as seen for example in
the statement ofBasil the Great(330379): "We are bound to be
baptized in the terms we have received, and to profess faith in the
terms in which we have been baptized." "This is the Faith of our
baptism", theFirst Council of Constantinoplealso says (382), "that
teaches us to believe in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit. According to this Faith there is one Godhead,
Power, and Being of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit."Matthew28:19may be taken to indicate that baptism was
associated with this formula from the earliest decades of the
Church's existence.Some groups, such asOneness Pentecostals, demur
from the Trinitarian view on baptism. For them, the omission of the
formula in Acts outweighs all other considerations, and is a
liturgical guide for their own practice. For this reason, they
often focus on the baptisms in Acts, citing many authoritative
theological works. For example, Kittel is cited where he is
speaking of the phrase "in the name" (Greek: ) as used in the
baptisms recorded in Acts:The distinctive feature of Christian
baptism is that it is administered in Christ ( ), or in the name of
Christ ( ). (Gerhard Kittel,Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 1:539.)The formula ( )
seems to have been a tech. term in Hellenistic commerce ("to the
account"). In both cases the use of the phrase is understandable,
since the account bears the name of the one who owns it, and in
baptism the name of Christ is pronounced, invoked and confessed by
the one who baptises or the one baptised[Acts22:16]or both.
(Kittel, 1:540.)Those who place great emphasis on the baptisms in
Acts often likewise question the authenticity ofMatthew28:19in its
present form. A. Ploughman, apparently followingF. C. Conybeare,
has questioned the authenticity ofMatthew28:19, but most scholars
of New Testamenttextual criticismaccept the authenticity of the
passage, since there are no variant manuscripts regarding the
formula, and the extant form of the passage is attested in
theDidache[81]and otherpatristicworks of the 1st and 2nd
centuries:Ignatius,[82]Tertullian,[83]Hippolytus,[84]Cyprian,[85]andGregory
Thaumaturgus.[86]TheActs of the Apostlesonly mentions believers
being baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ"[Acts2:38][10:48]and
"in the name of the Lord Jesus."[8:16][19:5]There are no biblical
references to baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit outside ofMatthew28:19, nor references, biblical
or patristic, to baptism in the name of (the Lord) Jesus (Christ)
outside the Acts of the Apostles.[87]Commenting onMatthew28:19,
Gerhard Kittel states:This threefold relation [of Father, Son and
Spirit] soon found fixed expression in the triadic formulae in2
Cor. 13:14and in1 Cor. 12:4-6. The form is first found in the
baptismal formula inMatthew28:19; Did., 7. 1 and 3....[I]t is
self-evident that Father, Son and Spirit are here linked in an
indissoluble threefold relationship.[88]In thesynoptic
Gospelsthebaptism of Jesusis often interpreted as a manifestation
of all three persons of the Trinity: "And when Jesus was baptized,
he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were
opened and he saw the spirit of God descending like a dove, and
alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, 'This is my
beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.'"[Mt3:1617]One GodMain
article:MonotheismChristianity, having emerged fromJudaism, is a
monotheistic religion. Never in the New Testament does the
trinitarian concept become a "tritheism" (three Gods) nor even
two.[28]God is one, and that the Godhead is a single being is
strongly declared in the Bible:TheShemaof the Hebrew Scriptures:
"Hear, O Israel:the LORDour God, the LORDis one."[Deut6:4]The first
of theTen Commandments"Thou shalt have no other gods before
me"[5:7].and "Thus saith the LORDthe King of Israel and his
redeemer the LORDof hosts: I am the first and I am the last; and
beside me there is no God."[Isa44:6]In the New Testament: "The Lord
our God is one."[Mk12:29]In the Trinitarian view, the Father and
the Son and the Holy Ghost share the one essence, substance or
being. The central and crucial affirmation of Christian faith is
that there is one savior, God, and one salvation, manifest in Jesus
Christ, to which there is access only because of the Holy Spirit.
The God of the Old Testament is still the same as the God of the
New. In Christianity, statements about a single God are intended to
distinguish the Hebraic understanding from thepolytheisticview,
which see divine power as shared by several beings, beings which
can and do disagree and have conflicts with each other.God in three
personsAccording to the Trinity doctrine, God exists as
threepersons, orhypostases, but is one being, that is, has but a
single divine nature.[89]ChalcedoniansRoman Catholics,Orthodox
Christians, andProtestantshold that, in addition, the second person
of the TrinityGod the Son, Jesusassumed human nature, so that he
has two natures (and hence two wills), and is really and fully both
true God and true human.In theOriental Orthodoxtheology, the
Chalcedonian formulation is rejected in favor of the position of
the 3rd ecumenical council that the union of the two natures,
though unconfused, births a third nature: redeemed humanity, the
new creation, following Christology of St Cyril of Alexandria and
the formula " " - Jesus Christ being really and fully both true God
and true human. This doctrine is not to be confused with
monophysitism which is condemned by the Oriental Orthodox
churches.The members of the Trinity are said to be co-equal and
co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will. As
stated in theAthanasian Creed, the Father is uncreated, the Son is
uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated, and all three are
eternal with no beginning.[90]It has been stated that because three
persons exist in God as one unity,[91]"The Father and the Son and
the Holy Spirit" are not three different names for different parts
of God but one name for God,[92]because the Father can not be
divided from the Son or the Holy Spirit from the Son. God has
always loved, and there has always existed perfectly harmonious
communion between the three persons of the Trinity. One consequence
of this teaching is that God could not have created man to
havesomeone to talk toorto love: God "already" enjoyed personal
communion; being perfect, he did not create man because of a lack
or inadequacy he had. Another consequence, according to Rev. Fr.
Thomas Hopko, an Eastern Orthodox theologian, is that if God were
not a Trinity, he could not have loved prior to creating other
beings on whom to bestow his love. Thus God says, "Letusmake man
inourimage, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the
sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the
earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So
God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created
him; male and female he created them."[Gen1:26-27]For Trinitarians,
emphasis in Genesis 1:26 is on the plurality in the Deity, and in
1:27 on the unity of the divine Essence. A possible interpretation
of Genesis 1:26 is that God's relationships in the Trinity are
mirrored in man by the ideal relationship between husband and wife,
two persons becoming one flesh, as described inEve's creation later
in the next chapter.[2:22]Mutually indwellingA useful explanation
of the relationship of the distinct divine persons is called
"perichoresis", fromGreekgoing around,envelopment. This concept
refers for its basis toJohn1417, where Jesus is instructing the
disciples concerning the meaning of his departure. His going to the
Father, he says, is for their sake; so that he might come to them
when the "other comforter" is given to them. Then, he says, his
disciples will dwell in him, as he dwells in the Father, and the
Father dwells in him, and the Father will dwell in them. This is
so, according to the theory of perichoresis, because the persons of
the Trinity "reciprocally contain one another, so that one
permanently envelopes and is permanently enveloped by, the other
whom he yet envelopes". (Hilary of Poitiers,Concerning the
Trinity3:1).[93]This co-indwelling may also be helpful in
illustrating the Trinitarian conception of salvation. The first
doctrinal benefit is that it effectively excludes the idea that God
has parts. Trinitarians assert thatGod is a simple, not an
aggregate, being. The second doctrinal benefit is that it
harmonizes well with the doctrine that the Christian's union with
the Son in his humanity brings him into union with one who contains
in himself, in St. Paul's words, "all the fullness of deity" and
not a part. (See also:Theosis). Perichoresis provides an intuitive
figure of what this might mean. The Son, the eternal Word, is from
all eternity the dwelling place of God; he is the "Father's house",
just as the Son dwells in the Father and the Spirit; so that, when
the Spirit is "given", then it happens as Jesus said, "I will not
leave you as orphans; for I will come to you."[John14:18]Some forms
of human union are considered to be not identical but analogous to
the Trinitarian concept, as found for example in Jesus' words about
marriage: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother,
and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then
they are no more twain, but one flesh."[Mark10:78]According to the
words of Jesus, married persons are in some sense no longer two,
but joined into one. Therefore, Orthodox theologians also see the
marriage relationship as an image, or "icon" of the Trinity,
relationships of communion in which, in the words of St. Paul,
participants are "members one of another". As with marriage, the
unity of the church with Christ is similarly considered in some
sense analogous to the unity of the Trinity, following the prayer
of Jesus to the Father, for the church, that "they may be one, even
as we are one".[John17:22][edit]Eternal generation and
processionTrinitarianism affirms that the Son is "begotten" (or
"generated") of the Father and that the Spirit "proceeds" from the
Father, but the Father is "neither begotten nor proceeds". The
argument over whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, or
from the Father and the Son, was one of the catalysts of theGreat
Schism, in this case concerning the Western addition of theFilioque
clauseto theNicene Creed. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that,
in the sense of theLatinverbprocedere(which does not have to
indicate ultimate origin and is therefore compatible with
proceedingthrough), but not in that of the Greek verb (which
implies ultimate origin),[94]the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father
and the Son (seeFilioque), and the Eastern Orthodox Church, which
teaches that the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father alone, has made
no statement on the claim of a difference in meaning between the
two words, one Greek and one Latin, both of which are translated as
"proceeds".This language is often considered difficult because, if
used regarding humans or other created things, it would imply time
and change; when used here, no beginning, change in being, or
process within time is intended and is excluded. The Son is
generated ("born" or "begotten"), and the Spirit proceeds,
eternally.Augustine of Hippoexplains, "Thy years are one day, and
Thy day is not daily, but today; because Thy today yields not to
tomorrow, for neither does it follow yesterday. Thy today is
eternity; therefore Thou begat the Co-eternal, to whom Thou saidst,
'This day have I begotten Thee."[Ps2:7][edit]Son begotten, not
createdBecause the Son is begotten, not made, the substance of his
person is that of the deity. The creation is brought into being
through the Son, but the Son himself is not part of it except
through his incarnation.The church fathers used severalanalogiesto
express this thought. St.Irenaeus of Lyonswas the final major
theologian of the 2nd century. He writes, "the Father is God, and
the Son is God, for whatever is begotten of God is God."
(CompareSpinoza's philosophy of God.)Extending the analogy, it
might be said, similarly, that whatever is generated (procreated)
of humans is human. Thus, given that humanity is, in the words of
the Bible, "created in the image and likeness of God", an analogy
can be drawn between the Divine Essence and human nature, between
the Divine Persons and human persons. However, given the fall, this
analogy is far from perfect, even though, like the Divine Persons,
human persons are characterized by being "loci of relationship".
For Trinitarian Christians, this analogy is important with regard
to the Church, which St. Paul calls "the body of Christ" and whose
members are, because they are "members of Christ", also "members
one of another".However, an attempt to explain the mystery to some
extent must break down, and has limited usefulness, being designed,
not so much to fully explain the Trinity, but to point to the
experience of communion with the Triune God within the church as
the Body of Christ. The difference between those who believe in the
Trinity and those who do not, is not an issue of understanding the
mystery. The difference is primarily one of belief concerning the
personal identity of Christ. It is a difference in conception of
the salvation connected with Christ that drives all reactions,
either favorable or unfavorable, to the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity. As it is, the doctrine of the Trinity is directly tied up
withChristology.
Economic and ontological Trinity
Depiction of Trinity fromSaint Denis Basilicain Paris.Economic
Trinity: This refers to the acts of the triune God with respect to
the creation, history, salvation, the formation of the Church, the
daily lives of believers, etc. and describes how the Trinity
operates within history in terms of the roles or functions
performed by each Person of the TrinityGod's relationship with
creation.Ontological (or essential or immanent) Trinity: This
speaks of the interior life of the Trinity[John1:12]the reciprocal
relationships of Father, Son, and Spirit to each other without
reference to God's relationship with creation.The ancient Nicene
theologians argued that everything the Trinity does is done by
Father, Son, and Spirit working together with one will. The three
persons of the Trinity always work inseparably, for their work is
always the work of the one God. Because of this unity of will, the
Trinity cannot involve the eternal subordination of the Son to the
Father. Eternal subordination can only exist if the Son's will is
at least conceivably different from the Father's. But Nicene
orthodoxy says it is not. The Son's will cannot be different from
the Father's because it is the Father's. They have but one will as
they have but one being. Otherwise they would not be one God. If
there were relations of command and obedience between the Father
and the Son, there would be no Trinity at all but rather three
gods.[95]On this point St. Basil observes "When then He says, 'I
have not spoken of myself,' and again, 'As the Father said unto me,
so I speak,' and 'The word which ye hear is not mine, but [the
Father's] which sent me,' and in another place, 'As the Father gave
me commandment, even so I do,' it is not because He lacks
deliberate purpose or power of initiation, nor yet because He has
to wait for the preconcerted key-note, that he employs language of
this kind. His object is to make it plain that His own will is
connected in indissoluble union with the Father. Do not then let us
understand by what is called a 'commandment' a peremptory mandate
delivered by organs of speech, and giving orders to the Son, as to
a subordinate, concerning what He ought to do. Let us rather, in a
sense befitting the Godhead, perceive a transmission of will, like
the reflexion of an object in a mirror, passing without note of
time from Father to Son.."[96]In explaining why the Bible speaks of
the Son as being subordinate to the Father, the great theologian
Athanasius argued that scripture gives a "double account" of the
son of Godone of his temporal and voluntary subordination in the
incarnation, and the other of his eternal divine status.[97]For
Athanasius, the Son is eternally one in being with the Father,
temporally and voluntarily subordinate in his incarnate ministry.
Such human traits, he argued, were not to be read back into the
eternal Trinity.Like Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers also
insisted there was no economic inequality present within the
Trinity. As Basil wrote: "We perceive the operation of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit to be one and the same, in no respect showing
differences or variation; from this identity of operation we
necessarily infer the unity of nature."[98]Augustine also rejected
an economic hierarchy within the Trinity. He claimed that the three
persons of the Trinity "share the inseparable equality one
substance present in divine unity".[99]Because the three persons
are one in their inner life, this means that for Augustine their
works in the world are one. For this reason, it is an impossibility
for Augustine to speak of the Father commanding and the Son obeying
as if there could be a conflict of wills within the eternal
Trinity.John Calvinalso spoke at length about the doctrine of the
Trinity. Like Athanasius and Augustine before him, he concluded
thatPhilippians2:4-11prescribed how scripture was to be read
correctly. For him the Son's obedience is limited to the
incarnation and is indicative of his true humanity assumed for
human salvation.[100]Much of this work is summed up in the
Athanasian Creed. This creed stresses the unity of the Trinity and
the equality of the persons. It ascribes equal divinity, majesty,
and authority to all three persons. All three are said to be
"almighty" and "Lord" (no subordination in authority; "none is
before or after another" (no hierarchical ordering); and "none is
greater, or less than another" (no subordination in being or
nature). Thus, since the divine persons of the Trinity act with one
will, there is no possibility of hierarchy-inequality in the
Trinity.Catholic theologianKarl Rahnerwent so far as to say:"The
'economic' Trinity is the 'immanent' Trinity and the 'immanent'
Trinity is the 'economic' Trinity."[101]Since the 1980s, some
evangelical theologians have come to the conclusion that the
members of the Trinity may be economically unequal while remaining
ontologically equal. This theory was put forward by George W.
Knight III in his 1977 book The New Testament Teaching on the Role
Relationship of Men and Women, states that the Son of God is
eternally subordinated in authority to God the Father.[102]This
conclusion was used to support the main thesis of his book: that
women are permanently subordinated in authority to their husbands
in the home and to male leaders in the church, despite being
ontologically equal. Subscribers to this theory insist that the
Father has the role of giving commands and the Son has the role of
obeying them.[edit]Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and
Protestant distinctionsThe Western (Roman Catholic) tradition is
more prone to make positive statements concerning the relationship
of persons in the Trinity. Explanations of the Trinity are not the
same thing as the doctrine; nevertheless, the Augustinian West is
inclined to think in philosophical terms concerning the rationality
of God's being, and is prone on this basis to be more open than
theEastto seek philosophical formulations which make the doctrine
more intelligible, while recognizing that these formulations are
onlyanalogies.Eastern Christianity, for its part,
correlatesecclesiologyand Trinitarian doctrine, and seeks to
understand the doctrine of the Trinity via the experience of the
Church, which it understands to be "aniconof the Trinity".
Therefore, when St. Paul writes concerning Christians that all are
"members one of another", Eastern Christians in turn understand
this as also applying to the Divine Persons.The principal
disagreement between Western and Eastern Christianity on the
Trinity has been the relationship of the Holy Spirit with the other
two hypostases. The originalcredal formulationof theCouncil of
Constantinoplewas that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father".
While this phrase is still used unaltered both in the Eastern
Churches, including theEastern Catholic Churches, and, when the
Nicene Creed is recited inGreek, in theLatin Church, it became
customary in theLatin-speaking Church, beginning with the
provincialThird Council of Toledoin 589, to add "and the Son"
(LatinFilioque). Although this insertion into the Creed was
explicitly vetoed byPope Leo III,[103]it was finally used in aPapal
MassbyPope Benedict VIIIin 1014, thus completing its spread
throughoutWestern Christianity. TheEastern Orthodox Churchesobject
to it on ecclesiological and theological grounds, holding that
"from the Father" means "from the Father alone", while in the West
belief that the Holy Spirit "proceeds", in the Latin (and English)
meaning of this word, "from the Father and the Son" had already
been dogmatically declared to be orthodox faith in 447 byPope Leo
I, the Pope whoseTomewas approved at theCouncil of
Chalcedon,[104]and Pope Leo III, who opposed insertion of the
phrase into the Nicene Creed, "affirmed the orthodoxy of the
termFilioque, and approved its use in catechesis and personal
professions of faith".[103]The 1978AnglicanLambeth
Conferencerequested:that all member Churches of the Anglican
Communion should consider omitting the Filioque from the Nicene
Creed, and that the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission
through the Anglican Consultative Council should assist them in
presenting the theological issues to their appropriate synodical
bodies and should be responsible for any necessary consultation
with other Churches of the Western tradition.[105]None of the
member Churches has implemented this request; but theChurch of
England, while keeping the phrase in the Creed recited in its own
services, presents in itsCommon Worshipseries of service books a
text of the creed without it for use "on suitable ecumenical
occasions".[106]Most Protestant groups that use the creed also
include the Filioque clause. However, the issue is usually not
controversial among them because their conception is often less
exact than is discussed above (exceptions being the
PresbyterianWestminster Confession2:3, theLondon Baptist
Confession2:3, and the LutheranAugsburg Confession1:16, which
specifically address those issues). The clause is often understood
by Protestants to mean that the Spirit is sent from the Father, by
the Son,[citation needed]a conception which is not controversial in
either Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. A representative view of
Protestant Trinitarian theology is more difficult to provide, given
the diverse and decentralized nature of the various Protestant
churches.Questions of logical coherencyIn contrast toJoachim of
Fiore's historicization of the Trinity, there have been recent
philosophical attempts to defend the logical coherency of Trinity
by men such asPeter Geach. Regarding the formulation suggested by
Geach, not all philosophers would agree with its logical coherency.
Geach suggested that "a coherent statement of the doctrine is
possible on the assumption that identity is "always relative to a
sortal term".[107]The Canadian philosopher-theologian,Bernard
Lonergan, has demonstrated by analogy with the operations of the
human subject (the psychological analogy) the logical coherency of
the Trinity. It is chiefly in his work "The Triune God:
Systematics" that he draws on his abstract phenomenology to show
this logical inner coherency in the Trinity doctrine. He sees
himself as doing nothing more than standing in the tradition of
Augustine and Aquinas on this issue and not based on the Bible.Most
Christians, and probably the wide ecumenical consensus, foremost
uphold the belief that God is One. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our
God, the LORD is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4). But how to reconcile the
Trinity with a monotheistic faith? The wider ecumenical consensus
has viewed God's unity "not as a unity of separable parts, but of
distinguishable persons."[108]The Trinity is formed by three
distinct persons, yet of one and the sameessence. Three persons,
one God. To distinguish in what way God is One, and in what way God
is Three, helps remove the logical contradiction. This has been
upheld as the correct interpretation of the Apostolic teachings
since the writings ofAthanasiusand theCouncil of Nicaeain AD
325.ArtSee also:God the Father in Western art
Holy Trinity,frescoby Luca Rossetti da Orta, 1738-9 (St.
Gaudenzio Church atIvrea).The Trinity is most commonly seen in
Christian art with the Spirit represented by a dove, as specified
in the Gospel accounts of theBaptism of Christ; he is nearly always
shown with wings outspread. However depictions using three human
figures appear occasionally in most periods of art.[109]The Father
and the Son are usually differentiated by age, and later by dress,
but this too is not always the case. The usual depiction of the
Father as an older man with a white beard may derive from the
biblicalAncient of Days, which is often cited in defense of this
sometimes controversial representation. However, inEastern
Orthodoxythe Ancient of Days is usually understood to be God the
Son, not God the Father (see below)earlyByzantineimages show Christ
as the Ancient of Days,[110]but thisiconographybecame rare. When
the Father is depicted in art, he is sometimes shown with
ahaloshaped like anequilateral triangle, instead of a circle. The
Son is often shown at the Father's right hand.[Acts7:56]He may be
represented by a symboltypically the Lamb or a crossor on
acrucifix, so that the Father is the only human figure shown at
full size. In early medieval art, the Father may be represented by
a hand appearing from a cloud in a blessing gesture, for example in
scenes of theBaptism of Christ. Later, in the West, theThrone of
Mercy(or "Throne of Grace") became a common depiction. In this
style, the Father (sometimes seated on athrone) is shown supporting
either acrucifix[111]or, later, a slumped crucified Son, similar to
thePiet(this type is distinguished in German as theNot
Gottes)[112]in his outstretched arms, while the Dove hovers above
or in between them. This subject continued to be popular until the
18th century at least.By the end of the 15th century, larger
representations, other than the Throne of Mercy, became effectively
standardised, showing an older figure in plain robes for the
Father, Christ with his torso partly bare to display the wounds of
his Passion, and the dove above or around them. In earlier
representations both Father, especially, and Son often wear
elaborate robes and crowns. Sometimes the Father alone wears a
crown, or even apapal tiara.
Eastern Orthodox tradition
Old Testament TrinityiconbyAndrey Rublev, c. 1400 (Tretyakov
Gallery, Moscow)Direct representations of the Trinity are much
rarer inEastern Orthodoxart of any periodreservations about
depicting the Father remain fairly strong, as they were in the West
until the high Middle Ages. TheSecond Council of Niceain 787
confirmed that the depiction of Christ was allowed because he
became man; the situation regarding the Father was less clear. The
usualOrthodox representationof the Trinity was through the "Old
Testament Trinity" of the three angels visiting Abrahamsaid in the
text to be "the Lord"[Genesis18:1-15]. However scholars generally
agree that the direct representation of the Trinity began in Greek
works from the 11th century onwards, where Christ is shown as an
infant sitting on the Father's lap, with the Dove of the Holy
Spirit also present. Such depictions spread to the West and became
the standard type there, though with an adult Christ, as described
above. This type later spread back to the Orthodox world
wherepost-Byzantinerepresentations similar to those in the West are
not uncommon outside Russia.[113]The subject long remained
sensitive, and theRussian Orthodox Churchat the Great Synod of
Moscow in 1667 finally forbade depictions of the Father in human
form. The canon is quoted in full here because it explains the
Russian Orthodox theology on the subject:Chapter 2, 44:It is most
absurd and improper to depict iniconstheLord Sabaoth(that is to
say,God the Father) with a grey beard and the Only-Begotten Son in
His bosom with a dove between them, because no-one has seen the
Father according to His Divinity, and the Father has no flesh, nor
was the Son born in the flesh from the Father before the ages. And
thoughDavidtheprophetsays, "From the womb before the morning star
have I begotten Thee"[Psalm109:3], that birth was not fleshly, but
unspeakable and incomprehensible. For Christ Himself says in the
holy Gospel, "No man hath seen the Father, save the
Son".cf.[John6:46]AndIsaiahthe prophet says in his fortieth
chapter: "To whom have ye likened the Lord? and with what likeness
have ye made a similitude of Him? Has not the artificier of wood
made an image, or the goldsmiths, having melted gold, gilt it over,
and made it a similitude?"[Isa40:18-19]In like manner theApostle
Paulsays in Acts[Acts17:29]"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring
of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold or
silver or stone, graven by art of man's imagination." AndJohn
Damascenesays: "But furthermore, who can make a similitude of the
invisible, incorporeal, uncircumscribed and undepictable God? It
is, then, uttermost insanity and impiety to give a form to the
Godhead" (Orthodox Faith, 4:16). In like manner St.Gregory the
Dialogistprohibits this. For this reason we should only form an
understanding in the mind of Sabaoth, which is the Godhead, and of
that birth before the ages of the Only-Begotten-Son from the
Father, but we should never, in any wise depict these in icons, for
this, indeed, is impossible. And the Holy Spirit is not in essence
a dove, but in essence he is God, and "No man hath seen God",
asJohn the TheologianandEvangelistbears witness[John1:18]and this
is so even though, at theJordanatChrist's holy Baptismthe Holy
Spirit appeared in the likeness of a dove. For this reason, it is
fitting on this occasion only to depict the Holy Spirit in the
likeness of a dove. But in any other place those who have
intelligence will not depict the Holy Spirit in the likeness of a
dove. For onMount Tabor, He appeared as a cloud and, at another
time, in other ways. Furthermore, Sabaoth is the name not only of
the Father, but of the Holy Trinity. According toDionysios the
Areopagite, Lord Sabaoth, translated from the Jewish tongue, means
"Lord of Hosts". This Lord of Hosts is the Holy Trinity, Father,
Son and Holy Spirit. And althoughDanielthe prophet says that he
beheld theAncient of Dayssitting on a throne, this should not be
understood to refer to the Father, but to the Son, Who at His
second coming will judge every nation at the dreadful
Judgment.[114]Oriental Orthodox traditionsTheCoptic Orthodox
Churchnever depicts God the Father in art although he may be
identified by an area of brightness within art such as the heavenly
glow at the top of some icons of the baptism of the Lord Jesus
Christ. TheSyrian,Armenian,IndianandBritishOrthodox Churchesappear
to follow the same practice[citation needed].In contrast,
theEthiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Churchhas many ancient icons
depicting the Holy Trinity as three distinct
Persons.[115][116]These icons often depict all Three Persons
sitting upon a single throne to signify unity. TheEritrean Orthodox
Tewahedo Churchfollows the same practice.Scenes
Trefoilandtriangleinterlaced.Only a few of the standard scenes
in Christian art normally included a representation of the Trinity.
The accounts in the Gospels of the Baptism of Christ were
considered to show all three persons as present with a separate
role. Sometimes the other two persons are shown at the top of a
crucifixion. TheCoronation of the Virgin, a popular subject in the
West, often included the whole Trinity. But many subjects, such
asChrist in Majestyor theLast Judgement, which might be thought to
require depiction of the deity in the most amplified form, only
show Christ. There is a rare subject where the persons of the
Trinity make the decision to incarnate Christ, orGod sending out
the Son. Even more rarely, the Angel of the Annunciation is shown
being given the mission.[117]Less common types of
depictionEspecially in the 15th century, and in the less public
form ofilluminated manuscripts, there was experimentation with many
solutions to the issues of depicting the three persons of the
Trinity. The depiction of the Trinity as threeidenticalpersons is
rare, because each Person of the Trinity is considered to have
distinct attributes. Nonetheless, the earliest known depiction
ofGod the Fatheras a human figure, on the 4th centuryDogmatic
Sarcophagus, shows the Trinity as three similar bearded men
creatingEvefromAdam, probably with the intention of affirming
theconsubstantialityrecently madedogmain theNicene Creed. There are
many similar sarcophagi, and occasional images at intervals until a
revival of the iconography in the 15th century.[118]Even rarer is
the depiction of the Trinity as a single anthropoid figure with
three faces (Latin "Vultus Trifrons"), because the Trinity is
defined as three persons in one Godhead, not one Person with three
attributes (this would implyModalism, which is defined asheresyin
traditionalChristian orthodoxy). Such "Cerberus" depictions of the
Trinity as three faces on one head were mainly made among Catholics
during the 15th to 17th centuries, but were condemned after the
CatholicCouncil of Trent, and again by Pope Urban VIII in
1628,[119]and many existing images were destroyed.The Trinity may
also be represented abstractly bysymbols, such as thetriangle(or
three triangles joined together),trefoilor thetriquetraor a
combination of these. Sometimes a halo is incorporated into these
symbols. The use of such symbols are often found not only in
painting but also inneedleworkontapestries,vestmentsandantependia,
inmetalworkand inarchitecturaldetails.GalleryDifferent
depictionsFour 15th century depictions of theCoronation of the
Virginshow the main ways of depicting the persons of the
Trinity.
The conventional depiction, with older Father, dove, and Christ
showing the wounds of his Passion
Enguerrand Quartonwith Christ and God the Father as identical
figures, and a dove, as specified by the cleric who commissioned
the work
Page fromBook of Hours, with three differentiated human figures
for the Trinity
Jean Fouquet, also with three human figures, but
identical.Depictions using two different human figures and a
dove
"Throne of Mercy", Gothic, Sweden
Not Gottes,Bernt Notkec. 1483 (St.-Annen-Kloster,Lbeck)
"Throne of Mercy",Albrecht Drer, 1511
"Gottes Not", Jan Polack (Polish artist working Germany),
1491
"Gottes Not",Jusepe de Ribera, ca. 1635
Icon of the Holy Trinity atVatopediMonastery,Mount Athos
Michael DamaskenosIcon of theHoly Liturgy, from the 16th
centuryCretan school, showing Western stylistic influence.
Baroque Trinity,Hendrick van Balen, 1620,
(Sint-Jacobskerk,Antwerp)
Wall Painting inGeorgia's ancient Monastery, Shio-MghvimeOther
depictions
Holy Trinityby Fridolin Leiber (18531912)
Allegory of the Holy Trinity, painted as three faces fused in
one, medievalfrescoinPerugia
Trinity, XV century fresco, Castelletto Cervo (Vercelli,Italy),
St Peter and St. Paul Church
Holy TrinitybyM.Presnyakov (inspired by Andrei Rublev's famous
icon)
Holy Trinity Image, Quasi-Parish of Santissima Trinidad,Malolos
City,Philippines[1].
MysticismThe Catholic nunAnne Catherine Emmerichsaid that as a
child she had had visions, in which she had seen the core of the
Holy Trinity in the form of three concentric interpenetrating
spheres - the biggest but less lit sphere represented the Father
core, the medium sphere the Son core, and the smallest and
brightest sphere as the Holy Spirit.Non-orthodoxyNon-orthodox views
of the Christian trinitarian God have also been suggested byprocess
theologianslike Lewis S. Ford, who endorse the entitative view of
God as timeless and eternalconcrescence, but interpret
theWhiteheadiannatures of God (primordial nature, consequent
nature, and superjective nature) in a trinitarian way. Other
process theologians likeJoseph A. Brackenconsider the three divines
persons, each understood in the Neo-Whiteheadian societal view of
God sensuCharles HartshorneandDavid Ray Griffin, as constituting a
primordial field of divine activity.NontrinitarianismMain
article:NontrinitarianismSome Christian traditions either reject
the doctrine of the Trinity or consider it unimportant. Persons and
groups espousing this position generally do not refer to themselves
as "Nontrinitarians". They can vary in both their reasons for
rejecting traditional teaching on the Trinity, and in the way they
describe God.GroupsHistorySince Trinitarianism is central to so
much of Catholic and Orthodox church doctrine, Christian
nontrinitarians were mostly groups that exist