Shared Life The Trinity and the Fellowship of God’s People, by Donald Macleod

Christian Focus, 2024, 30^th anniversary edition, 129pp, hbk 

The doctrine of the Trinity can sometimes seem just that, a doctrine we are called to believe and defend, and that’s about it. Nothing can be further from the truth, as is demonstrated by the author in these pages. Of course, he discusses the biblical evidence for the claim that the one God eternally exists in three persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The theologian also covers what the first Christian thinkers made of the Bible’s teaching, as set out at the Council of Nicea. Macleod’s handling of matters biblical and historical is admirably clear and concise. But that is just the beginning.

The doctrine of the Trinity is of deep practical relevance. It speaks to us of the God we have been called to understand, worship and serve. The fact that the God who made is ‘in his image’ exists in three Persons tells us something very important about human equality and our need for community. Macleod cautions, however, that Bible’s teaching on male headship should not lead us to think that the Son’s relation to the Father is one of eternal submission to his authority.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit indwell each other in the fullness of the divine being.  Jesus prayed that his people may share in the fellowship of the persons of the Trinity (John 17:21). With that in mind, the unity of the church is not a drab uniformity, but unity in diversity. The doctrine of the Trinity has profound implications for the Christian life. We have become children of the Father though his Son and by the Spirit of Adoption. The indwelling presence of the Triune God secures our final salvation. In our evangelism we have been commissioned to ‘make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit’ (Matthew 28:19).

Shared Life is an ideal introduction to the Trinity for believers wishing to read up on the subject. It will also be of help to pastors in equipping them to tease out the practical implications of this most glorious of doctrines. 

Donald Macleod on practical trinitarianism

I returned to the Land of my Fathers yesterday for the inaugural meeting of the Pastors' Forum. Our speaker was Professor Donald Macleod of the Free Church College Edinburgh. It was interesting that in his opening remarks Macleod felt the need to doff his cap to "the Doctor". As a younger man he had been quite critical of Lloyd-Jones' teaching on the baptism with the Holy Spirit in his book, The Spirit of Promise. The theologian assured us of his respect and admiration for Lloyd-Jones. He still disagreed with him on the work of the Spirit, but Macleod seemed to admit to a certain youthful impertinence in his earlier critique of the preacher's doctrine. Having got that out of the way, we were off.

Macleod gave an introductory address on the purpose of theology and then gave two lectures on the doctrine of the Trinity. In the first he set forth the doctrine on the basis of Scripture, taking into account the historic creeds and confessions of the church. Interestingly he disagreed with Luther's famous statement that justification by faith alone is the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. Macleod insisted that the deity of Christ, as defined by the Nicene formula that the Son is homoousios with the Father is more fundamental. Unless the Son is of the same substance as the Father, the incarnation is not a true revelation of God. The atoning work of Christ is sufficient to save sinners only because he who died was both fully God and fully man. Justification, indeed the whole of the Christian faith rests on homoousion.

Macleod warned of the danger of adopting a solo scriptura approach to doctrine that dismissed the value of confessions of faith. While the full deity of Christ is clearly taught in Scripture, the Nicene Creed, accepted by the whole church, helps to safeguard the confession that Jesus Christ is God the Son. When Dissenters like Philip Doddridge began to sideline confessions of faith, Arianism soon followed.

In his second address on the Trinity, the Professor set out some of the Practical Implications of the doctrine. Here are some notes of what he had to say together with one or two critical reflections,

1. The Trinity and our understanding of God

The Trinity reminds us of the mysteriousness of God. How he can be three and one is beyond our human experience and understanding. God can only be known because he has chosen to reveal himself to us. Our knowledge of him is a partial, ectypal knowledge of his archetypal knowledge of himself. Theological reflection brings us face to face with the mystery of God, whose ways are past finding out, Romans 11:33-36.

2. How God is love

God is love not first and foremost because he loves human beings. If that were the case, then he did not love before we were made. The Unitarian conception of God makes his existence loveless before he brought us into being. His love is the divine response to creaturely existence. But it is not something that is intrinsic to his own inner life. It cannot therefore be properly said of a solitary monad that "God is love", 1 John 4:8. However, the doctrine of the Trinity explicates how God is love. God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have eternally existed in a relationship of love, with each person loving the other and being loved by the other. On that basis alone we can say that God is love. Love is intrinsic to his very existence and divine identity. Yes, the intertrinirarian love flows out to the creature (John 17:26). But God's love did not find its origin in his relationship to human beings made in his image. He is love first and foremost within the relationship between the co-equal and co-eternal Persons of the godhead, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The depth of God's love for us is seen in that he gave his one and only Son, whom he had loved from eternity, to the suffering of the cross for our salvation, Romans 8:32. John 3:16 only makes sense in the context of trinitarian theology. God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son... The glory of penal substitutionary atonement is that it was none other than the Son of God who paid the price of sin for us.

3. The Trinity and our understanding of human beings

It is significant that God said "Let us make man in our image", Genesis 1:26. According to Macleod this means that were made in the image of the Triune God. Maybe it would be better to say that we were made in the image of God, the image of God being his Son (Hebrews 1:3). Certainly, the goal of redemption is that sin is removed so that we are conformed to the image of God's Son (Colossians 1:15, 3:9 & 10, Romans 8:29). But if we were made in the image of God in this second sense, then we still have to say that the Son as the image of God has always existed in union with the Father and the Spirit. A solitary existence is not a option for God's image-bearers. Being in an I-Thou relationship with others is part and parcel of what it means to be human. That is why it was not good for Adam to be alone. He needed Eve, his equal in bearing God's image, yet his other as woman to complete him. This does not mean that getting married and having children are essential to a full human life. But a reclusiveness that avoids human relationships is not an option. The Word was "with God" (John 1:1). We need to be with others. Jesus was single, yet he chose the twelve to be with him and was surrounded by a circle of friends. A similar point could be made regarding Paul, who was single, but rarely without human fellowship and company.

Mrs. Thatcher was so wrong in saying that "there is no such thing as society". Human society is vastly important. Drawing on the doctrine of the Trinity we can say that in society all human beings are equal. Each is worthy of our love and respect. Yet we are all different. A good society will recognise the true dignity and value of each human life and give space for people to be themselves. We have to beware of social trinitarianism which collapses God's unique triune life into human society. And we have to stress that it is the church as God's chosen people that gives the fullest expression of human life modelled on the unity and diversity of the Trinity. But Macleod makes some good points here. In our increasingly impersonal, fragmented and lonely world we need to be reminded that human beings were made for society and community. It is not good for man to be alone.

4. The Trinity and soteriology

In traditional systematics, distinct aspects of the work of salvation are often attributed to each person of the Trinity. The Father chooses, the Son redeems by his blood and the Spirit applies the work of salvation. But this neat pattern does not reflect the witness of Scripture. Each aspect of salvation is thoroughly trinitarian. The Father chose us in Christ through sanctification of the Spirit. In the incarnation the Father sent the Son into the world as man by the power of the Holy Spirit. At the cross, the Son offered himself to God through the eternal Spirit. In terms of the application of redemption, God made us alive together with Christ when we were born again by the Holy Spirit. Eschatologically, we shall be raised to life and glory by the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead. Systematics should reflect the trinitarian concerns of Scripture when seeking to construct a truly biblical account of soteriology.

5. The Trinity and the church

Church life is modelled on the unity and diversity of the Trinity (John 17, Ephesians 4, 1 Corinthians 12). The sharing and co-operation of God's trinitarian life and acts should be exemplified in the church. Jesus makes the perichoretic relations of the Trinity the pattern and dynamic for Christian unity in John 17:20, 21, 26. Are believers lovingly involved in one anothers' lives, without that concern becoming meddlesome and intrusive?

Under this heading. Macleod suggested that being born again is the basis of church unity. I suppose that is right in one very important respect. All truly born again people have certainly been united to the body of Christ by the Spirit of God. But Macleod's proposal calls for careful qualification. All the major Christian traditions claim that the visible church is composed of born again people, at least ideally. However, understanding of what is entailed by the new birth differs widely. The Roman Catholic conception of baptismal regeneration is quite different from the Evangelical Protestant (and I would argue biblical) position. An untested claim that a Church is comprised of "born again" believers is not a sufficient ground for ecumenical unity. How this can be squared with the theologian's earlier insistence on the importance of creeds and confessions, I'm not exactly sure. Besides, Scripture insists that other important truths like justification by faith alone cannot be sidelined for the sake of visible unity - Galatians 1.

Macleod wrapped things up with some helpful reflections on how we may ensure that the prayers, singing and teaching of the church are thoroughly Trinitarian.

In all this was an auspicious start to the Pastors' Forum. It also was good meet up with some old friends and nice to bump into fellow blogger Stephen Dancer, whom I had interviewed, but never met outside the confines of cyberspace.

The Pastors' Forum

The inaugural meeting of the Pastors' Forum is due to take place on Wednesday 11th of March. Professor Donald Macleod is scheduled to speak on "The Holy Trinity". See programme below for more details. I hope to attend together with some friends from this part of the world. Speakers for forthcoming Forum events include Richard Gaffin, Don Carson, Carl Trueman and David Bebbington. Looks like this could be an exiting development that has the potential to be of great help and encouragement for pastor-teachers. Drop me an e-mail if you would like some more information.

Was Christ the eternal Son of God?

This question is not intended to query Christ's essential deity. All orthodox theologians confess the Christ pre-existed as the eternal Word who was God. But was he eternally the Son of God? We might also include the trinitarian dimensions of our subject. Does the divine name disclosed by Jesus; Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19), depict God as he is in himself (in se), or simply as he appeared to be for the sake of the economy of redemption (quoad nos)? The New Testament's teaching on Jesus' sonship takes place within the context of the economy of salvation. Scripture does not give us a direct disclosure of the nature of the imminent Trinity. It is as God with us that Jesus is revealed as the Son of the Father. That much is true. But while the imminent Trinity must not be entirely reduced to the economic Trinity, God as he is for us must be a true revelation of God as he is in himself. If God for us is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is because he is, ever was, and ever will be Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If this is not the case, we have to ask what, if any correspondence is there between the economic and imminent Trinity?

If we rule out the biblical material that has a bearing on Jesus' eternal sonship because of commitment to preserving the (valid!) distinction between God quoad nos and God in se, then where is our evangelical commitment to sola Scriptura? Surely biblical revelation should weigh more heavily with us than abstract theological reasoning.

What then of the Scriptures? I think that there is a strong biblical case for Jesus eternal sonship.

1) The self-consciousness of Christ

In John's Gospel, the enfleshed Word seemed to be conscious that his Father/Son relationship within the godhead was not simply the product of his incarnate life. Jesus' own sense of his Father/Son relationship with God seems to be elemental to his identity and self-consciousness (John 5:19-29). It is out of love for the Father that Jesus went to the cross (14:31). He referred to himself in relation to the Father in the most deeply personal and intimate way as "Your Son" (John 17:1). He was conscious of his pre-existent glory with God the Father (17:5). The Son hoped to return to the Father, not lay aside a way of relating to God that he assumed only for the purpose of salvation (13:1). Jesus is Son of the Father from eternity to eternity. I think that it would be difficult to argue from the data in John's Gospel that Jesus' sonship was not eternal. What right to we have to bypass the testimony of Jesus' self-consciousness and suggest that in the undisclosed depths of God, he was not in reality the beloved Son of the Father?

2) The mission of the Son

John 3:16 famously teaches that, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son...". Paul, using similar language tells us that, "In the fullness of time, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law" (Galatians 4:4). In both texts, it is as the Son that Jesus is sent into the world on a mission of redemption. He did not assume sonship at the incarnation, it was as Son that he was incarnated.

3) The triune name of God

God's key Old Testament name was YHWH - the self existent "I AM", the God of covenant faithfulness (Exodus 3:14, 6:2). This name was revealed in the context of the Old Testament economy of redemption, but who can doubt that YHWH is the revelation of who God is in himself. The New Testament revelation of God's name was announced by the risen Jesus. He commanded that disciples be baptised "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19). This disclosure of God's name is no less a true revelation of God as he is in himself. He is eternally and unchangeably Father, Son and Holy Spirit, just as he is eternally and unchangeably YHWH. If the imminent Trinity is not in fact Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then we must conclude that the economic Trinity is not a fully reliable revelation of God as he is in se.

4) The testimony of Reformed theology

Reformed orthodoxy has almost uniformly insisted that Jesus was the eternal Son of God. Donald Macleod reflects,

"The economic trinity reveals a God if the deepest affection, eternally loving his Son and yet sacrificing his Son for the salvation of a world he made through his Son and which he loves in his Son. The imminent trinity, by contrast, remains undisclosed: a remote reality consisting of God, his Word and his Breath. Without eternal sonship we are left with a redemption which is not a revelation. We have lost the core of the doctrine of the Trinity, namely, that the one Lordship is disclosed as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." (The Person of Christ, IVP, p. 130-131).

John Murray points out the consequences of denying the eternal sonship of Christ,

"If we should deny that the Lord Jesus Christ was eternally the Son of God, then we should have to deny that the Father was eternally Father. For if the first person is eternal Father, it is necessary that there must be a Son of whom he is the eternal Father. And this means that the second person must be eternally Son of the first person. Again, it is in this way that the distinction between the Father and the Son is maintained. It is also very important that, if we deny that the Son was eternally the Son, then we do grave prejudice to the greatness of God's love in sending Christ into the world. The Scripture magnifies the love of God by showing us that it was none other than his own well-beloved and only-begotten Son that the Father sent. He must then have been sent as the Son and not simply to be the Son. It is the greatness of such a gift that advertises the greatness of the Father's love." (Collected Writings Volume 1, Banner of Truth, p. 31-32).

Robert Reymond concludes his consideration of this subject with these words,

"We systematcians should give careful thought to this issue, but I would argue here that we should not discard cavalierly the eternal sonship of the Son in favour of simply affirming the eternal existence of the Logos. For with the rejection of the Son's eternal sonship also goes the Father's eternal fatherhood with tragic results. With what are we then left in regard to distinguishing the properties in the persons of the Godhead that will undergird classical trinitarianism? (Always Reforming, Apollos, p. 103-104.)

Confessing Christ as God's eternal Son in no way makes him subordinate to the Father in the imminent Trinity. As Calvin taught, in regard to his deity, the Son is autotheos, God in his own right, while he is the person of the Son in relation to the Father. We should continue to hold that Jesus was and is the eternal Son of the Father in truth and love.

From Glory to Golgotha by Donald Macleod

From Glory to Golgotha: Controversial Issues in the Life of Christ,
by Donald Macleod, Christian Focus, 2002, 167 pp.

This little book is the product of the author's magnificent "life-time obsession with Christology". Here we find Macleod at his best, probing the mysteries of Christ with penetrating insight and a warm heart. Christ was a controversial figure during his life on earth and he remains controversial until this day. In this work, Macleod turns his attention to some of the most hotly disputed aspects of Christology. 'Did Christ have a fallen human nature?', 'Why did God sacrifice his own Son', 'Did Paul call Jesus God?'. He also discusses the reality of Christ's temptation and penal substitutionary atonement. The writer deals with these questions from the standpoint of Biblical faith and Chalcedonian orthodoxy. He interacts with the views of Barth, C.H. Dodd and Moltmann among others as he discusses some of the great themes connected with the Person and work of Christ.

Macleod is unfailingly interesting and thought provoking. But he is also deeply moving. The chapter on The Crucified God sets before us something of the depth of Christ's redemptive suffering and challenges us to live in the light of the cross.

The theological significance resurrection of Christ is often neglected in Reformed Dogmatics. But Macleod devotes a helpful chapter to Jesus and the Resurrection, where he argues that 'the resurrection is central to the New Testament'. The book closes with reflection on Paul's challenging words, "For me to live is Christ".

In Chapter 7, the endnotes break down from note 10, so that valuable references to the work of John Owen and others are lost. But this is a minor quibble over a work that helps us to survey the wondrous life, cross and resurrection of the Lord of glory. (See here for a brief extract).

An end to all imperialism

This quote from Donald Macleod ties in very nicely with a couple of earlier posts on imperialism and martyrdom:

Christ went further than merely foregoing recognition and acclaim, however. He became in the fullest and most public sense a servant. He did not sit in the place of honour with those who were being waited on but chose, instead, to stand with those who were doing the waiting (Mark 10:45) and whose service was totally unappreciated. Indeed, men were scandalised both at the kind of service he rendered and at the way he rendered it. He could not even vindicate himself. He was in the right and knew that he was in the right. But he allowed himself to be put in the wrong, to be seen only as condemned, outcast, despised and defeated. Not all suffering involves rejection. Very often the sufferer is upheld by the knowledge that his suffering is acclaimed and appreciated and that although he is hated by his persecutors he is lauded by his peers. For Christ, it was far different. He suffered without admiration and without compassion.

For the church, this means an end to all imperialism. The moments when the word shouts Hosannas and scatters palm-branches in the path of the people of God (John 12:13) are to be rare and exceptional: and dubious. The normal attitude will be hatred, contempt and persecution. When the church finds herself sitting at the top table with the politicians, the academics, the sportsmen and the pop-stars, it is virtually certain that she has abandoned the way of the cross.

From Glory to Golgotha, Christian Focus, 2002, p. 98-99.