John Thiel

In studying the Godhead, it is important to highlight the concise Scriptures that define the Godhead and then contrast those concise declarations with the ambiguous ones. The word ambiguous means something unclear or uncertain because it can be understood in more than one way. We therefore need to look first at the clear and concise statements, contrast them with the ambiguous ones, and then draw correct conclusions by comparing the concise with the ambiguous.

One of the plain and concise Scriptures is Matthew 28:19, where Jesus declares that His disciples were to teach all nations and baptise them, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Notice that Jesus says “in the name”, singular, of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The name of these three beings is therefore the same according to this declaration. Jesus said that they were to baptise in the name of these three great powers.

This brings us to the important question of what that name is, because it is one name describing the three. In Exodus 6:3, God is speaking to Moses and says, “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.” The name God Almighty is a name of God, and Jehovah is another name of the same God.

Then in Exodus 3:13–15, Moses asks God what name he should give to the children of Israel when they ask who has sent him. God answers, “I AM THAT I AM.” This is the name by which Moses was to introduce Him: I AM. Jesus later ascribed the name I AM to Himself. This is why His hearers were astonished and, on another occasion, were going to stone Him because they understood that He was claiming divinity.

This is a concise reality. It makes the matter abundantly clear and is not ambiguous. The purpose in beginning with these passages is to obtain a clear definition of the name associated with the three persons. Sister White states, “There are three living persons of the heavenly trio.” That is as concise as can be. There is nothing ambiguous in the statement. There are three living persons.

We find another plain Scriptural identification of these three in 1 John 5:7: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Unitarians do not accept this text and claim that it was not in the original. However, it appears in the King James Version and is a plain and straightforward statement. It declares that there are three, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and that these three are one.

Another plain and straightforward identification is found in Isaiah 48:12–16. The One speaking in this passage identifies Himself with eternity and creation. Then in verse 16 He says, “And now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.” The One speaking is the I AM, the One who has been from eternity when the context is read. This Being of eternity, coming forth from everlasting, is the One who is being sent by the Lord God and His Spirit.

We can therefore see three very clearly: the One who is speaking, the Lord God, and His Spirit. The One speaking is Jesus, who was sent by the Father and the Holy Spirit to the earth, yet that same person is identified with the I AM. We therefore have important, concise clarifications regarding the Godhead.

Sister White also refers to “The eternal heavenly dignitaries, God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit.” Sometimes a person might read this and say, “There is God, and then there is Christ and the Holy Spirit. Are they all God?” But the Scriptures have already established the answer. Sister White identifies all three as the eternal heavenly dignitaries. All three are eternal. This is why it is important to establish the concise statements first.

We now come to passages that appear more ambiguous and which are frequently used by Unitarians to claim that there is God, while the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are not God. One such passage is 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Read by itself, someone may say, “There is one God, and then there is the mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus. Therefore Jesus is not God.”

This is where ambiguity enters. The passage is capable of being interpreted that way if it is isolated from the other statements of Scripture. However, it must be interpreted in harmony with the concise passages that have already established the identities and divinity of the three.

Another important passage is 1 Corinthians 8:4–6. The context is the eating of things offered in sacrifice to idols: “As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.” People may use the statement “there is none other God but one” to argue that there is only one divine person, rather than the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But the other Scriptures have already made clear that the three belong to the Godhead.

So what is Paul speaking about here? He is talking about idols, of which there are many. The passage continues, “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there be gods many, and lords many, But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

Here again is a statement capable of being interpreted in more than one way. It says that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ. Someone may therefore isolate this statement and say that the Father alone is God while Jesus is merely Lord. But that ignores the clear declarations already established.

This is the difficulty with building doctrine upon an ambiguous statement while disregarding a concise one. The argument being proposed by Unitarians relies upon statements that can be interpreted to mean that there is only one who is God and that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not included. But the clear statements have already identified all three as eternal heavenly beings. The ambiguous statements must therefore be read in light of those that are plain.

Sister White writes, “God is our tender, pitiful Father, and every believing child is the object of His special care.” She also says that Jesus pointed to the Ruler of the universe under the new name, “Our Father.” This is interesting because God had already been revealed as God Almighty, Jehovah, and I AM, but Jesus introduces Him to humanity particularly as Our Father.

This does not mean that the Father is God while Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not. It gives us a greater appreciation of the relationship within the Godhead and of God’s relationship with humanity. In regard to the many idols of the world, we have one God, not many gods. That one God is associated with the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as already emphasised. One Scripture therefore explains another. The clear and concise statements enable us to interpret the ambiguous ones correctly.

It is possible to read certain Scriptures and come to an interpretation that God is one person and that His Spirit and His Son are derivatives of Him. This is essentially the interpretation proposed by Unitarians. What does derivative mean in this context? The idea is that the Father is God and that Jesus, or the Word, was derived from Him, that He came out of Him and is therefore a product of God. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is understood merely as a force of God rather than another person.

But we have already seen from the concise statements that the Holy Spirit is another person. Nevertheless, certain Scriptures may be used to support the derivative interpretation when read in isolation. Consider 1 Corinthians 2:12–14: “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

Notice the language, “The Spirit of God.” Someone may read that expression and say that the Spirit of God is merely a derivative of God. They may reason, “It is His Spirit, just as you are one person and your spirit is part of you. Therefore the Holy Spirit is not another person.” This is how the passage can be read if it is not illuminated by the clear statements.

The expression Spirit of God, by itself, is capable of more than one interpretation. That is precisely why the clear passages are needed.

The same difficulty may arise in 1 John 4:13–15: “Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.” A person may read “He hath given us of his Spirit” and conclude that this is simply God’s own spirit and therefore not another person.

The passage continues, “And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.” Now we have both the Spirit and the Son mentioned. Verse 15 says, “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.”

Again, someone may reason that Jesus is the Son of God and the Spirit is the Spirit of God, therefore neither is a separate divine person. This demonstrates the ambiguity. The words themselves can be interpreted in that manner when the concise declarations are not brought alongside them.

Another example is John 14:28: “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” Here again the statement can appear ambiguous.

Someone may say, “Jesus says that the Father is greater than He is. Therefore He cannot be equal with the Father and cannot be God.” More than one interpretation can be placed upon the statement. But to interpret it correctly, it must be understood that Jesus is speaking in His condition as a man.

Jesus says, “My Father is greater than I.” During His earthly humiliation, the Father was greater than He in His human condition. Before He came to the earth, however, He was equal. Therefore, once again, the correct interpretation must be gained from the plain statements. An ambiguous passage cannot be allowed to overturn what the concise passages have already established.

Sister White writes, “Pray as you study, ‘Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.’” She further explains that when the teacher relies upon God in prayer, the Spirit of Christ will come upon him and God will work through him by the Holy Spirit upon the mind of the student.

Here Sister White speaks of the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit. But someone may read such language and say, “See, it is the Spirit of Christ. It is the Spirit of God. Therefore the Spirit is simply Christ Himself or God Himself rather than another person.” This is how people become confused when they rely upon ambiguous expressions instead of allowing the concise statements to explain them.

John 14:17–18 provides another example: “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.”

This can be interpreted in different ways. Someone may reason that because Jesus says, “I will come to you,” the Spirit of truth must simply be Christ Himself. The argument becomes, “It is the Spirit of Christ. It is not another person. Christ Himself is coming.”

This is the way the passage is sometimes interpreted. Yet the passage refers to the Spirit personally as whom, him, and he. Again, we need to compare it with the clear declaration that there are three living persons of the heavenly trio.

Jesus also says in John 14:23, “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” Some interpret this to mean that when the Holy Spirit comes, it is merely the Spirit of Jesus and the Spirit of the Father rather than a separate person.

This demonstrates once again why the passage is ambiguous if it is isolated. It can be interpreted in one way or another. The correct conclusion must come from comparing it with the concise statements.

Another statement says, “The influence of the Holy Spirit is the life of Christ in the soul.” It continues by explaining that we do not now see Christ and speak to Him, but His Holy Spirit is just as near us in one place as another. It works in and through everyone who receives Christ. Those who know the indwelling of the Spirit reveal the fruits of the Spirit, including love and joy.

Again, someone could take this statement by itself and say, “See, the Holy Spirit is simply the life of Christ in the soul. Therefore the Holy Spirit is Jesus Himself.” But once again, the statement must be compared with the concise declarations. This brings us to the essential issue of how correct conclusions are reached.

When comparing the concise passages with the ambiguous passages, Scripture itself tells us how doctrine is to be established. Isaiah 28:9–10 asks, “Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?” We are dealing with doctrine, and specifically with understanding the doctrine of the Godhead.

The passage continues, “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.” This is the way in which the Scriptures are to be studied and compared. We read here a little and there a little, precept upon precept and line upon line. We compare Scripture with Scripture in order to come to the correct doctrine.

This principle is extremely important. A doctrine should not be constructed from one isolated expression simply because that expression appears to support a particular idea. All the relevant Scriptures must be brought together.

Second Timothy 2:15 says, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God… rightly dividing the word of truth.” The key expression is “Rightly dividing the word of truth.” If we wish to understand what God is saying, we must rightly divide the Word.

The concise statements tell us plainly that there are three. The other statements are ambiguous and can be interpreted in different ways. Those ambiguous passages must therefore be placed beside the passages that are plain and straightforward so that we can arrive at the correct conclusion. This is rightly dividing the Word of truth.

Sister White refers to the same principle in a statement concerning the Scriptures: “The Holy Scriptures ought to be explained… by other and clearer texts.” Notice how clear that principle is. How are the ambiguous Scriptures to be explained? By other and clearer texts.

This harmonises with Isaiah 28, where we are instructed to read here a little and there a little, comparing Scripture with Scripture. The passages that are concise explain the passages that are ambiguous. The ambiguous ones are therefore to be correctly divided and understood by the concise ones.

We must now consider expressions saying that the Spirit is of God, that Christ is the Son of God, or that one person is sent by another. If the concise statements say that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are separate individuals, and this is plainly stated in the texts, what is wrong with saying that one is of another when these three are united?

God is a unity of three beings. Once this is correctly concluded from the concise Scriptures, it becomes possible to understand expressions in which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are spoken of in relation to one another.

They are three separate persons, but they belong together. The expression Spirit of God does not mean that the Spirit is not a person. He belongs with God and is in unity with the Father. Likewise, we have expressions such as Son of God, Spirit of God, and Father of Christ.

These expressions can become ambiguous unless we understand that one divine person may send another divine person. The One being sent is still a person of the Godhead.

A simple example helps illustrate this. We speak of “The church of God.” The church is a separate entity from God Himself. When we say the church of God, we do not mean that the church is physically inside God or is merely a part of God’s being. The expression describes a relationship. The church belongs to God.

In the same way, Son of God does not mean that the Son has no separate personality. Likewise, Spirit of God does not mean that the Spirit has no separate personality.

Consider another simple illustration. We might say “The wife of John.” Does the phrase mean that John’s wife is something inside John or merely an extension of him? No. She is a separate person. The expression “wife of John” describes her relationship to him.

The same grammatical principle helps us understand expressions such as Spirit of God and Son of God. The word of does not necessarily mean that the person referred to is simply a component or derivative of the other person. The expression can describe relationship, belonging and unity between separate persons.

This is the important point. When we read an ambiguous expression such as “I will send you My Spirit,” the phrase My Spirit could be interpreted as something proceeding out of the Father and having no separate personality, but it can also refer to another person who belongs together with God in perfect unity. The concise passages decide which understanding is correct.

The essential conclusion is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate persons, but they belong together. This is why one may properly be described in relation to another. The Spirit is the Spirit of God, Christ is the Son of God, and God is the Father of Christ. These relational expressions do not abolish the individual personality of the Father, Son or Holy Spirit.

Without the concise Scriptures, these expressions can be misunderstood. But once we establish from the clear passages that there are three living persons, these other passages can be understood correctly.

The central issue in this entire study is not merely finding isolated verses that contain particular words. It is learning how Scripture must be compared with Scripture.

When someone presents an ambiguous verse and says, “There is one God, therefore the Father alone is God,” or “The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God, therefore He is merely God’s force,” or “Jesus is the Son of God, therefore He is merely derived from the Father,” or “Jesus said, ‘My Father is greater than I,’ therefore Christ is not divine,” or “Jesus said, ‘I will come to you,’ therefore the Holy Spirit is simply Jesus Himself,” we must ask whether that conclusion agrees with the concise declarations.

The concise statements have already told us that there are three living persons of the heavenly trio. The Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost are three who bear record in heaven, and these three are one. The Lord God, His Spirit, and the One sent are distinguished in Isaiah 48. The Father, Christ and the Holy Spirit are described as eternal heavenly dignitaries.

These statements are plain. They must provide the framework through which the more ambiguous expressions are understood.

When Scripture declares that there is one God, this must not be interpreted in a manner that contradicts the passages identifying the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In the context of 1 Corinthians 8, Paul is contrasting the true God with the many gods and idols worshipped in the world. There are “gods many and lords many,” but to us there is one God.

This does not require us to discard the other passages in which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are identified. Rather, the Scriptures must be compared. God is a unity of three beings. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate persons and yet belong together in that divine unity. This is why Matthew 28:19 can speak of the name, singular, while naming the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Many doctrinal errors arise because an ambiguous statement is isolated from the broader testimony of Scripture. Someone finds an expression that appears to support a particular conclusion and then makes that expression the foundation of the doctrine. But this is not the Biblical method.

Isaiah tells us, “Precept upon precept… line upon line… here a little, and there a little.” Paul tells us, “Rightly dividing the word of truth.” And the principle expressed by Sister White is that the Holy Scriptures should be explained “By other and clearer texts.”

Therefore, when two passages initially appear to point in different directions, we should not discard one of them. We must compare them. The clearer statement supplies the framework for interpreting the statement that is capable of more than one meaning. This is particularly important in the study of the Godhead.

The concise Scriptures establish the foundation. Jesus commanded His disciples to baptise “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” The word name is singular, while three are identified. God reveals Himself by the names God Almighty, Jehovah, and I AM. Christ applies the divine designation I AM to Himself. There are “three living persons of the heavenly trio.” First John 5:7 identifies “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Isaiah 48 identifies the eternal One who is sent by “the Lord GOD, and his Spirit.” The Father, Christ and Holy Spirit are described as “the eternal heavenly dignitaries.”

These are the concise declarations. Alongside them are passages saying, “There is one God,” “The Spirit of God,” “He hath given us of his Spirit,” “The Son of God,” “My Father is greater than I,” and “I will come to you.” These expressions can be interpreted in more than one way if isolated. They must therefore be understood according to the clear declarations.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not merely one person appearing in different forms, nor are the Son and Holy Spirit merely derivatives or impersonal extensions of the Father. They are three separate persons who belong together in divine unity.

Calling the Holy Spirit the Spirit of God does not remove His personality any more than calling the church the church of God removes the church’s separate existence. Calling Christ the Son of God does not mean that He is merely an impersonal component of God. Relational expressions describe belonging and unity without destroying individual personality.

The Biblical method is therefore clear. We compare Scripture with Scripture, place precept upon precept and line upon line, read here a little and there a little, rightly divide the Word of truth, and allow the clearer texts to explain those that are capable of different interpretations.

When this method is followed, the concise Scriptures provide the foundation for correctly understanding the ambiguous ones, and the conclusion is that God is a unity of three divine persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They are three separate persons, yet they belong together in perfect unity.