Interrogating the Trinity: How is God God?
How is God One and Three?
So far in this series of articles, we’ve been asking various interrogative questions about God: What is God? Who is God? Now, we’re up to the how question. I suppose there are a few ways I could spin the how question. But in this post, I want to consider how God is God concerning his being One and Three.
How is God One and Three? How is the One Three? How are the Three One?
The answer is extraordinarily complex. But it’s also kind of simple.
How is God God? Processions and Perichoresis.
Let’s unpack that.
How the One is Three: Processions
How is the God who is One also Three? The answer is Processions.
My simple definition of the Processions is the Of-Ness or From-Ness of the Son and Spirit.
We have two names for the processions: the generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit.
The Generation of the Son (the Son’s Of-Ness)
First, God the Son is eternally of or from the Father. In the creeds, we refer to him as “begotten, not made.” This means that the Son is eternally from or of the Father.
The Son is not created. We can’t say that. In John 1:3 we read:
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
The same point is made in John 1:10, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2.
Everything that was made or created was created through the Son. If the Son was made, then not everything has been made through the Son because the Son wasn’t made through the Son.
Sometimes, we refer to someone as a “self-made man” (or woman). But we’re not saying that the man or woman literally created themselves. We’re just saying they were born in difficult circumstances and got a good job or something.
When it comes to the Son, we can’t say that he was made or created by himself. That doesn’t make sense. It implies that he existed before making himself, such that he could make himself.
Furthermore, in John 1:1, we read that he is God, implying he was not created.
We know that the Son is the Son of the Father. He is eternally the Son.
How do you describe the relationship between a father and a son?
In modern English, we say the father “fathers,” and the son is “fathered.”
In older English, we’d say that the father “begets,” and the Son is “begotten.”
In Latin, we say that the Father gignit, and the Son is genitus.
In Greek, we say that the Father γεννᾷ (genná), and the Son is γεννητός (gennētós).
| Language | Father (Action) | Son (Result) |
|---|---|---|
| Modern English | fathers | fathered |
| Older English | begets | begotten |
| Latin | gignit | genitus |
| Greek | γεννᾷ (genná) | γεννητός (gennētós) |
When we transliterate the Latin words into English, we get the word “generate.” The Father eternally generates the Son.
No Bible verse explicitly says, “The Father eternally generates or begets the Son.” But they are still helpful labels to describe what we know is true. The Father is eternally Father of the Son. The Son is eternally Son of the Father. How is this so? The Father eternally generates or begets the eternally generated or begotten Son.
This language helps make sense of what we read in John 5:26. Here we read:
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.
A couple of posts ago, we saw that this “life in himself” refers to the Father’s self-existence (or aseity). What we didn’t mention is that he grants or gives the Son possession of “life in himself” as well.
The Father’s “life in himself” must exist in eternity because we know that he exists in eternity before creating the universe. We also know that the Son existed in eternity prior to creating the universe. Therefore, this giving of “life in himself” must have taken place in eternity.
We could refer to this as the doctrine of “the Father eternally giving the Son to have life in himself.” That would be more biblical. But it’s also super long. Therefore, theologians prefer to refer to this as the doctrine of “eternal generation.”
We also see this every time we read of the Son being the “Son of God” (e.g., Matthew 4:3, 4:6, 8:29, 14:33, 26:63, 27:40, 27:43, 27:54, Mark 1:1, 3:11, 15:39, Luke 1:35, 3:38, 4:3, 4:9, 4:41, 22:70, John 1:49, 5:25, 11:27, 19:7, 20:31, Acts 9:20, Romans 1:4, 2 Corinthians 1:19, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 4:13, Hebrews 4:14, 6:6, 7:3, 10:29, 1 John 3:8, 4:15, 5:5, 5:10, 5:12, 5:13, 5:20, Revelation 2:18). Admittedly, the title “Son of God” has its origins in the context of ancient Israelite kingship (see Psalm 2:7) and is rooted in the covenantal relationship between God and the Davidic king. But, when it’s applied to Jesus, given that he is the Son, and God is his Father, it seems that it’s also hinting at something more significant than Davidic kingship. It’s hinting at the Son’s eternal Of-Ness, his eternal generation.
So this of-ness, generation or begetting explains how the one God is also two, Father and Son.
The Procession of the Spirit (the Spirit’s Of-Ness)
Then we have the other procession, the procession of the Spirit. This procession is called the Procession of the Spirit. As with the previous procession, I define this procession as the Spirit’s of-ness or from-ness.
| Procession #1 | Generation of the Son |
| Procession #2 | Procession of the Spirit |
In John 15:26 we read:
When the Advocate comes, whom I will send [future tense] to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who proceeds [present tense] from the Father—he will testify about me.
This is where we get the language of the Spirit’s procession. He proceeds or comes forth from the Father. Some people argue that this procession is something that occurs in time, paralleling the sending, which also takes place in time. My hunch is that the procession is different to the sending, given that the procession is in the present tense while the sending is in the future tense. Whereas the sending is temporal, the procession is eternal.
Even if I’ve misread John 15:26, and the procession mentioned above is identical to the sending, there is still a sense of from-ness or of-ness when it comes to the Spirit.
As we saw in the previous post, the Spirit is eternal and, therefore, not created. So we can’t say God made or created the Spirit. We also can’t say that the Spirit is fathered, generated or begotten by the Father. For one, the Spirit is not Son but Spirit. But also, the Spirit is of the Son (more on that in a moment). If we describe the Spirit as the Son of the Father and Son of the Son, then he’s both Son and Grandson. That’s kind of weird. Also, that's not true. So we need a word to describe his <something> from the Father (and the Son).
I like referring to his of-ness.
He’s the “Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9, 1 Peter 1:11)
He’s the “Spirit of Jesus” (Acts 16:7, Philippians 1:19)
He’s the “Spirit of his Son” (Galatians 4:6)
Most of these verses speak of the Spirit with reference to the created realm, so they’re not necessarily talking about the Spirit’s eternal relationship with the Father and the Son. But they hint at something of the reality of his eternal relationship with the Father and Son.
We need some way to speak of the Spirit’s Of-Ness. Personally, I’m content just speaking of his of-ness, but I’m also happy with the traditional language of procession. From time to time, you’ll also hear people talk about Spiration. The Father and Son Spirate the Spirit, or “breathe out” the Spirit. That works too.
The Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as they Spirate the Spirit. He is eternally from and of the Son.
| Father | Son | Holy Spirit |
| Fathers/generates/begets the Son | Is begotten/generated/fathered by the Father | Is given to the Son as the Son is begotten by the Father |
| Spirates the Holy Spirit | Spirates the Holy Spirit who is given to him | Proceeds from the Father and the Son |
The Filioque (Joint Of-Ness)
In the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Spirit was described as the one “who proceeds from the Father,” but with no mention of his relationship to the Son.
In the centuries that followed, some churches (in the Western half of the church) started adding that the Spirit is the one “who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” We refer to this addition as the Filioque which is Latin for “and the Son.” There’s some theological merit to saying this. After all, the Spirit is of the Son. But it freaked out a lot of people in the Eastern half of the church. In particular, they were worried that adding “and the Son” implied a dual source for the Holy Spirit, which could thus undermine the unique position of the Father as the primary source of the Spirit. In addition to that, it’s not polite to go around changing creeds formulated at an ecumenical council (which it was) without consulting the rest of the church.
This controversy played a significant role in the events leading up to the Great Schism, which marked the formal division between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. It was one of the reasons Pope Leo IX (the Western Pope in Rome) and Patriarch Michael I Cerularius (the Patriarch of Constantinople in the East) excommunicated each other in 1054.
The Western Church never really saw the Spirit’s procession from the Son as undermining the Father’s place in the Trinity. Going back to Augustine, the West had usually understood the Spirit as proceeding from the Father and Son together, but primarily from the Father.
Here’s how Augustine explains it (also with reference to the Son’s generation):
Therefore anyone who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father as timeless should also understand the procession of the Holy Spirit from them both as timeless. And anyone who can understand that when the Son said, As the Father has life in himself, so he has given the Son to have life in himself (John 5:26), he did not mean that the Father gave life to the Son already existing without life, but that he begot him timelessly in such a way that the life which the Father gave the Son by begetting him is co-eternal with the life of the Father who gave it, should also understand that just as the Father has it in himself that the Holy Spirit should proceed from him, so he gave to the Son that the Holy Spirit should proceed from him too, and in both cases timelessly; and thus that to say that the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son is something which the Son has from the Father. If the Son has everything that he has from the Father, he clearly has from the Father that the Holy Spirit should proceed from him.
Augustine, The Trinity (De Trinitate), ed. John E. Rotelle, Second Edition, vol. I/5, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2017), 562, 15.26.47.
As the Father fathers the Son timelessly in eternity, giving him “life in himself” (that is, procession #1), he also gives the Son the Spirit, from whom the Spirit then also proceeds (that is, procession #2). So, the Spirit proceeds jointly from the Father and Son, but only from the Son because everything the Son has he receives from the Father.
In John 3:34, Jesus says,
The one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.
The “one whom God has sent” is the Son. God gives the Spirit to someone. Who? Presumably it’s to “the one whom God has sent.” So, here we have God giving the Spirit to the Son. But this is talking about time isn’t it? Well, yes. But it says that God gives with Spirit to him “without limit.” If he gives him the Spirit “without limit,” then wouldn’t we be limiting the giving of the Spirit if we said that it only takes place in time? Therefore, I take it that the Father gives the Spirit to the Son both in time, enabling the Son to speak the Father’s words, and in eternity, enabling him to be the Word.
This ties in with what Augustine said above. If the Son receives the Spirit in eternity, it naturally follows that the Father must be giving him the Spirit as he gives the Son to have life in himself. So, the Father gives the Son the Spirit as he gives him “life in himself.”
In terms of church unity, adding the Filioque to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was a dumb thing to do. I think most people would agree with that. But I think it’s hard to deny that the Spirit is of both the Father and the Son.
So, how is the One Three?
Answer: Processions.
The Son is of the Father, and the Spirit is of the Father and the Son, for all eternity.
Processions (Eternal Of-Ness) and Missions (Temporal Of-Ness)
The processions explain how the One is Three in eternity. These processions enter the stage of history in the form of the missions.
By missions, we mean sendings.
The Father sends the Son into the world at the first Christmas (e.g., John 3:17, 3:34, 5:23, 5:24, 6:29, 6:57, 7:16, 7:29, 8:42, 8:29, 9:4, 10:36, 11:42, 12:44, 12:49, 17:3, 20:21, Galatians 4:4, Romans 8:3, 8:32, 1 John 4:9).
The Father sends the Spirit into the world at Pentecost (John 14:26, Galatians 4:6, 1 John 4:13), as does the Son (John 15:26, John 16:7, Acts 2:33).
In the missions, the processional life of God in eternity goes public in the arena of history, and we see how the One is Three.
Augustine explains this helpfully in De Trinitate:
Just as the Father, then, begot and the Son was begotten, so the Father sent and the Son was sent. But just as the begetter and the begotten are one, so are the sender and the sent, because the Father and the Son are one; so too the Holy Spirit is one with them... And just as being born means for the Son his being from the Father, so his being sent means his being known to be from him. And just as for the Holy Spirit his being the gift of God means his proceeding from the Father, so his being sent means his being known to proceed from him. Nor, by the way, can we say that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son as well; it is not without point that the same Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. And I cannot see what else he intended to signify when he breathed and said Receive the Holy Spirit (John 20:22). Not that the physical breath that came from his body and was physically felt was the substance of the Holy Spirit; but it was a convenient symbolic demonstration that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father.
Augustine, De Trinitate, 4.20.20, pages 218–219.
In other words, in the missions or sendings of the Son and Spirit, we see how the One God is Three.
The missions are the of-ness of the Son and Spirit in time and space.
2. How the Three are One: Perichoresis
So, we’ve seen how the One is Three. But how are the Three One? Jesus tells us that he and the Father are “one” (John 10:30) and that the Father, Son and Spirit share one “name” (Matthew 28:19). But how?
Perichoresis (In-Ness)
The answer: Perichoresis.
At times, you’ll hear people refer to this as Mutual Indwelling, Circumincession or Coinherence, but Perichoresis is the most common term. For what it’s worth, when explaining this concept to my children, I use the word In-Ness.
In John 17:22, Jesus prays,
I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one —
In verse 22, Jesus prays that the church might be one just as he and the Father are one. So, Jesus affirms his unity with the Father again. They are the One Self-Existing Being. But then Jesus does something breathtaking. He explains how they are One:
—I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity.
There is an In-Ness going on here. Just as there will be a unity between the Church and Jesus, there’s a unity between the Father and Son, whereby the Father is in the Son, thus ensuring the unity of the Father and the Son.
It goes the other way too. In John 10, moments after declaring his unity with the Father in verse 30, Jesus declares in verse 38:
The Father is in me, and I in the Father.
A few chapters later, he reiterates the point:
10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.
John 14:10-11
The Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father.
This In'-Ness is what we’re talking about when we talk about Perichoresis. This is how the Three are One.
The word Perichoresis was first used in Gregory of Nazianzen’s Epistle 101 to speak of the union of Christ’s human and divine natures. Others, like Maximus the Confessor, followed suit.
Later on, John of Damascus would apply this language to the persons of the Trinity. Here is how he explains this In-Ness between the Father, Son and Spirit:
The abiding and resting of the Persons in one another is not in such a manner that they coalesce or become confused, but, rather, so that they adhere to one another, for they are without interval between them and inseparable and their mutual indwelling is without confusion. For the Son is in the Father and the Spirit, and the Spirit is in the Father and the Son, and the Father is in the Son and the Spirit, and there is no merging or blending or confusion. And there is one surge and one movement of the three Persons. It is impossible for this to be found in any created nature.
John of Damascus, “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” in Writings: Saint John of Damascus, trans. Frederic H. Chase, vol. Volume 37, The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1958), 165–406 §1.14, page 202.
So, the Father, Son and Spirit are in each other, occupying the same divine space. The Son is in the Father and the Spirit, and the Spirit is in the Father and the Son, and the Father is in the Son and the Spirit. This is how the Three are One. Let’s unpack his definition a little more.
Abiding: To “abide” suggests a continuous, ongoing, and unbroken presence or existence within one another. No interruptions, no distractions, no phone calls or notifications. The Father, Son, and Spirit are always present to one another, sharing in their divine Being without division or separation.
Rest: “Rest” emphasises the complete, peaceful and perfect fellowship between the three Persons, where they exist in perfect unity without any tension or division. In this context, “rest” underscores the ease and stability of their mutual indwelling, as there is no conflict or separation.
No Coalescing, Merging or Blending: There is no coalescing, merging or blending of the three persons to form a single entity, thus losing their distinct identities. They’re not like a chocolate and banana milkshake where three ingredients (chocolate, banana and milk) are combined to make a new thing, the chocolate and banana milkshake. Instead, they remain distinct while existing in intimate, unified relationships with each other.
Without interval: This means that there is no separation or distance between the Persons of the Trinity. Their relationship is one of perfect unity and closeness, with no gap or space between them. In John 14:8, Phillip requests to see the Father. Jesus tells Phillip that he has seen the Father because he’s seen the Son, and the Father is in the Son (John 14:9–11). There’s no interval or gap between the Father and Son. To see the Son is to see the Father.
Without Confusion: Though seeing the Son means seeing the Father (John 14:9-11), the divine persons remain distinct in such a way that their individuality is lost. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father; they are distinct, yet one in Being.
One surge and one movement: While the Persons are distinct, they are perfectly unified in will, action, and purpose. There is a harmonious and single movement in all they do, a shared divine will and action without division or disarray.
This is how the Three are One: Perichoresis, or to use my preferred technical term, In-Ness.
Inseparable Operations (Temporal In-Ness)
Perichoresis ensures the inseparability of the Three persons. This In-Ness comes on display when God enters human history. We see this, particularly, in the inseparable operations of the Three persons. As Augustine remarks, “just as Father and Son and Holy Spirit are inseparable, so do they work inseparably (De Trinitate, §1.4.7, page 70)”
Jesus spells out this inseparability most poignantly in John 5:19
Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
Though the Son is distinct from the Father, he works in perfect unity with the Father. Just as there is “one surge and movement” in their Being, likewise, there is “one surge and movement” in all that they do in the arena of world history.
We’ll see how this unity of operation plays out in things like salvation, Scripture, prayer, sanctification, church and mission in the post Interrogating the Trinity: Why Does This Matter? We’ll also come to understand the idea of Appropriations, that is, how certain functions or roles are appropriated by the Father, Son and Spirit in these inseparable operations.
But for now, it will be good enough to conclude that the In-Ness shared between the Father, Son and Spirit in eternity is put on display in time in their inseparable operations here on earth.
So, how is God God? How is the One Three? How are the Three One?
Answer: Processions and Perichoresis.
The One is Three because the Father fathers the Son in eternity, and, having given the Spirit to the Son in the process of begetting him, the Father and Son together spirate the Spirit who proceeds from them. That’s how the One is Three.
Or, put more simply, the Son is of the Father, and the Spirit is of the Father and the Son.
And, the Three are One through Perichoresis, as the Three divine persons mutually indwell one another, abiding and resting in the same divine space, without coalescing, blending, merging, interval or confusion.
Or, put more simply, they’re all in each other.
