DANIEL’S SEVENTY SEVENS AND THE COMING OF THE MESSIAH

(DANIEL 9:24-27)

Daniel had studied the prophecies of Jeremiah and saw that the seventy years of the exile were about to be completed (Dan. 9:1-2). Daniel’s response was to pray a prayer of confession and repentance for Israel (Dan. 9:3-15) and to ask God to restore Jerusalem (Dan. 9:16-19). While Daniel was praying, the angel Gabriel was sent to give Daniel an understanding of the future and period of time until the coming of the Messiah (9:20-27). Edward J. Young states the main idea of this messianic revelation: “A definite time has been decreed by God for the accomplishment of all that which is necessary for the true restoration of God’s people from bondage.”38 This messianic prophecy is one of the few places in the prophets where the term “Messiah” is used.
To understand this prophecy properly, it is crucial to place it in its immediate context and its larger biblical-theological context. Within the context of the book of Daniel, this passage parallels the prophetic message concerning the successive kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7 which culminate with the coming of the Messiah. Daniel 2 prophetically sets forth the successive empires which lead to the Messiah: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Daniel 2 climaxes with the “stone made without hands” establishing a worldwide and eternal kingdom. Daniel 7 parallels Daniel 2 and climaxes with the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds. The Son of Man, the Messiah, establishes an eternal worldwide kingdom. Similarly, the “seventy-sevens” of Daniel 9 cover the time period from the Medo-Persian empire to the coming of the Messiah. Therefore, the prophetic messages of Daniel 2, 7, and 9 span the same time period and culminate with the coming of the Messiah and the establishment of his eternal kingdom.
The immediate context in Daniel 9 is Daniel’s prayer for the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple. Daniel 9:2 states that Daniel had been reading the prophet Jeremiah and came to an understanding that the seventy years of exile Jeremiah predicted were about to be completed. This opening reference to “seventy years” (v. 2) is connected to the “seventy-sevens” that anticipate the future (v. 24). A covenantal theme is obvious in this context. Daniel’s prayer begins with a statement concerning God’s covenant mercy:
And I prayed to the Lord my God and confessed and said, “Alas, O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps His covenant and lovingkindness for those who love Him and keep His commandments” (Dan. 9:4 NASB).
Gabriel’s answer also contains a covenantal theme. His answer looks forward to a time when God would restore his people and consummate the goal of his covenant of grace in the coming of the Messiah. Meredith Kline observes that Daniel’s prayer (vv. 4-19) has a repeated use of the covenant name of God (Yahweh) along with the repeated use of adonay, the “characteristic designation of the dominant party in the covenant.”39 It is also important to note that Daniel repeatedly mentions that Israel had broken God’s covenant and the covenant must be renewed.
The larger biblical-theological context is also important for the interpretation of the “seventy-sevens.” The seventy years of Israel’s captivity was determined because Israel neglected the sabbatical-year principle. 2 Chronicles 36:20-21 states:
20. And those who had escaped from the sword he carried away to Babylon; and they were servants to him and to his sons until the rule of the kingdom of Persia.
21. to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths. All the days of its desolation it kept sabbath until seventy years were complete (NASB).
This concept of the people being exiled until the land enjoyed its Sabbaths goes back to the covenantal curse given in Leviticus 26. Leviticus 25 set forth the pattern of the Sabbatic year and the year of the Jubilee. Every seventh year the land was to have a Sabbath rest. After seven cycles of this pattern, the fiftieth year was to be a jubilee year. In Leviticus 26, God warned that if the people neglected this sabbatical-year principle, then they would be exiled from the land until the land enjoyed the neglected Sabbaths. Leviticus 26:34-35 states:
34. “Then the land will enjoy its sabbaths all the days of the desolation, while you are in your enemies land; then the land will rest and enjoy its sabbaths.
35. All the days of its desolation it will observe the rest which it did not observe on your sabbaths, while you were living on it (NASB).
Leviticus 26:40-42 states that if the people confess their sins and humble their hearts, then the Lord will remember his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Verses 44-45 mention that God will not reject them, but will remember his covenant with their ancestors when he brought them out of Egypt. Daniel’s prayer of confession in Daniel 9:4-19 corresponds to the covenantal administration pattern and confession of Leviticus 26:40-42. The prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 corresponds to the covenant restoration of Leviticus 26:44-45.40 This biblical-theological context provides the larger context for understanding the terminology of the seventy sevens in Daniel 9.
In light of the larger Sabbath concept associated with the seventy sevens of Daniel 9, the terminology might be considered to be purely symbolic language. O. Palmer Robertson comments on this:
Indeed, the symbolic character of the number seven as an aspect of the Sabbath concept must not be ignored. The perfection of sevens as embodied in the “seventy sevens” speak of the movement toward the final climax of the Covenant Lord’s redemptive work in the world. The Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God must be seen as the ultimate goal of the seventy sevens (Heb. 4:9).
At the same time, the context in which Daniel’s prophecy is found inevitably points to an actual chronological ordering in the purposes of God. Jeremiah did not predict Israel’s banishment from the land to be, for example, twenty-three years or forty-one years in length - he predicted seventy years.41
Therefore, while there can be symbolical significance to the seventy sevens, the seventy years of captivity Jeremiah predicted which were reiterated in Daniel 9:2 indicates that the seventy sevens have some chronological meaning. A chronological interpretation also gives meaning for the structural pattern of the seventy sevens given in Daniel 9. The seventy sevens are structured in three periods consisting of seven sevens, sixty-two sevens, and one seven. A purely symbolic interpretation cannot explain this pattern that obviously has meaning in the Daniel 9 prophecy. The sevens are best understood through an inclusion of the symbolic with the chronological.42
Since the pattern of the seventy years of captivity represent the seventy neglected Sabbath years, then the seventy weeks should be understood as years, thus equaling 490 years. This raises the question of where to begin the chronological count of the seventy sevens. The decree of Cyrus allowing the return of the Jews, which had a specific focus toward rebuilding the temple, occurred in 536 B.C. (Ezra 1:1-4). The specific language of the decree of Cyrus on the Cyrus Cylinder confirms the specific decree to rebuild the temple:
“I returned to (these) sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which (used) to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I (also) gathered all their (former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations.”43
If 536 B.C. is the initiation point of the 490 years, then they only reach to 47 B.C., a date that has no significance. O. Palmer Robertson points out that Daniel 9:25 states that the decree is not just to return and rebuild the temple, but “to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.” It was the decree of Artaxerxes in approximately 445 B.C. which allowed the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Neh. 1:1-3; 2:3-8, 17). He contends that 445 B.C. should be the chronological starting point of the seventy weeks. Using this date as the starting point, the first seven week period, or 49 years, ends at approximately 400 B.C. This date corresponds to the time when old covenant revelation concluded. The next period of sixty-two weeks, or 434 years, corresponds to the approximate time of the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah.44 However, the use of 445 B.C. as the starting date depends on an approximation of the dates. Taken in a more literal manner, the starting date of 445 B.C. makes the 69 weeks end at A.D. 38. If the starting date is associated with the coming of Ezra in 458 B.C. (Ezra 7:1-28), then the 69 weeks end in A.D. 26. If half the seventieth week is added to that, then the weeks predict the time of the crucifixion (taking the early and traditional date for the crucifixion). This also fits with Daniel 9:27 that in the middle of the seventieth week, the Messiah will bring an end to sacrifice and offering. Through his work of atonement, all sacrifice was ended. While there are still some elements of approximation in the dates, the use of 458 B.C. as the starting point comes closer to the time of the crucifixion than 445 B.C. as the starting point. The starting date of 458 B.C. also fits the same pattern of the first 49 years ending at approximately the time Old Covenant revelation concluded. It also fits the general time period in which the restoration of Jerusalem as well as the temple occurred. The seventieth week is examined more fully below. Therefore, this is a remarkable and specific prophecy predicting the time of the coming of the Messiah. O. Palmer Robertson writes:
Obviously this kind of detailed anticipation of the course of human history cannot be entertained for one instant by modern negative criticism. In the contemporary context in which the idea that God has a plan for this world is totally denied, the inevitable conclusion must be that to the degree that this material describes the actual course of human history, it must have been composed after the event. But taken in the form in which it actually appears as a detailed, long-term prediction of the course of human events as they relate to God’s purposes of redemption, the prophecy of Daniel concerning the seventy sevens is indeed remarkable. It by no means stands alone among biblical anticipations regarding the work of the coming Messiah. But it should call forth a firm, well-grounded faith in the God who orders the course of history so that it serves his greater redemptive purposes.46
Daniel 9:24 sets forth six works of redemption which will occur within the seventy sevens: “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place” (NASB). Six infinitives are used to express the purpose or goal of these works.
The first three of these redemptive works address the removal or atonement of sin. Daniel’s prayer of confession in Daniel 9 acknowledged sin ten times (9:5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16). This threefold description of God’s redemptive purposes and work anticipate the substitutionary atonement of the Messiah (cf. Isa. 53). Christ’s passive or penal obedience finished transgressions in that he broke the power and slavery of sin over his people (Rom. 6); his work of atonement on the cross removed sin’s condemnation (Rom. 3:25; 5:12-19; 8:1, 34). Christ’s perfect and complete work met all the exigencies of the sins of his elect.47 The complete removal of all iniquity will take place at the consummation of God’s redemptive purposes in the second coming of the Messiah.
The second three items describe the establishment of righteousness: “to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place” (9:24b). This anticipates the Messiah fulfilling the offices of priest and prophet. As the great high priest, the Messiah brought “everlasting righteousness” through his perfect obedience (Rom. 5:12-19) and his work of atonement. The sinner who is justified by faith in Christ alone (Rom. 3:21-28; 4:1-8; 5:1) has the righteousness of Christ imputed to him. The Messiah accomplished a perfect work of atonement (Heb. 10:10-18), anointed the holy place with his blood (Heb. 9:11-12) (this is best understood as being accomplished in his work of atonement), rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven where he makes intercession for his saints (Heb. 7:25; Rom. 8:34). The Messiah is also the final prophet. He spoke the final and definitive word from God to men (Heb. 1:1-2). Therefore, after his apostles and prophets transcribed and interpreted his word, no further need for additional vision and prophecy remained. The Scriptures are God-breathed, complete, and sufficient for faith and practice. Edward J. Young states that these things “are all messianic. . . . The termination of the 70 sevens coincides then, not with the time of Antiochus, nor with the end of the present age, the second Advent of our Lord, but with his first Advent.”48 The six items mentioned in Daniel 9:24 depict the redemptive work of the Messiah. This is perfectly consistent with the previous visions in Daniel 2 and 7, each of which culminated with the Messiah’s coming and the establishment of his worldwide kingdom.
The last week is set apart from the previous sixty-nine weeks. This implies a unique quality to the seventieth week. This last week must be understood within the context of a broader biblical-theological perspective. Dispensational theology contends that the seventieth week is chronologically separated from the previous sixty-nine weeks. This temporal separation consists of the period between Christ’s first coming and the last seven years before his second coming. This gap or separation between the previous weeks and the last week will last until the end of the church age. Dispensational theology points to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple almost forty years after the death of Jesus and argues that this is too long of a time period for the last week.49 However, Daniel 9:24-27 does not indicate any gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week. The language of this passage supports the idea a regular succession of the weeks with the seventieth week following the sixty-ninth.50 James E. Smith writes: “The existence of a gap of two thousand years is a strange intrusion into the text.”51
It is exegetically better to view the seventieth week as normally following the sixty-ninth week. However, the last week is divided into two halves. Daniel 9:27 states that in the seventieth week “he will make a firm covenant with the many.” What is the identity of the individual who will make this covenant with many? Dispensational theology argues that this individual is the antichrist who will make a covenant with national Israel. Meredith Kline comments: “The whole context speaks against the supposition that an altogether different covenant from the divine covenant which is the central theme throughout Daniel 9 is abruptly introduced here at the climax of it all.”52 The hermeneutical presuppositions of dispensationalism cause dispensationalists to insert a gap between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks and find a completely different covenant in verse 27.
An approach that is more consistent with the context of Daniel and the passage is to view the identity of the one making the covenant in verse 27 as the Messiah who was mentioned earlier in the passage. Verse 24 mentions a series of redemptive acts the Messiah will accomplish. Verse 26 states that the Messiah will be “cut off.” The verb used to describe the Messiah being cut off is karat, which is the term used to describe the “cutting of a covenant” in the ritual associated with the ratification of covenants. This covenant language of “cutting off” connects the Messiah of verse 26 with the one making or confirming a covenant in verse 27. The term, karat, in verse 26 is the usual term associated with the making of a covenant. However, in verse 27, the verb, higebir (hiph. pf.), which means “to make strong, cause to prevail” is used. This indicates that the covenant of verse 27 is not a different covenant from the one implied in verse 26, but is a confirmation of a previously existing covenant.53 Therefore, the Messiah, in his work of redemption (v. 24-26) will confirm the covenant of grace established after man’s fall into sin. In fact, he will fulfill the old covenant shadows and types of the covenant of grace and establish the new covenant realities of the same covenant of grace. O. Palmer Robertson writes, “‘Making [a covenant] to prevail’ with ‘many’ in one seven by an ‘anointed one’ (9:27a) does not introduce a different ‘anointed one’ in addition to the one mentioned in the previous verse. Instead, the same anointed one strengthens his covenant with his people.”54 This also speaks against the dispensational interpretation of verse 27 that it is the future antichrist that makes an entirely new covenant verse 27. E. J. Young writes:
. . . this entire passage is Messianic in nature, and the Messiah is the leading character. The general theme of the passage, introduced in vs. 24, is surely Messianic. The blessings therein depicted were brought about by the Messiah and they form their climax in the “anointing” of a holy of holies. Furthermore, in vs. 25 the appearance of the Messiah is the great terminus ad quem of the 69 sevens. They lead up to Him, who is their goal. . . . In vs. 26 two principle themes are introduced: 1) the death of the Messiah and 2) the consequent destruction of the city and sanctuary by a people of a prince (not the prince) who will come. In this vs. therefore, the principle characters are the Messiah and the people – not the prince. As the exposition will endeavor to bring out, what is related in vs. 27 also has reference to the Messiah.55
Daniel 9:27 also states that the Messiah will “put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering” in the middle of the seventieth week. This corresponds to the accomplished work of the Messiah. He makes atonement for iniquity and brings everlasting righteousness (v. 24). The Messiah’s work of atonement was accomplished and complete and, therefore, once for all time. Because his work is perfect, all symbolic sacrifice of the old covenant became improper and ended (Heb. 9:23-28; 10:10-18). E. J. Young writes:

In what sense, however, may it be said that the Messiah causes a covenant to prevail for many? The answer to this question, it would seem, is to be found in the fact that the Messiah during His earthly ministry and by means of His active and passive obedience to the Law of God, did fulfill the terms of that covenant which was in olden times made with Abraham and his seed. Romans 15:8 speaks of this covenant as “the promises made unto the fathers.”56
This action of the Messiah occurs half way through the seventieth week, or 3.5 years into that last week. This leaves a final period of 3.5 years to complete the seventy weeks.
This figure is used elsewhere in an eschatological context as a symbolic figure. O. Palmer Robertson writes of this use:
The figure of 3.5 years receives further development in the final chapter of the book of Daniel and even more extensively in the book of Revelation. In his final interview with the revealing person, Daniel overhears the question, “How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?” (Dan. 12:6 NIV). The man clothed in linen takes a solemn oath that the period will be “for a time, times, and half a time,” reflecting the same earlier measurement of the time that the saints will suffer at the hands of the little horn of the fourth beast of Daniel 7 (12:7; see also 7:25). This same measurement recurs in the form of 1,290 (or 1,335) days that are to expire between the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up (12:11-12).
The various ways in which this last half of the final week is designated suggest that the time measurement has been modified from the chronological/symbolical to the purely symbolical. The book of Revelation reflects the same diversity in referring to an identical period as a symbolical device: 1,260 days, 42 months, and “time, times, and half a time” (Rev. 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5). The last half of the seventieth week of Daniel may thus be regarded as a different form of time measurement.57
Therefore, the last 3.5 years of the last week should be interpreted in a symbolical sense as representing an indefinite period. This period would extend from the Messiah’s work in ending sacrifice through his work of atonement until the end of the present age. Kim Riddlebarger writes:
. . . the forty-two months [of Revelation 13:5] are most likely a reference to the inter-advental age. Taken from Daniel 7:25 (“a time, times, and half a time,” see also Dan. 12:7), this same period of time appears in the preceding chapters of the Book of Revelation. In Revelation 11:2-3, the Gentiles are said to “trample the holy city” (the church - i.e., the dwelling place of God in the new covenant) for forty-two months or 1,260 days. This is the same time period in which the two witnesses proclaim the gospel (Rev. 11:3). In Revelation 12:6, John refers to the time of the protection of the woman in the wilderness (the church) as spanning 1,260 days and then again later as “a time, times, and half a time” (Rev. 12:14).58
G. K. Beale, in commenting on Revelation 13:5 states:
That the “forty-two months” is based on Daniel 7:25b (and 12:7) is evident from its close association with other allusions to Daniel and the clear allusions to the Danielic time period in Rev. 12:6, 14b and earlier 11:2-3. These three earlier references to the period show that the duration of the period spans the time from Christ’s death and resurrection to the culmination of history. Likewise, the analysis of 12:12 and 13:3 above shows that the period in 13:5 covers the same time. 13:3 identifies the beginning of the figurative period as Christ’s death and resurrection, which caused the beast to be “slain unto death.” Our study of [Revelation] 12:7-12 confirms that it is Christ’s redemptive work that dealt the fatal blow to the devil and his agents. Therefore, the events of 11:2-3; 12:6, 14b; and 13:5 are parallel in time.59
Further support of this position is found in the previous noted Sabbatical-year principle present in this passage. The seventy-sevens of Daniel 9:24-27 equal ten jubilee eras. An emphasis is placed on the ultimate jubilee after the 490 years were completed. This ultimate jubilee depicts the consummation of the messianic age.60 Meredith Kline writes:
The last week is the age of the church in the wilderness of the nations for a time, a times, and half a time (Rev. 12:14). Since the seventy weeks are ten jubilee eras that issue in the last jubilee, the seventieth week closes with angelic trumpeting of the earth’s redemption and the glorious liberty of the children of God. The acceptable year of the Lord which came with Christ will then have fully come. Then the new Jerusalem whose temple is the Lord and the Lamb will descend from heaven (Rev. 21:10, 22) and the ark of the covenant will be seen (Rev. 11:19), the covenant the Lamb has made to prevail and the Lord has remembered.61
This prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 explicitly predicts the time of the coming of the Messiah and his kingdom into the world. It also predicts the atoning work of the Messiah which will put an end to sin, bring everlasting righteousness, end prophecy and vision, and anoint the heavenly most holy place with his blood (Heb. 9:12). It also anticipates the spread of his kingdom throughout the earth through all the ages until his return and the consummation of his kingdom and redemptive purposes. Finally, this passage demonstrates the supernatural quality of the inspired Scriptures in that it accurately predicts the exact time of the coming of the Messiah.

38Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, 194.
39Meredith G. Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week,” The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis, ed. John H. Skilton (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974), 456-457.
40Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week,” in The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis, 461.
41Robertson, The Christ of the Prophets, 339.
42Robertson, The Christ of the Prophets, 340-341.
43James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Related to the Old Testament, 3d ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 316.
44Robertson, The Christ of the Prophets, 341-342. Some interpreters hold that a “year” in this prophecy should be based on a 360 day year. 483 years based on a 360 day year comes to approximately A. D. 32 or 33 if the starting date is 445 or 444 B. C. This would be holding the later date for the date of the crucifixion.
For a defense of the early traditional date of the ministry and crucifixion of Jesus, see Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke,194-199.
46 Robertson, The Christ of the Prophets, 342.
47 Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, 199.
48 Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, 201.
49 John F. Walvoord, Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation: A Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1971), 230.
50 Robertson, The Christ of the Prophets, 344-345.
51 Smith, What The Bible Teaches About the Promised Messiah, 393.
52 Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week,” The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis, 463.
53 Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week,” The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis, 465. See also Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, 209.
54 Robertson, The Christ of the Prophets, 346, n. 30.
55 Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, 209.
56 Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, 212.

57 Robertson, The Christ of the Prophets, 345.
58 Kim Riddlebarger, The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About The Antichrist (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), 97.
59 Beale, The Book of Revelation in The New International Greek Testament Commentary, 695.
60 Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week,” The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis, 459.
61 Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week,” The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis, 469.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COVENANT OF WORKS

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 7:2 states:

The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon the condition of perfect obedience.
The term covenant does not appear in Scripture before Genesis 6:18.1 Because of this, some scholars have questioned whether the original relationship between God and man should be considered covenantal. For example, John Murray prefers to call the period the “Adamic administration.” He writes:
This administration has often been denoted ‘The Covenant of Works.’ There are two observations. (1) The term is not felicitous, for the reason that the elements of grace entering into the administration are not properly provided for by the term ‘works’. (2) It is not designated a covenant in Scripture. Hosea 6:7 may be interpreted otherwise and does not provide the basis for such a construction of the Adamic economy. Besides, Scripture always uses the term covenant, when applied to God’s administration to men, in reference to a provision that is redemptive or closely related to redemptive design.2
In response to Murray, it is not clear whether “elements of grace” are present at the focal point of the “administration,” namely the prohibition not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and Adam’s decision to break God’s command. It is also argued below that Hosea 6:7 is best interpreted as referring to a covenant with Adam. John Bolt observes that “the mere lack of an explicit use of the Hebrew word berith in Genesis 1-2 is a weak argument from silence and insufficient reason to deny the covenantal character of the passage.”3 Passages in Jeremiah also point to a covenant with Adam as does the parallel between Adam and Christ as legal representatives in Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45-47.
W. Wilson Benton, Jr. argues that the two-covenant schema of the covenant of works and covenant of grace found in the Westminster Confession of Faith is not biblical, but is primarily the result of the influences of political thought of the period, a renewed interest in the history of revelation, and the influence of Ramist logic (Pierre de la Ramee - Latin name of Petrus Ramus). He argues that the Ramist focus on the deductive method and the dichotomizing of ideas led to the federalist theological construction. He argues that federalist theology produces horrible theological effects. Benton writes of covenant or federal theology:
. . . it must be asked whether the system used to unify the whole of biblical teaching, and the categories used to make it historical, are faithful to the nature of the truth which they present or whether some alien systematic principle has been employed. At these points federal theology “is weighed in the balance and found wanting.”4
Robert Reymond argues against Benton’s position and says that Benton’s “influences alone cannot account for federal theology or show how federal theology produces the dire effects Benton sees federal theology producing.”5 In spite of these arguments against the traditional covenant of works/covenant of grace distinction, there are strong exegetical reasons for viewing the pre-fall relationship between God and man as covenantal. Historically, many Reformed theologians have argued for a pre-fall covenant. The arguments are usually framed along these lines:
First, all the elements of a covenant are present. In Genesis 2, there are parties, stipulations, promises, and threats for disobedience (Gen. 2:16-17). Since all the ingredients for a covenant are present, the relationship with God and man prior to the fall as well as prior to Noah may be considered covenantal.
Second, the Hebrew word for covenant, b’rith, does not have to be present at the time a covenant is made. For example, 2 Samuel 7 (cf. 2 Chron. 17) sets forth the establishment of the Davidic covenant, but the term covenant is not used in that context. Psalm 89:1-3, 19-37 and 2 Sam. 23:5 both state that God established a covenant with David and promised that his dynastic house would rule over Israel. The same pattern is possible in regard to God’s original relationship with man.6
Just as in the case of the Davidic covenant, subsequent Scriptures refer back to God’s relationship prior to the fall as covenantal. Hosea 6:7 states: “But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; there they have dealt treacherously against Me” (NASB). Three possible interpretations of this passage have been suggested. First, the traditional interpretation is that the phrase, “like Adam,” refers to the first man and, therefore, refers back to a pre-fall covenant with Adam. A. Cohen points out that Jewish commentators traditionally have applied this phrase “to the disobedience of Adam in the Garden of Eden.”7
Second, “Adam” could designate a place where Israel broke the covenant. This is the most tenuous of the three possibilities. The place “Adam” is located on the Jordan River about twelve miles north of Jericho. The narrative of the Jordan rolling back to Adam (Josh. 3:16) does not refer to any national sin of Israel. An emendation of the massoretic text is necessary to support his interpretation. For example, James Luther Mays argues for a substitution of b’adam (at Adam) for c’adam (like Adam).8 However, the text as it stands reads “as or like Adam.” Louis Berkhof writes concerning Hosea 6:7:
Attempts have been made to discredit this reading. Some have suggested the reading “at Adam,” which would imply that some well-known transgression occurred at a place called Adam. But the preposition forbids this rendering. Moreover, the Bible makes no mention whatever of such a well-known historical transgression at Adam.9
Third, it is possible to interpret the text with the meaning that Israel has broken the covenant “like man” or “like mankind.”10 The point of this comparison is that Israel has transgressed the covenant just like men or non-Israelites have broken the covenant. O. Palmer Robertson comments on this idea:
In what sense may it be affirmed that non-Israelite man stands in a covenantal relationship with God that may be broken? No specific covenant with man outside Israel finds any mention in Scripture other than God’s covenant with Noah, which lacks adequate emphasis on specifics of covenantal obligation for Hosea to say with convincing clarity that man has “broken” the covenant.
Apparently Hosea intends to suggest that God has established a covenant relationship with man outside Israel through creation. If “Adam” is taken individually, the term would refer to the original representative man.11
Therefore, whether the phrase is interpreted as “like Adam” or “like man” both point back to an original covenant with man in the Garden of Eden established at the time of creation. However, it is best to understand the phase as pointing to Adam, the first man and his violation of the original creational covenant.12
O. Palemer Robertson finds evidence for the pre-fall covenant in a comparison of passages from Jeremiah to the creation narrative.13 The following analysis is a summary of his argument. Jeremiah 33:20-21, 25-26 indicates that the original relationship between God and man was covenantal:

20. “Thus says the Lord, ‘If you can break my covenant for the day, and My covenant for the night, so that day and night will not be at their appointed time,
21. then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant that he shall not have a son to reign on this throne, and with the Levitical priests, My ministers.

25. “Thus says the Lord, ‘If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established,
26. then I would reject the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, not taking from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them’” (NASB).
In verse 20, the Lord through Jeremiah speaks of “my covenant for the day and my covenant for the night.” Similarly, in verse 25, a covenant for day and night is mentioned. There are two possibilities for this reference to a covenant of day and night. The first possibility is God’s original ordinances at the time of creation. The second possibility is God’s covenant with Noah. In the Noahic covenant, similar language is employed in Genesis 8:22: “‘While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” Since day and night are mentioned in the covenant with Noah, Jeremiah could have been referring back to that covenant. It is also possible that Jeremiah is referring to the third day of creation when God created the Sun, moon, and stars and set an order for them in creation (Gen. 1:14). A closely related passage in Jeremiah provides insight into whether Jeremiah is referring to the time of Noah or creation. Jeremiah 31:35-36 has basically the same structure as the Jeremiah 33 passage:
35. Thus says the Lord,
Who gives the sun for light by day,
And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,
Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar;
The Lord of hosts is His name:
36. “If this fixed order departs from before Me,” declares the Lord,
“Then the offspring of Israel also shall cease
From being a nation before Me forever” (NASB).
The term translated as “fixed order” or “statute” in this passage is the Hebrew word, chok, which is used elsewhere in Scripture as a parallel word for covenant (cf. 1 Kings 11:11; 2 Kings 17:15; Psa. 50:16; 105:10). Therefore, it is possible to understand the term “fixed order” in Jeremiah 31 as a reference to the covenant idea expressed in Jeremiah 33.
Jeremiah 31 has a similar structure and argumentation as Jeremiah 33. Both talk about the sun’s rule over the day and the moon’s rule over the night. However, Jeremiah 31:35 refers to the sun and the moon and stars respectively as light bearers for the day and night. This idea is found in the creation account, but not in the Noahic covenant. Genesis 1:16 refers to the stars as well as the moon as light-bearers for the night as does Jeremiah 31:35. The Genesis 8:22 passage, dealing with the Noahic covenant, does not mention the stars. Therefore, it is more probable that Jeremiah 31 is referring to the creation account rather than to the account of the Noahic covenant. Jeremiah 31 and 33 closely parallel each other and use similar language and argumentation. Since Jeremiah 31 most likely refers to the creation narrative, Jeremiah 33 also most likely refers to the same period. Therefore, since Jeremiah 33 employs the term covenant in its referencing of the creation account, it is a subsequent Scripture that affirms the original divine-human relationship at creation as covenantal. It is also important to note that the Noahic covenant echoes the creational covenant indicating a continuation of concepts that were already in place from the time of creation.
Having affirmed the idea of a pre-fall covenantal relationship between God and man, it is important to examine the contents of this covenant. This original covenant, traditionally called the covenant of works, has strong bearing on how one understands the work of the Messiah. Therefore, it is important to understand the meaning of this covenant and the relationship it has to the work of the Messiah. Robert Reymond gives this description of the covenant of works:
The covenant which God originally made with Adam was a divinely arranged suzerainty pact wherein, on the divine side, God bound himself to both promise and threat while, on the human side, Adam was expected to obey the covenantal stipulations which were accompanied by God’s promise of blessing for obedience and threat of sanction for disobedience.14
Louis Berkhof sets forth the elements of this covenant:
(1) Adam was constituted the representative head of the human race, so that he could act for all his descendants. (2) He was temporarily put on probation, in order to determine whether he would willingly subject his will to the will of God. (3) He was given the promise of eternal life in the way of obedience, and thus by the gracious disposition of God acquired certain conditional rights. The covenant enabled Adam to obtain eternal life for himself and for his descendants in the way of obedience.15
Some scholars do not accept the idea that, upon the condition of obedience, eternal life was promised to Adam. It is argued there is no Scriptural evidence of such a promise. While it is true there is no explicit promise of eternal life as a result of obedience, the promise is implied in the alternative threat of death in the case of disobedience. The implication is that if Adam was obedient, then death would not be present. If Adam would have been obedient then he would have continued in a life of communion with God. It is at this point where the covenant of works contributes to understanding the work of the Messiah. In Romans 5:12-21, Paul presents a parallel between Christ and Adam in the context of his discussion of justification. Paul argues that just as Adam’s sin was imputed to the race, all those in Christ receive the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. This leads to two concepts. First, this demonstrates a representative idea in that Adam stood as a federal or covenant head to his descendants just as Christ stood as a federal head of those who are in him (Rom. 5:14-17). Just as Adam is a legal representative so also is Christ a legal representative of all who are in him. Second, Christ’s perfect obedience to the law fulfilled all the original demands of obedience in the covenant of works. Those in Christ now receive all the benefits of the original covenant through Christ’s perfect fulfillment of it (Rom. 5:18-19). The covenant of grace is, therefore, an extension and gracious fulfillment by Christ of the covenant of works for sinners who are in Christ. Robert Reymond writes:
. . . the covenant of grace should be seen as providing the requisite redemptive provision as a second-level “covenantal overlay” upon the covenant of works. What this means is that Christ the “second Man” stepped forward, representing certain sinners who could not themselves keep the covenant (it is in his representation of these undeserving sinners and in all that this entails for them that the grace of the covenant of grace is exhibited), and as the “last Adam” he kept (where Adam had not) all of the requirements of the covenant in their behalf by meeting both the preceptive and penal demands of the covenant of works.16
Therefore, the concept of the covenant of works has direct bearing on the work of the Messiah who was promised just after Adam’s disobedience to this original covenant.
Robert Reymond notes that some biblical scholars are attacking the concept of works and justice in regard to God’s original covenantal relationship with Adam. He notes that Daniel P. Fuller argues that whatever Adam received from God must be understood in terms of God’s grace. This grace is not viewed in terms of redemption or salvation, but simply in terms of God’s goodness. Fuller denies any concept of a works/grace contrast in God’s relationship with man.17 Fuller argues that even God’s pre-fall relationship with Adam should be viewed exclusively in terms of grace. The result of this is that Fuller, in denying any concept of works or justice in man’s relationship with God, destroys any concept of true grace. Fuller argues that many passages present works as an instrumental cause of justification. He says that these works are not meritorious, but he essentially denies justification by faith alone. Fuller claims that “grace” performs justification through the “work or obedience of faith.”18 However, the genitive in the Pauline phrase, “obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26) should be understood as a genitive of source meaning “the obedience that flows from faith” or as an appositional genitive meaning “obedience that consists of faith.”19 After examining this view, Robert Reymond writes:
Accordingly, a view that insists upon “grace” everywhere winds up with true grace nowhere and a kind of works principle everywhere, with his representation of the relation of works to justification coming perilously close to what late medieval theologians would have called works having not condign but congruent merit. One thing is certainly clear from Fuller’s representation of this whole matter: he has departed from the sola fide principle of the Protestant Reformation.20

W. Robert Godfrey comments on Fuller’s position:
Fuller’s position is clear, explicit rejection of the Reformed doctrine that “Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification. . .” (Westminster Confession of Faith, XI, 2).
Fuller’s revision affects the basic understanding of the application of redemption. Historic Protestantism insisted that justification was by faith alone because faith alone looked outside of itself to rely on the perfect work of Christ. Faith justifies not because it is a virtue that pleases God, but because faith abandons all self-confidence and rests in Christ and his finished work. Faith trusts that Christ has fulfilled all righteousness and borne God’s wrath for sin. Fuller, by contrast, changes faith’s whole relation to justification. He defines faith in terms of obedience. Faith is work. Justifying faith then is not an exclusively extraspective resting in the work of another.21
This demonstrates how important the concept of the covenant of works is in regard to understanding the work of the Messiah. A rejection of the covenant of works principle ultimately denies the legal representative parallel between Adam and Christ (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21-22). This would deny the principle of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness because if Christ’s obedience is not meritorious, then his preceptive obedience is not imputed to believers. Meredith G. Kline argues that justice, not grace, is the main element of continuity between the pre-fall covenant and the covenant of grace. He writes:
The necessity of affirming the traditional works principle [in Genesis 2] becomes clear if we concentrate on the subject of justification in God’s covenantal dealings with Adam and Christ. If the first Adam had obediently fulfilled the stipulations of God’s covenant with him, then assuredly he would have been worthy of being declared righteous by his Lord. Adam’s justification would have been on the grounds of his works and would have been precisely what those good works deserved. God’s declaring Adam righteous would have been an act of justice, pure and simple. In fact, any other verdict would have been injustice. There is absolutely no warrant for obscuring the works character of such an achievement of justification by introducing the idea of grace into the theological analysis of it. Indeed, to do so would be in effect to suggest that God has the capricious capability to behaving like the Devil, declaring evil what is good and good what is evil. . . .
Rejection of the works principle [with reference to Adam] extends in the logic of the Fuller-Shepherd theology to the Second Adam. This can be shown from the argument Shepherd uses against the recognition of that principle in covenant administration. He notes that the covenantal relationship is a father-son relationship and from this concludes that parental grace, not any claim of strict justice, accounts for any favorable treatment man receives from God, his Father. But if the elimination of simple justice as the governing principle is thus due to the presence of a father-son relationship, mere justice could no more explain God’s response to the obedience of his Son, the second Adam, than it could his dealings with the first Adam. This means that in the Fuller-Shepherd theology, consistently developed, the work of obedience performed by Jesus Christ did not merit a verdict of justification from his Father. The justification of the second Adam was not then according to the principle of works in contrast to grace, but rather found its explanation in the operation of a principle involving some sort of grace - a grace required because of the inadequacy of Christ’s work to satisfy the claims of justice.22
The covenant of works affirms the principle of justice in regard to the work of the Messiah and is, therefore, crucial to understanding the redemptive work of the Messiah. Mark W. Karlberg notes the current debates in Reformed theology concerning the covenant of works and the importance of the justice principle in the covenant of works:
Among recent detractors of traditional Reformed teaching on the Covenant of Works two proposals have appeared: (1) that we abandon altogether the federalist system of interpretation or (2) that we undertake a thoroughgoing revision of the doctrine. Common to all these critics is denial of the validity of the Covenant of Works idea. They claim that the idea of merit does not find support in Scripture. In our view, however, it is a matter of justice for God to grant eternal life to his obedient image-bearers. Failure to recognize this element of the system of truth contained in the Scriptures leads to a defective understanding of the atonement, specifically the necessity of Christ’s atoning death as means of satisfying divine justice.23
Michael Horton concurs and writes:
It is therefore premature to insert into the creation covenant an element of divine graciousness, strictly speaking. To be sure, God’s decision and act to create constitute a “voluntary condescension” (Westminster Confession 7.1), as is his entrance into a covenantal relationship with creatures. Nevertheless, if “grace” is to retain its force as divine clemency toward those who deserve condemnation, we should speak of divine freedom, love, wisdom, goodness, justice, and righteousness as the governing characteristics of creation. Grace and mercy are shown to covenant-breakers and reflect the divine commitment to restore that which is fallen.
It is within this framework, then, that Reformed theology understood the active obedience of Jesus Christ, emphasizing the significance of his humanity in achieving redemption for his covenant heirs. The priority of law in the covenant of creation establishes that God cannot acquit the guilty nor simply forgive sinners. In the context of the covenant of creation, the law must be perfectly satisfied, either personally or representatively.24
Another objection that is raised to the concept of justice in the pre-fall covenant is that any obedience of Adam would not contain enough value to receive the promised blessing of eternal life. Therefore, Fuller and advocates of his approach argue that the pre-Fall covenant can only be understood in terms of grace (as they define it). Robert Reymond responds to this that “this alleged disparity in value between the obedience to be rendered and the reward to be bestowed is very debatable, . . . since insofar as Adam’s obedience would have glorified God and given him pleasure, it would have had infinite value.”25 It is also important to maintain the parallel between the First Adam and the Second Adam. Meredith Kline writes concerning this:
What was true in the covenant arrangement with the Second Adam will also have been true in the covenant with the First Adam, for the first was a type of the second (Rom. 5:14) precisely with respect to his role as a federal head in the divine government. Accordingly, the pre-Fall covenant was also a covenant of works, and there, too, Adam would have fully deserved the blessings promised in the covenant, had he obediently performed the duty stipulated in it. Great as the blessings were to be which the good Lord committed himself, granting of them would not have involved a gram of grace. Judged by the stipulated terms of the covenant, they would have been merited in simple justice.26
This chapter has presented the idea that the original divine-human relationship should be understood as covenantal. The classic terminology for the covenant relationship emphasizes the focal point of the covenant in that man is commanded not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Disobedience is threatened with death and the implication is that obedience would ensue in the continuation of life in a relationship with God. The principle of justice is set forth in this covenant and Adam serves as a type of the Messiah’s work of obedience (Romans 5:12-21). This concept of justice is crucial for understanding the Messiah’s work of obedience and the imputation of that righteousness to the elect of God. Wilhelmus a Brakel summarizes this well:
Acquaintance with this covenant [of works] is of the greaterst importance, for whoever errs here or denies the existence of the covenant of works, will not understand the covenant of grace, and will readily err concerning the mediatorship of the Lord Jesus. Such a person will readily deny that Christ by His active obedience has merited a right to eternal life for the elect. . . . Whoever denies the covenant of works, must rightly be suspected to be in error concerning the covenant of grace as well.27

1Even though the word “covenant” (b’rith) occurs for the first time in Scripture in Gen. 6:18, it occurs with the pronominal suffix and the Hiphil form of the verb qum, “establish” rather than karath, “cut, make.” This indicates that this covenant was not initially made in Noah’s time, but was a covenant already in existence which was being extended into the time of Noah (Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997], 512, n. 17.). The author is indebted to Robert Reymond for class lectures and his work, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith from which many of the concepts of this chapter are drawn.
2John Murray, “The Adamic Administration,” in Collected Writings of John Murray 4 Vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977), 2:49.
3 Josh Bolt, “Why The Covenant of Works Is A Necessary Doctrine” in By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification, ed. Gary L. W. Johnson and Guy P. Waters (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 181.
4 W. Wilson Benton, Jr., “Federal Theology: Review for Revision” in Through Christ’s Word, ed. W. Robert Godfrey and Jesse L Boyd III (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1985), 201. See: “Federal Theology and the Westminster Standards” in The Covenant: God’s Voluntary Condescension, ed. Joseph A. Pipa, Jr. and C. N. Willborn (Taylors, SC: Presbyterian Press, 2005) for an excellent defense of the covenant of works.
5 Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 405, n. 23.
6 Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 430. Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, 18-19.
7 Abraham Cohen, The Twelve Prophets, Hebrew Text, English Translation and Commentary. The Soncino Books of the Bible (London, Socino Press, 1948), 23.
8 James Luther Mays, Hosea. A Commentary. The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 100.
9 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 214 (page references are to reprint edition).
10 John Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, vol. 1, Hosea (Edinburgh, Scotland: Calvin Translation Society, n.d.; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, reprint, 1984), 233 (page references are to reprint edition).
11 Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, 23-24.
12 See also Benjamin B. Warfield, “Hosea vi:7: Adam or Man?”, Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, ed. J. E. Meeter (Nutley, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970), 1:116-129.
13 Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, 19-21.
14 Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 430.
15 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 215.
16 Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 440. LouisBerkhof notes these same points in his discussion of the points of difference between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace (Systematic Theology, 272).

17 Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 103, 109, 118-120. See Robert Reymond’s examination of this position in A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 431.
18 Daniel P. Fuller, “A Response on the Subjects of Works and Grace,” Presbuterion 9, no. 1-2 (1983): 79. Cited by Reymond in A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 431.
19 Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 431, n. 19.
20 Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 431-432.
21 W. Robert Godfrey, “Back to Basics: A Response to the Robertson-Fuller Dialog,” Presbuterion, 9, no. 1-2 (1983), 81.
22 Meredith G. Kline, “Of Works and Grace,” Presbuterion, 9, no. 1-2 (1983), 88-89.
23 Mark W. Karlberg, Covenant Theology In Reformed Perspective (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000), 104.
24 Michael S. Horton, Lord and Servant (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 132-133.
25 Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 433.
26 Meredith G. Kline, “Covenant Theology Under Attack,” New Horizons (Feb. 1994), 4. Cited by Reymond in A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 433.

27 Brakel, Our Reasonable Service, 1:355. Cited in Josh Bolt, “Why The Covenant of Works Is A Necessary Doctrine” in By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification, ed. Gary L. W. Johnson and Guy P. Waters, 184.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

By: Dr. Van Lees

One of the more important and central doctrines of Christianity is the doctrine of the Trinity. The concept that there is one God that subsists in three persons is essential to the Christian faith. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., in his Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion states, "The doctrine of the Trinity is indispensable for the harmony and unity of other major doctrines in the Christian system" (p. 126). A good example of the essentiality of the doctrine of the Trinity is its relation to the incarnation of Christ. It would be impossible to conceive of God becoming man, dying for the sins of man, and rising from the dead apart from the concept of the Trinity.

"For God (the Father) so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son (the second person of the Trinity) that whosoever believeth in him (through the conviction and enabling work of the Holy Spirit, John 16:8; Eph. 2:1-8) should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16) (Buswell., p. 128).

The doctrine of the Trinity is not an arithmetic paradox; it does not teach that one equals three. The doctrine propounds that there is but one God, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is each God; and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is each a distinct person - a self-conscious being. The classic definition of the Trinity is: God is one in essence and three in person. The reason people usually have trouble understanding this is that we are accustomed to the idea that "one person equals one essence." While there is mystery involved in the Trinity, it is not irrational; it does not present an antinomy.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly, but rather implicitly set forth in the Scripture. This format, however, in which the doctrine is presented does not cause it to be an unbiblical concept. B. B. Warfield, in his article, "The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity" states: "The doctrine of the Trinity lies in Scripture in solution; when it is crystallized from its solvent it does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view (Biblical and Theological Studies, p. 22)

The entire Bible is Trinitarian to the core. It is incorrect to advocate that the New Testament is Trinitarian and the Old Testament is monotheistic. The doctrine of the Trinity is present in the Old Testament, but it is enunciated more in the guise of intimation than direct revelation. Some of the indications of the Trinity in the Old Testament are: the employment of plural pronouns in reference to God (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8), repetitions of the name of God that seem to distinguish between God and God (Psa. 45:6,7; 110:1), and threefold liturgical formulas (Numbers 6:24,26; Isa. 6:3).

The Angel of God in the Old Testament is a particularly strong indication of the Trinity (Gen. 16:7-13; 22:1,2, 11-18; 31:11-13; 48:15,16; Exo. 3:2-6; 13:21 and 14:19; 23:20-23 and 33:14; 32:34 - compare Exo. passages with Judges 2:1-4 and Exo. 20:1,2; Josh. 5:5:13-15; Judges 6:11-23; 13:18-22; 2 Sam. 24:16; Zech. 12:8). In every context the Angel of God speaks and performs deeds as if he were God himself, but distinguishes himself from God.

The Old Testament also contains references to the Son (Psa. 2:12) and to the Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:2). There are many passages which depict God's Word and Spirit as co-causes with God of his work (Gen. 1:2; Psa. 33:6; Isa 42:1; Hag. 2:5,6). Included in this category are passages that tend to personalize God's Word (Psa. 33:6; 107:20; 147:15-18; Isa. 55:11; 63:10).

The Trinity is also alluded to in those passages in which the Messiah as a Divine speaker refers to the Lord and/or the Spirit as having sent him (Isa. 48:16; 61:1 [see: Luke 4:16-18]; Zech. 2:10,11). The distinct persons of the Trinity are also implied in Isaiah 63:9,10. Isaiah speaks of the Lord, the Angel of his presence, and his Holy Spirit as distinct persons.

These implications in the Old Testament that God is triune in his nature were prepatory for the fuller revelation of the New Testament (ibid., p. 29,30). Concerning this B. B. Warfield states:

The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before. The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation, and here and there almost comes into view. Thus the Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation which follows it, but only perfected, extended and enlarged (p. 30, 31).

In the New Testament, the doctrine of the Trinity is not seen as a gradually developing doctrine; it appears as a fully mature concept. The theme of the New Testament caused the doctrine to be the fully established conception of God within the Christian community. The process of redemption was God's complete revealing of himself to man; the incarnation and the subsequent manifestations of the Holy Spirit set forth the full revelation of the Trinity. Consequently, the New Testament writers did not consider themselves to be departing from the God of the Old Testament, but rather felt that the God of the Old Testament had made himself more fully known to man through the redemptive process. The doctrine of the Trinity constitutes the conception of God set forth through the incarnation of the Son and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the basic proof that God is a Trinity lies in the support for the deity of the Son and the deity of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the whole mass of the New Testament is evidence for the Trinity because the core of the New Testament is concerned with the documentation of the deity of Christ and the deity of the Holy Spirit (Warfield, p. 35).

The New Testament abounds with proof for the deity of Jesus Christ. In eight passages, Jesus is described by the Greek word Theos (God): John 1:1-3; 1:18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 John 5:20. Divine attributes, such as eternality (Isa. 9:6; John 1:1,2; Rev. 1:8; 22:13), omnipresence (Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13), omniscience (John 2:24,25; 21:17; Rev. 2:23), omnipotence (Isa. 9:6; Phil. 3:21; Rev. 1:8), immutability (Heb. 1:10-12; 13:8), and in general, every attribute of the Father is ascribed to the Son (Col. 2:9).

The New Testament also depicts Jesus as exercising Divine prerogatives and works: creation (John 1:3,10; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2,10), providence (Luke 10:22; John 3:35; 17:2; Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3), the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 9:2-7; Mark 2:7-10; Col. 3:13), resurrection and judgment (Matt. 25:31,32; John 5:19-29; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Phil. 3:21; 2 Tim. 4:1), and the final dissolution and renewal of all things (Eph. 1:10; Heb. 1:10-12; Phil. 3:21; Rev. 21:5) (see: Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof, p. 94, 95).

The New Testament also affirms the deity of Jesus in calling him Yahweh. Old Testament prophecies concerning Yahweh are quoted in the New Testament as being references to Jesus (compare Mal. 3:1 and Luke 1:76; Joel 2:32 and Rom. 10:13; Isa. 45:23 and Rom. 14:10). (Buswell, p. 104, 105). These examples are adequate to demonstrate that the New Testament contains a myriad of proof for the deity of Jesus Christ.

The deity of the Holy Spirit may be proven through a line of reasoning similar to that used to demonstrate the deity of the Son. Peter uses the terms Holy Spirit and God interchangeably in Acts 5:3,4, thus directly calling the Holy Spirit God. Divine attributes are ascribed to the Holy Spirit: omnipresence (Psa. 139:7-10), omniscience (Isa. 40:13,14, compare with Romans 11:34), omnipotence (1 Cor. 2:11; Rom. 15:19), and eternality (Hebrews 9:14). Divine works are performed by the Holy Spirit such as creation (Gen. 1:2; Job 26:13), regeneration (John 3:4,5; Titus 3:5), and the resurrection of the dead (Rom. 8:11) (Berkhof, p. 97, 98).

The Holy Spirit is also ascribed the qualities of personhood and personality in Scripture. These qualities consist of mind, will, and emotions. For example, in Romans 8:26, 27, the Holy Spirit helps in prayer, searches hearts, is said to have a mind, and intercedes for the saints (see also 1 Cor. 2:11).

1 Corinthians 12:11 states that the Holy Spirit gives spiritual gifts to various Christians "just as he wills." Ephesians 4:30, in providing ethical exhortations, urges Christians not to grieve the Holy Spirit of God, thus attributing emotion to the Holy Spirit. In Acts 5:3,4, Peter said that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. One does not lie to an impersonal force. This passage not only affirms the deity of the Holy Spirit, but also demonstrates his personhood. The following passages teach that the Holy Spirit will teach, speak, guide, convict of sin, witness, comfort, glorify Christ, give gifts, etc. All of these are qualities of personality: John 14:26; 15:26; 16:14; Acts 13:1-3; 16:6,7; 20:22,23; 21:11; Rom. 8:14-16, 26,27; 1 Cor. 2:10,11; 12:1-3, 12,13; Galatians 5:22-25; Ephesians 1:13,14; 4:30; Titus 3:3-5; Hebrews 10:29; Jude 20; Revelation 22:17.

These proofs of the deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit implicitly teach the triune nature of God.

Even though the doctrine of the Trinity is basically taught implicitly in the New Testament, it is also explicitly set forth in numerous passages. The teaching of Jesus affirms a Trinitarian concept of God. Concerning this B. B. Warfield states: He [Jesus] has much to say of God his Father, from whom as His Son He is in some true sense distinct, and with whom He as He represents the is in some equally true sense one. And He has much to say of the Spirit, who represents Him Father, and by whom He works as the Father works by Him (ibid. p. 37).

A good example of this is the discourses of Jesus in the gospel of John. Jesus is direct in his assertions that he and the Father are one (John 10:30) and that this oneness entails a unity of interpenetration (John 10:38; 14:10,11). Jesus' unity with the Father is seen clearly by his claims of eternality (John 8:58; 17:5,18) (ibid. p. 38). His speaking of himself as the Son of God (John 5:25; 9:35; 10:36; 11:4) also affirms his equality with the Father because the Jewish usage of the term "son of. . ." conveyed the idea of equality and identity of nature. The Jews understood that when Jesus called himself the Son of God, he was identifying himself as equal and identical with God (John 5:18; 10:33) (Buswell, p. 105). Jesus also stressed that he possessed a personal distinctness from the Father. He explained his presence in the world as involving a coming forth out of God (John 8:42; 16:28). Jesus spoke objectively of the Father sending him into the world (John 8:42; 17:21), of an interchange of emotions between the Father, himself, and his disciples (John 16:26, 28, 30; 17:33), and of his having fellowship with the Father (John 7:29). Therefore, Jesus not only claims a oneness with the Father, but also purports that there is a distinction of person between them: a subject-object relationship that involves an exchange of emotions, such as love (John 17:23,24) and of an action and reaction upon each other (John 17:8) (Warfield p. 39).

The teaching of Jesus also supports the deity of the Holy Spirit and declares that a subject-object relationship also exist between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. In Jesus farewell discourse, he stated: "These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you (John 14:25,26 NASB)." This passage demonstrates a personal distinctness between the three persons of the Godhead. The unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, however, is set forth in the same discourse. After stating that the Spirit would come in his stead, Jesus said that he would not leave his disciples as orphans, but that he would come to them (John 14:18). Therefore, in this discourse, Jesus indicated that there is a unity between himself and the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the teaching in John 14 indicates a distinctness of the persons in the Godhead and also indicates that where the Spirit is present, so also is Christ, and where Christ is present, so also is the Father; both a distinction and unity of the persons of the Godhead is suggested and, thus, the doctrine of the Trinity is presupposed (Buswell, p.114-115).

The most direct pronouncement of Jesus concerning the Trinity is found in the great commission. Matthew 28:19 states: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. . . (NASB)." Before examining what this passage asserts, it is important to note what it does not assert. It does not say, in the names (plural) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, as if to indicate three different persons. Neither does it state, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as if to imply that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are designations for a single person. The passage does declare the unity of the Godhead in its singular use of "name;" it also sets forth the distinctness of each person in the Godhead through the repetition of the definite article before each name. Therefore, this passage teaches the unity of the Godhead, in that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each have a common usage of the one name; it also designates a distinct personhood to each of the three members of the Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Warfield, p. 42).

B. B. Warfield summarizes this well:

This is a direct ascription to Jehovah the God of Israel, of a threefold personality, and is therewith the direct enunciation of the doctrine of the Trinity. We are not witnessing here the birth of the doctrine of the Trinity; that is presupposed. What we are witnessing is the authoritative announcement of the Trinity as the God of Christianity by its Founder, in one of the most solemn of His recorded declarations (p. 44).

The triune nature of God, evidenced in the redemptive process, underlies the teaching of the New Testament. It is an assumed fact and a pivot upon which the early Christian community's conception of God turned.

Historically, a theological problem arose concerning the relationship between the three persons of the Trinity. Neo-Stoic and Neo-Platonic ideas existent in the second century influenced Christian thought. The result was that a concept of the Godhead arose that proposed a subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father in their modes of subsistence (Logos-Christology). Monarchianism, a reaction against this concept of the Godhead, stated that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were only different expressions of the one Divine person. The Church, particularly through the work of Tertullian, came to a balance between these two positions. Under the leadership of Athanasius, the Church's formal declaration of the Trinity was set forth by the Council of Nicea in A. D. 325 (Warfield, p. 57-58). However, traces of subordinationist thought were still present in the Nicean Creed in the form of the idea of an eternal generation of the Son. This concept is captured in the Nicean Creed by its phrase: "God out of God" (theos ek theou). Eternal generation essentially postulates that the Father is the beginning or author of the being of the Son. Consequently, only the Father has being in himself. Eternal generation does not mean a creation of the Son by the Father and it does not suggest a pattern modeled after human generation (i.e. there is no reference to a female personage in the Godhead). Neither does it attempt to separate or divide the Divine essence. The concept does claim that the Son is eternally begotten or generated by the Father. The eternality of the Son was recognized by the Church at the time of the Council of Nicea in that claimed that the Son was eternally begotten. This concept, however, tends to subordinate the Son to the Father in modes of subsistence as well as operation because it uses elements of language that are inherent from the Logos-Christology.

These tendencies toward the essential subordination of the Son led to a misinterpretations of John 15:26. Instead of correctly interpreting the verse in its immediate context that after the ascension of Christ, the Holy Spirit would be manifested in the Church, the early Church followed subordinationist ideas and postulated that the Holy Spirit "proceeded" from the Father and the Son (the Eastern branch of the Church claimed the Holy Spirit "proceeded" only from the Father). The Church said this procession, like the generation of the Son, is eternal and, therefore, protected the deity of the Holy Spirit. However, this concept also tended to subordinate the Holy Spirit ontologically and, thus, make him a quasi-dependent being (Buswell, p. 119). Therefore, the Nicean Creed defended the essential deity of the Son, but it contained components of subordinationist thought which, if unwarrantably emphasized, could make the Son inferior to the Father ontologically. This same subordinationist thought could also lead to the Holy Spirit being understood as ontologically inferior. Because of these problems, it became necessary in later church history to reassert the self-existence of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, reemphasized that the Son was God in himself. In Book 1, Chapter 13, Article 19 of the Institutes. . ., Calvin cites Augustine for support and contends that the Father and the Son is each God in respect to himself, but each derives his personhood of Father or Son from the relationship he sustains with the Father or Son. Calvin emphasizes this point in 1,13,25 in stating that each person of the Trinity is deity and exists in himself. However, the personhood of each member of the Trinity stems from his relationship with the other persons of the Godhead. Therefore, the Father is not the deifier of the Son. Finally, in 1,13,29, Calvin says, "Indeed it is foolish to imagine a continual act of begetting, since it is clear that three persons have subsisted in God from eternity." In summary, Calvin contends that the Son is God in himself and derives his hypostatic distinction of Son from his relationship to the Father and the Father is God in himself and derives his hypostatic distinction of Father from his relationship to the Son. The nature of this relationship simply remains a mystery since God has not revealed it.

The solution to the seeming paradox of an equality and subordination existing in the Trinity simultaneously lies in understanding the difference between the ontological and economical Trinity. Ontologically, each member of the Trinity is equal; each is God in himself and has self-existence. However, Scripture teaches a subordination of the Son to the Father and the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son in an economic or administrative sense. In the administrative aspects of redemption, the Father sends the Son and the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit. There exists, therefore, a divine order in the intra-personal relationships of the members of the Trinity. However, the modes of procession between the members of the Godhead are a mystery; the mode of paternity or filiation between the Father and the Son is an incommunicable property. Therefore, it is impossible to explain the precise nature of the relationships between the different members of the Godhead. It is important, however, to maintain a balance between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity; neither must be allowed to overshadow the other. Historically, serious errors have occurred particularly when the administrative aspects of the Trinity have been applied in an ontological sense. This has usually resulted in the Son and the Holy Spirit being demeaned.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism summarizes the doctrine of the Trinity well:

Are There more Gods than one? There is but one only, the living and true God. How many persons are there in the Godhead? There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory (Questions 5, 6).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berkhof, Louis. 1939. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eardman’s.

Buswell, J. Oliver, Jr. 1962. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Calvin, John. 1960. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Warfield, B. B. 1952. "The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity." Biblical and Theological Studies. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.


By: Dr. Van Lees

One of the more important and central doctrines of Christianity is the doctrine of the Trinity. The concept that there is one God that subsists in three persons is essential to the Christian faith. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., in his Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion states, "The doctrine of the Trinity is indispensable for the harmony and unity of other major doctrines in the Christian system" (p. 126). A good example of the essentiality of the doctrine of the Trinity is its relation to the incarnation of Christ. It would be impossible to conceive of God becoming man, dying for the sins of man, and rising from the dead apart from the concept of the Trinity.

"For God (the Father) so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son (the second person of the Trinity) that whosoever believeth in him (through the conviction and enabling work of the Holy Spirit, John 16:8; Eph. 2:1-8) should not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16) (Buswell., p. 128).

The doctrine of the Trinity is not an arithmetic paradox; it does not teach that one equals three. The doctrine propounds that there is but one God, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is each God; and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is each a distinct person - a self-conscious being. The classic definition of the Trinity is: God is one in essence and three in person. The reason people usually have trouble understanding this is that we are accustomed to the idea that "one person equals one essence." While there is mystery involved in the Trinity, it is not irrational; it does not present an antinomy.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly, but rather implicitly set forth in the Scripture. This format, however, in which the doctrine is presented does not cause it to be an unbiblical concept. B. B. Warfield, in his article, "The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity" states: "The doctrine of the Trinity lies in Scripture in solution; when it is crystallized from its solvent it does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view (Biblical and Theological Studies, p. 22)

The entire Bible is Trinitarian to the core. It is incorrect to advocate that the New Testament is Trinitarian and the Old Testament is monotheistic. The doctrine of the Trinity is present in the Old Testament, but it is enunciated more in the guise of intimation than direct revelation. Some of the indications of the Trinity in the Old Testament are: the employment of plural pronouns in reference to God (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8), repetitions of the name of God that seem to distinguish between God and God (Psa. 45:6,7; 110:1), and threefold liturgical formulas (Numbers 6:24,26; Isa. 6:3).

The Angel of God in the Old Testament is a particularly strong indication of the Trinity (Gen. 16:7-13; 22:1,2, 11-18; 31:11-13; 48:15,16; Exo. 3:2-6; 13:21 and 14:19; 23:20-23 and 33:14; 32:34 - compare Exo. passages with Judges 2:1-4 and Exo. 20:1,2; Josh. 5:5:13-15; Judges 6:11-23; 13:18-22; 2 Sam. 24:16; Zech. 12:8). In every context the Angel of God speaks and performs deeds as if he were God himself, but distinguishes himself from God.

The Old Testament also contains references to the Son (Psa. 2:12) and to the Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:2). There are many passages which depict God's Word and Spirit as co-causes with God of his work (Gen. 1:2; Psa. 33:6; Isa 42:1; Hag. 2:5,6). Included in this category are passages that tend to personalize God's Word (Psa. 33:6; 107:20; 147:15-18; Isa. 55:11; 63:10).

The Trinity is also alluded to in those passages in which the Messiah as a Divine speaker refers to the Lord and/or the Spirit as having sent him (Isa. 48:16; 61:1 [see: Luke 4:16-18]; Zech. 2:10,11). The distinct persons of the Trinity are also implied in Isaiah 63:9,10. Isaiah speaks of the Lord, the Angel of his presence, and his Holy Spirit as distinct persons.

These implications in the Old Testament that God is triune in his nature were prepatory for the fuller revelation of the New Testament (ibid., p. 29,30). Concerning this B. B. Warfield states:

The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before. The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation, and here and there almost comes into view. Thus the Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation which follows it, but only perfected, extended and enlarged (p. 30, 31).

In the New Testament, the doctrine of the Trinity is not seen as a gradually developing doctrine; it appears as a fully mature concept. The theme of the New Testament caused the doctrine to be the fully established conception of God within the Christian community. The process of redemption was God's complete revealing of himself to man; the incarnation and the subsequent manifestations of the Holy Spirit set forth the full revelation of the Trinity. Consequently, the New Testament writers did not consider themselves to be departing from the God of the Old Testament, but rather felt that the God of the Old Testament had made himself more fully known to man through the redemptive process. The doctrine of the Trinity constitutes the conception of God set forth through the incarnation of the Son and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the basic proof that God is a Trinity lies in the support for the deity of the Son and the deity of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the whole mass of the New Testament is evidence for the Trinity because the core of the New Testament is concerned with the documentation of the deity of Christ and the deity of the Holy Spirit (Warfield, p. 35).

The New Testament abounds with proof for the deity of Jesus Christ. In eight passages, Jesus is described by the Greek word Theos (God): John 1:1-3; 1:18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 John 5:20. Divine attributes, such as eternality (Isa. 9:6; John 1:1,2; Rev. 1:8; 22:13), omnipresence (Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13), omniscience (John 2:24,25; 21:17; Rev. 2:23), omnipotence (Isa. 9:6; Phil. 3:21; Rev. 1:8), immutability (Heb. 1:10-12; 13:8), and in general, every attribute of the Father is ascribed to the Son (Col. 2:9).

The New Testament also depicts Jesus as exercising Divine prerogatives and works: creation (John 1:3,10; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2,10), providence (Luke 10:22; John 3:35; 17:2; Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3), the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 9:2-7; Mark 2:7-10; Col. 3:13), resurrection and judgment (Matt. 25:31,32; John 5:19-29; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Phil. 3:21; 2 Tim. 4:1), and the final dissolution and renewal of all things (Eph. 1:10; Heb. 1:10-12; Phil. 3:21; Rev. 21:5) (see: Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof, p. 94, 95).

The New Testament also affirms the deity of Jesus in calling him Yahweh. Old Testament prophecies concerning Yahweh are quoted in the New Testament as being references to Jesus (compare Mal. 3:1 and Luke 1:76; Joel 2:32 and Rom. 10:13; Isa. 45:23 and Rom. 14:10). (Buswell, p. 104, 105). These examples are adequate to demonstrate that the New Testament contains a myriad of proof for the deity of Jesus Christ.

The deity of the Holy Spirit may be proven through a line of reasoning similar to that used to demonstrate the deity of the Son. Peter uses the terms Holy Spirit and God interchangeably in Acts 5:3,4, thus directly calling the Holy Spirit God. Divine attributes are ascribed to the Holy Spirit: omnipresence (Psa. 139:7-10), omniscience (Isa. 40:13,14, compare with Romans 11:34), omnipotence (1 Cor. 2:11; Rom. 15:19), and eternality (Hebrews 9:14). Divine works are performed by the Holy Spirit such as creation (Gen. 1:2; Job 26:13), regeneration (John 3:4,5; Titus 3:5), and the resurrection of the dead (Rom. 8:11) (Berkhof, p. 97, 98).

The Holy Spirit is also ascribed the qualities of personhood and personality in Scripture. These qualities consist of mind, will, and emotions. For example, in Romans 8:26, 27, the Holy Spirit helps in prayer, searches hearts, is said to have a mind, and intercedes for the saints (see also 1 Cor. 2:11).

1 Corinthians 12:11 states that the Holy Spirit gives spiritual gifts to various Christians "just as he wills." Ephesians 4:30, in providing ethical exhortations, urges Christians not to grieve the Holy Spirit of God, thus attributing emotion to the Holy Spirit. In Acts 5:3,4, Peter said that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. One does not lie to an impersonal force. This passage not only affirms the deity of the Holy Spirit, but also demonstrates his personhood. The following passages teach that the Holy Spirit will teach, speak, guide, convict of sin, witness, comfort, glorify Christ, give gifts, etc. All of these are qualities of personality: John 14:26; 15:26; 16:14; Acts 13:1-3; 16:6,7; 20:22,23; 21:11; Rom. 8:14-16, 26,27; 1 Cor. 2:10,11; 12:1-3, 12,13; Galatians 5:22-25; Ephesians 1:13,14; 4:30; Titus 3:3-5; Hebrews 10:29; Jude 20; Revelation 22:17.

These proofs of the deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit implicitly teach the triune nature of God.

Even though the doctrine of the Trinity is basically taught implicitly in the New Testament, it is also explicitly set forth in numerous passages. The teaching of Jesus affirms a Trinitarian concept of God. Concerning this B. B. Warfield states: He [Jesus] has much to say of God his Father, from whom as His Son He is in some true sense distinct, and with whom He as He represents the is in some equally true sense one. And He has much to say of the Spirit, who represents Him Father, and by whom He works as the Father works by Him (ibid. p. 37).

A good example of this is the discourses of Jesus in the gospel of John. Jesus is direct in his assertions that he and the Father are one (John 10:30) and that this oneness entails a unity of interpenetration (John 10:38; 14:10,11). Jesus' unity with the Father is seen clearly by his claims of eternality (John 8:58; 17:5,18) (ibid. p. 38). His speaking of himself as the Son of God (John 5:25; 9:35; 10:36; 11:4) also affirms his equality with the Father because the Jewish usage of the term "son of. . ." conveyed the idea of equality and identity of nature. The Jews understood that when Jesus called himself the Son of God, he was identifying himself as equal and identical with God (John 5:18; 10:33) (Buswell, p. 105). Jesus also stressed that he possessed a personal distinctness from the Father. He explained his presence in the world as involving a coming forth out of God (John 8:42; 16:28). Jesus spoke objectively of the Father sending him into the world (John 8:42; 17:21), of an interchange of emotions between the Father, himself, and his disciples (John 16:26, 28, 30; 17:33), and of his having fellowship with the Father (John 7:29). Therefore, Jesus not only claims a oneness with the Father, but also purports that there is a distinction of person between them: a subject-object relationship that involves an exchange of emotions, such as love (John 17:23,24) and of an action and reaction upon each other (John 17:8) (Warfield p. 39).

The teaching of Jesus also supports the deity of the Holy Spirit and declares that a subject-object relationship also exist between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. In Jesus farewell discourse, he stated: "These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you (John 14:25,26 NASB)." This passage demonstrates a personal distinctness between the three persons of the Godhead. The unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, however, is set forth in the same discourse. After stating that the Spirit would come in his stead, Jesus said that he would not leave his disciples as orphans, but that he would come to them (John 14:18). Therefore, in this discourse, Jesus indicated that there is a unity between himself and the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the teaching in John 14 indicates a distinctness of the persons in the Godhead and also indicates that where the Spirit is present, so also is Christ, and where Christ is present, so also is the Father; both a distinction and unity of the persons of the Godhead is suggested and, thus, the doctrine of the Trinity is presupposed (Buswell, p.114-115).

The most direct pronouncement of Jesus concerning the Trinity is found in the great commission. Matthew 28:19 states: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. . . (NASB)." Before examining what this passage asserts, it is important to note what it does not assert. It does not say, in the names (plural) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, as if to indicate three different persons. Neither does it state, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as if to imply that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are designations for a single person. The passage does declare the unity of the Godhead in its singular use of "name;" it also sets forth the distinctness of each person in the Godhead through the repetition of the definite article before each name. Therefore, this passage teaches the unity of the Godhead, in that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each have a common usage of the one name; it also designates a distinct personhood to each of the three members of the Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Warfield, p. 42).

B. B. Warfield summarizes this well:

This is a direct ascription to Jehovah the God of Israel, of a threefold personality, and is therewith the direct enunciation of the doctrine of the Trinity. We are not witnessing here the birth of the doctrine of the Trinity; that is presupposed. What we are witnessing is the authoritative announcement of the Trinity as the God of Christianity by its Founder, in one of the most solemn of His recorded declarations (p. 44).

The triune nature of God, evidenced in the redemptive process, underlies the teaching of the New Testament. It is an assumed fact and a pivot upon which the early Christian community's conception of God turned.

Historically, a theological problem arose concerning the relationship between the three persons of the Trinity. Neo-Stoic and Neo-Platonic ideas existent in the second century influenced Christian thought. The result was that a concept of the Godhead arose that proposed a subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father in their modes of subsistence (Logos-Christology). Monarchianism, a reaction against this concept of the Godhead, stated that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were only different expressions of the one Divine person. The Church, particularly through the work of Tertullian, came to a balance between these two positions. Under the leadership of Athanasius, the Church's formal declaration of the Trinity was set forth by the Council of Nicea in A. D. 325 (Warfield, p. 57-58). However, traces of subordinationist thought were still present in the Nicean Creed in the form of the idea of an eternal generation of the Son. This concept is captured in the Nicean Creed by its phrase: "God out of God" (theos ek theou). Eternal generation essentially postulates that the Father is the beginning or author of the being of the Son. Consequently, only the Father has being in himself. Eternal generation does not mean a creation of the Son by the Father and it does not suggest a pattern modeled after human generation (i.e. there is no reference to a female personage in the Godhead). Neither does it attempt to separate or divide the Divine essence. The concept does claim that the Son is eternally begotten or generated by the Father. The eternality of the Son was recognized by the Church at the time of the Council of Nicea in that claimed that the Son was eternally begotten. This concept, however, tends to subordinate the Son to the Father in modes of subsistence as well as operation because it uses elements of language that are inherent from the Logos-Christology.

These tendencies toward the essential subordination of the Son led to a misinterpretations of John 15:26. Instead of correctly interpreting the verse in its immediate context that after the ascension of Christ, the Holy Spirit would be manifested in the Church, the early Church followed subordinationist ideas and postulated that the Holy Spirit "proceeded" from the Father and the Son (the Eastern branch of the Church claimed the Holy Spirit "proceeded" only from the Father). The Church said this procession, like the generation of the Son, is eternal and, therefore, protected the deity of the Holy Spirit. However, this concept also tended to subordinate the Holy Spirit ontologically and, thus, make him a quasi-dependent being (Buswell, p. 119). Therefore, the Nicean Creed defended the essential deity of the Son, but it contained components of subordinationist thought which, if unwarrantably emphasized, could make the Son inferior to the Father ontologically. This same subordinationist thought could also lead to the Holy Spirit being understood as ontologically inferior. Because of these problems, it became necessary in later church history to reassert the self-existence of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, reemphasized that the Son was God in himself. In Book 1, Chapter 13, Article 19 of the Institutes. . ., Calvin cites Augustine for support and contends that the Father and the Son is each God in respect to himself, but each derives his personhood of Father or Son from the relationship he sustains with the Father or Son. Calvin emphasizes this point in 1,13,25 in stating that each person of the Trinity is deity and exists in himself. However, the personhood of each member of the Trinity stems from his relationship with the other persons of the Godhead. Therefore, the Father is not the deifier of the Son. Finally, in 1,13,29, Calvin says, "Indeed it is foolish to imagine a continual act of begetting, since it is clear that three persons have subsisted in God from eternity." In summary, Calvin contends that the Son is God in himself and derives his hypostatic distinction of Son from his relationship to the Father and the Father is God in himself and derives his hypostatic distinction of Father from his relationship to the Son. The nature of this relationship simply remains a mystery since God has not revealed it.

The solution to the seeming paradox of an equality and subordination existing in the Trinity simultaneously lies in understanding the difference between the ontological and economical Trinity. Ontologically, each member of the Trinity is equal; each is God in himself and has self-existence. However, Scripture teaches a subordination of the Son to the Father and the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son in an economic or administrative sense. In the administrative aspects of redemption, the Father sends the Son and the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit. There exists, therefore, a divine order in the intra-personal relationships of the members of the Trinity. However, the modes of procession between the members of the Godhead are a mystery; the mode of paternity or filiation between the Father and the Son is an incommunicable property. Therefore, it is impossible to explain the precise nature of the relationships between the different members of the Godhead. It is important, however, to maintain a balance between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity; neither must be allowed to overshadow the other. Historically, serious errors have occurred particularly when the administrative aspects of the Trinity have been applied in an ontological sense. This has usually resulted in the Son and the Holy Spirit being demeaned.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism summarizes the doctrine of the Trinity well:

Are There more Gods than one? There is but one only, the living and true God. How many persons are there in the Godhead? There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory (Questions 5, 6).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berkhof, Louis. 1939. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eardman’s.

Buswell, J. Oliver, Jr. 1962. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Calvin, John. 1960. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Warfield, B. B. 1952. "The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity." Biblical and Theological Studies. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.

WHY STUDY THEOLOGY?

Does theology really matter? That question is important in the present evangelical community because the systematic teaching of the Word of God is not present in many churches. Theology is said not to be connected with real life and, therefore, it is disparaged. David Wells, in his insightful book No Place For Truth addresses the lack of theology in the life of the Church: "The disappearance of theology from the life of the Church, and the orchestration of that disappearance by some of its leaders, is hard to miss today but, oddly enough, not easy to prove. It is hard to miss in the evangelical world - in the vacuous worship that is so prevalent, for example, in the shift from God to the self as the central focus of faith, in the psychologized preaching that follows this shift, in the erosion of its conviction, in its strident pragmatism, in its inability to think incisively about the culture, in its reveling in the irrational. And it would have made few of these capitulations to modernity had not is capacity for truth diminished. It is not hard to see these things; avoiding them is what is difficult. . . . The stakes are high: the anti-theological mood that now grips the evangelical world is changing its internal configuration, its effectiveness, and its relation to the past. It is severing the link to historical, Protestant orthodoxy. It is emancipating contemporary evangelicals to form casual alliances at will with a multitude of substitutes for this orthodoxy. And the reason for this is that what that orthodoxy had and what contemporary evangelicalism so often lacks is a theology at its center that defines the faith and prescribes the sorts of intellectual and practical relations is should establish in the world" (No Place For Truth, p. 95, 96). Dr. D. James Kennedy concurs with Wells and writes: "Ours is an era of malnourished church members who have been spoon-fed tapioca and cheesecake religion until their spiritual stomachs are bloated and their hearts are clogged with the cholesterol of meaningless 'I wanna be me' self-fulfillment" (How Do I Live For God? p. 9).

REASONS WHY PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO STUDY THEOLOGY

On numerous occasions, I've heard Christians attack the study of theology. They say, "I just want to know God and live a Christian life. I don't need to carefully understand what the Bible says about God or Christ or the plan of salvation." I've often wondered how they think they can know God or have a relationship with God when they don't want to know his self-revelation in Scripture.

There are a myriad of reasons why many people react against the idea of studying theology. Let's examine some of the more common arguments that are given against theology and a systematic study of the Scriptures.

"I don't want to study theology because theologians simply attack the Bible."

Sometimes people equate the term "theology" with liberal theology that denies the central truths of Christianity. They, therefore, have an adverse reaction to the word "theology."

It is true that liberal theology attacks the Bible at almost every point. Besides attacking the truths of Scripture, liberal theology has redefined almost every gospel truth. For example, if Peter had been a modern, liberal theologian when Jesus asked, "Who do men say that I am?" the following response could have occurred: Jesus asked, "Who do men say that I am?" The disciples replied, "Some say Elijah, others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Jesus said, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter, the modern liberal theologian answered and said, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of being of the faith community, the kerygma manifested in conflict, the self-realization of personhood, and the motivational encounter for the socialization and humanization of mankind." Jesus replied, "I'm what?" And then he strictly charged his disciples to tell no one who he was. Many people react against the idea of theology because that is their concept of theology.

True Christian theology is not some liberal attack on Scripture or an intellectual exercise that is divorced from practical Christian living. The word, "theology" is derived from the Greek word for God, theos. Therefore, theology is simply the study of God and what he has revealed in his Word. Christians are commanded in Scripture to be engaged in the study of what God has revealed.

"I don't want to study theology because it's not practical."

Often people think of theology as some dry, dusty, academic exercise which has little to do with practical Christian living. The Puritan writer William Ames rightly observed that theology is supremely practical for the Christian life because it is that which enables us to live well unto God (The Marrow of Theology).

Theology is not separated from practical Christian living. For example, if a person wants to know Jesus, he must learn about him from the Scriptures. For a person to engage in true worship of God, he must know about the God he is worshipping from God's self-revelation in the Scriptures. God did not send us feelings from heaven; he gave us oracles, commandments, and propositional statements about himself and his plan of salvation. For a person to have a strong faith and trust in God, to engage in worship that is honoring and acceptable to God, to pray properly, or to pursue any spiritual activity, he must have an understanding of what God has said in his Word. In the Scriptures, God has spoken concerning himself and his nature, he has instructed us on how he is to be properly worshipped, and he has revealed his plan of salvation through Christ. Without the revelation of God's Word, there can be no true worship of God or a relationship with God. Without knowing who God is and how we can have a relationship with him from Scripture, all so-called worship, prayer, or religious activity is idolatry because it is supported only by man's speculations about God, not by God's self-revelation in the Bible. Jonathan Edwards wrote, "Holy affections are not heat without light, but ever more arise from some information in understanding, some spiritual instruction that the mind receives, some light or actual knowledge.

The child of God is graciously affected, because he sees and understands something more of divine things than he did before, more of God or Christ, and of the glorious things exhibited in the gospel. He has a clearer and better view than he had before, when he was not affected; either he receives some new understanding of divine things, or has his former knowledge renewed after the view was decayed." Edwards then cites: 1 John 5:7; Phil 1:9; Rom. 10:2; Col. 3:10; Psa. 43:3,4; John 6:45. He continues, "Knowledge is the key that first opens the hard heart, enlarges the affections, and opens the way for men into the kingdom of heaven; Luke 10:52: 'Ye have taken away the key of knowledge.'" (Religious Affections, in The Collected Writings of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 1, p. 281, 282).

A "Peanuts" cartoon pictured Lucy and Linus looking out the window at a steady downpour of rain. "Boy," said Lucy, "look at it rain. What if it floods the whole world?" "It will never do that," Linus replied confidently. "In the ninth chapter of Genesis, God promised Noah that would never happen again, and the sign of the promise is the rainbow." "You've taken a great load off my mind," said Lucy with a relieved smile. "Sound theology," pontificated Linus, "has a way of doing that!" Linus is right; the systematic study of the great truth of Scripture put iron in the Christian's backbone when it comes to facing daily trials and struggles.

"Theology and doctrine are not important; I just want to know Jesus."

How can a person know Jesus, if they do not know who he is or what he has done in God's plan of salvation? The only way a person can know Jesus is through a systematic reading and studying of the Word of God. Theology is simply the systematic study of what God has revealed; it is a technical term for the careful and systematic study of the Word of God. God commands every Christian to know his Word. The study of theology is the discipline of learning, in a systematic way, what God has spoken. D. James Kennedy, in his book Truths That Transform, writes: "Away with vain words . . . Christianity is life - not doctrine. . . . Our only creed is Christ . . . . Let us be done with dogma and go on to duty." Familiar words? Do you believe them? Millions have. And with such shibboleths as these, the ax has been laid to the root of genuine Christianity by Satan himself. "For as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he (Prov. 23:7)." If there is anything peculiar to the Protestant churches which emerges from the Reformation, it is this: All life must be grounded in truth. That which a man believes is going to determine what he does, and the life we live will spring inevitably from the beliefs that we hold. This is why we are saved by faith, and faith is the belief of the truth and the reception of it as such.

Christianity, indeed, is not only life, but also doctrine. It is a life which is produced by belief. Those who would castigate creed and dogma and doctrine should perchance take a look again at what these words mean. The word "doctrine" comes from the Latin word docere, which means to teach. The word "creed" comes from the Latin word credo, which means I believe. The word "dogma" comes from a Greek word dokeo which means to think. Therefore, a person who has no dogma, no creed and no doctrine is a person who neither thinks, believes, or teaches. But if you are going to think anything, believe anything, and teach anything, then, my friends, you need dogma, creed, and doctrine. This is the substance which forms the foundation of the Christian faith. The problem with so many today is that they do have dogma, doctrine, and creed, but they are usually of their own making. They have mixed them up and brewed them in their own minds. The problem is not that they do not hold such, but that which they hold is corrupted by untruth and falsehood. This is the reason for the low state of morality and the apathy which is rampant in this country and the Church today. If we are going to have a vital life in the Church, then that life must spring from the truth" (p. 79,80).

"Theology isnt important because it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere."

This objection fits well into the subjective and relativistic culture of our day. The greatest villain of our culture is the person who says that something is absolutely true and conversely its opposite is false. The study of Scripture in a systematic way informs the Christian's mind of what is true and what is right before God. True faith has true knowledge and content about its object. Without knowledge content, faith reduced to subjective speculation that usually ends in idolatry. R. C. Sproul writes, "A popular aphorism repeated ad infinitum (and indeed ad nauseam) in our day is this: 'It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere.' This 'credo' is on a collision course with Christianity. It preaches another gospel of 'justification by faith,' which reveals, after a momentary second glance, that it is the very antithesis of the gospel of sola fide. This reduces justification by faith along to justification by sincerity alone.

The distortion is easy to see. It is a counterfeit concept that rests and depends on a genuine truth for it currency value. The genuine element is the element of sincerity in faith. An insincere faith justifies no one. It is a sham and has no redemptive value. Saving faith must be and is sincere faith. But it is sincere faith in a true object, in true content, not a sincere faith in false content. A person may believe that Baal is God. His faith is 'sincere' insofar as he truly believes the proposition 'Baal is God' is true. Yet my believing that a proposition is true does not make it true.

To say it does not matter what we believe as long as we believe it sincerely is to drive a sword into the heart of Christianity. It is the crassest form of relativism and subjectivism.

We live in an era that boasts of its vehement resistance to propositional truth. Truth is said to be a 'relationship' or 'personal encounter.' Existential philosophy has placed so much stress on the personal and relational character of faith that an allergy has developed against propositional or objective truth.

Again, the distortion of the counterfeit rests on the genuine for its persuasive force. Christian faith certainly does involve and require a personal, relational, subjective response. Faith is not the activity of a disinterested spectator. The passion of personal involvement and commitment of which Soren Kierkegaard wrote is certainly necessary to saving faith. But personal encounter does not negate objective and propositional truth; indeed it presupposes it. I cannot have faith in nothing. My faith must have content or an object.

Before I can have personal relationship with God or anyone else, I must first be aware of them to some degree. I must have some intelligible understanding of what or whom I am believing. I cannot have God in my heart if he is not in my head. Before I can believe in, I must believe that.

It is possible to be aware of a proposition and even affirm the truth of that proposition and still lack a personal faith in it. But I cannot have the personal relationship without any understanding, information, or knowledge of the object of my faith. A faith without an object is sheer subjectivism." (Faith Alone, p. 76, 77).

SCRIPTURE COMMANDS SYSTEMATIC STUDY

Numerous passages in Scripture address the importance of systematic learning in the Christian life. Ephesians 4:11-15 speaks of certain ministry offices in the church and their purpose: "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ." God has appointed teachers in the church and the implication is that God's people are to be involved in learning and growing with the result that they would not be deceived.
The writer to the Hebrews gives a sharp rebuke to the recipients of his letter because they had neglected systematic learning: "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil" (Hebrews 5:12-14). Notice that he says they have come to need milk and not solid food. The youngest babies need milk and not solid food. A baby is just a few months old when he begins to eat cereal and baby food. This group of people had been Christians for enough time that the expectation was they would be teachers. Instead, they needed the most elementary teaching concerning the oracles of God. This is a sharp rebuke which tragically can be applied to many who profess to know Christ today.

In the great commission, Jesus tells the disciples to take the gospel to the world, making disciples of all the nations and teaching them all that Jesus had commanded them (Matt. 18:18-20). The disciples were not just to evangelize, but to make disciples and teach them all that Jesus had commanded them. At this crucial point in redemptive history, when Jesus was giving his apostles his last instructions, he commands them to be engaged in teaching the nations what he has commanded. Systematic study and learning are a normal part of biblical Christianity. There are repeated commands in Scripture to the Christian to read, study, and build into his Christian life a systematic understanding of what God's has spoken in his Word.

THE BENEFITS OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

What are some of the benefits of a systematic study of God's Word? There are a myriad of benefits, but I want to mention five main areas where the Christian profits from the study of theology.
First, the Christian who systematically studies the Word of God knows truth. When a Christian knows what the Bible says about something, he knows the very mind of God on the subject. Whether he is studying the person and work of Christ, the accomplishment of our salvation, or the ethical commands of God, when he knows what the Bible says, he knows what God says and, therefore, knows truth about the subject. The systematic study of Gods Word is vital for Christians to know and grow in the truths of the Gospel.

The lack of systematic study is evident in the evangelical community. For example, in the area of basic gospel truths 84 percent of evangelicals embrace the idea that in salvation God helps those who help themselves, 77 percent believe that human beings are basically good and that good people go to heaven no matter what they believe about Jesus Christ, and more than half surveyed affirmed that self-fulfillment was their first priority.

Knowing the truth of Scripture protects a Christian from falsehood whether it is the false teaching of the cults or the falsehood of irrationalism and relativism of truth that pervades our culture.
Second, the Christian who systematically studies the Word of God has a strong faith. Strong faith is based on the integrity and promises of God. As a Christian understands the attributes of God, he knows that God is faithful and able to do that which he promises; he can do what he promises in our salvation and in his care for us in our lives. The Scriptural truths of God's sovereignty give us strength and confidence in our Christian living.

Third, the Christian who systematically studies the Word of God is able to grow in obedience to God. It is impossible to obey what you do not know. Part of systematic theology is the study of God's ethical commands. When a Christian knows the commands of God and they are inculcated into his thinking and worldview, he is able more effectively to grow in obedience to God. Scripture informs and binds his conscience not subjective speculation.
Fourth, the Christian who systematically studies the Word of God will be equipped to teach others and make disciples. As we observed earlier, the Hebrew Christians received a sharp rebuke for not knowing the basic teachings of the gospel. They were told that by that time they should have been teachers. There is an expectation that every Christian is to grow in his knowledge of the Word of God so that he can use his particular gifts in the body of Christ. The Christian is to positively influence others for Christ and help younger Christians grow in their faith and understanding.

Systematic study prepares the Christian to instruct others and make disciples.

Finally, the Christian who systematically studies the Word of God will be equipped to influence our culture. The foundation for ethics and moral action is what God has spoken. Research done by Gallup, Barna, and Hunter indicate that, in the realm of ethics, there is no statistical difference between evangelical Christians and non-Christians in the United States at large. The study of theology directly addresses the philosophical pressures our culture brings against the Christian. The Christian who knows the Scriptures is not easy prey to the anti-Christian thought patterns of a culture that does not know God. In 1961, Peter Berger spoke of the danger of churches abandoning theology: "When churches abandon or de-emphasize theology, they give up the intellectual tools by which the Christian message can be articulated and defended. In the resulting chaos of religious ideas the principal criterion left to the community as it seems to find its way is, quite naturally, that of expediency" (Noise Of A Solemn Assembly, p. 121). Without a strong and systematic understanding of the Word of God, the Christian is not equipped to resist the culture or influence it positively in terms of a Christian worldview.

At Covenant of Grace Church, we have a concern to help Christians systematically grow in their understanding of the Word of God. We want to help and challenge God's people to know and apply what God has revealed in Scripture. We encourage you to get involved in some of the Bible study opportunities in the church and to take advantage of some of the books and videos available in our church library. In this regard, we want to fight against the tendency in present American Christianity to de-emphasize or ignore theology.

Theology does matter! It is vital to a healthy, productive, growing Christian life and to an effective church that desires to influence this culture.

Recommended resources on this subject: No Place For Truth by
David Wells; No God, But God ed. by Os Guinness; Dining With The Devil by Os Guinness; Essential Truths of the Christian Faith and Knowing Scripture by R. C. Sproul; Amusing Ourselves To Death by Neil Postman.