How do Trinitarians distinguish which person the Bible is referring to throughout the scriptures when the three titles of the Godhead is not used?

Question

There are so many scriptures that only use Lord, God and many other titles referring to God. For example, I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, nor My praise to graven images." (Isaiah 42;8). Is this all 3 speaking or is it only one of the three persons of the Trinity speaking?

Answer 1

The question, as will be shown shortly, is moot for a good reason. Let us take the example of the resurrection of Jesus.

The topic of Jesus’ resurrection, specifically, who did it, is a perfect example of “Cafeteria Theology” in the hands of some. That is, some argue, vehemently, on the explicit basis of some texts that Jesus was raised by the Father, or, the Holy Spirit, or He raised Himself. What are the Biblical facts?

• Acts 2:24, 3:15, 4:10, 5:30, 10:40, 13:30, 17:31, Rom 4:24, 1 Cor 15:15, Col 2:20, Heb 13:20, 1 Peter 1:3, 1 Thess 1:10 simply say that “God” raised Jesus without specifying any specific member of the Godhead
• Rom 6:4, Gal 1:1, Eph 1:17-20 say that the Father raised Jesus from the dead.
• Rom 1:4 & 8:11, 1 Peter 3:18 say that the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (see also 2 Cor 3:6).
• John 2:19-21 and 10:17, 18 both say that Jesus resurrected Himself. Further, John 1:4 & 5:26 says that the Son has “life in Himself”, that is, Jesus is not dependent on the Father for His existence. Compare 1 John 5:11 & 1:1, 2. Note the Geneva Bible’s comment (1560) in Matt 28:1. See also appendix below.

“Christ, having routed death in the tomb, rises by his own power, as the angel immediately witnesses.”

Such a comparison shows the traps of proof-text theology and cafeteria theology. The safest conclusion here is that the entire Godhead (the Trinity in true unity) acted to raise Jesus.

Now, the above shows that attempting to identify or distinguish between the various members of the trinity when the bible makes no such distinction is a fruitless waste of time and amounts in many cases to eisegesis. Let us simply accept that in many cases, God did or said something without going any further.

Having said all this, there are certainly times when a distinction might be possible as follows:

Old Testament Epiphanies

We observe the clear statement several times in the NT that no human has ever seen God the Father:

• John 1:18 - No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.
• John 5:37 - You have never heard His voice nor seen His form
• John 6:46 - No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. (See also Matt 18:10.)
• 1 John 4:12 - No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God remains in us, and His love is perfected in us.
• 1 Tim 1:17 - Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God …
• 1 Tim 6:16 - He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. No one has ever seen Him, nor can anyone see Him.
• Col 1:15 - … Jesus is the image of the invisible God …
• Ex 33:20 - But He added, “You cannot see My face, for no one can see Me and live.”
• Isa 45:15 - Truly You are a God who hides Himself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.

By contrast, we have many texts saying that people have seen God.

• Isa 64:4 - From ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides You, who acts on behalf of those who wait for Him.
• Job 42:5 - My ears had heard of You [= the LORD, V1], but now my eyes have seen You.
• Gen 18:1, 10 - Then the LORD appeared to Abraham by the Oaks of Mamre in the heat of the day, while he was sitting at the entrance of his tent. ... Then the LORD said, “I will surely return to you at this time next year, and your wife Sarah will have a son!”
• Gen 32:30 - So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”
• Ex 3:5, 6 - “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” Then He said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”
• Josh 5:13 - 6:2 - And the LORD said to Joshua, “Behold, I have delivered Jericho into your hand, along with its king and its mighty men of valour.” (V2)
• Judges 6:14 - The LORD turned to him and said, “Go in the strength you have and save Israel from the hand of Midian. Am I not sending you?” [See also V16]
• Judges 16:22 - “We are going to die,” he said to his wife, “for we have seen God!”
• Eze 1 - the prophet's vision of God; many elements of which are repeated in Rev 4 & 5. Further, we find in Eze 10:4, “the radiance of the glory of the LORD.” And in Heb 1:3, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.”
• See also instances of the “Angel of the LORD” clearly being the LORD - Gen 16:7-13, 22:11-17, 32:24-30, 48:16, Ex 3:2-6, 32:34, Num 22:22-35, Josh 5:13-15, Judg 2:1-4, 6:11-23, 13:3-23, Isa 63:9, Dan 3:25, 28, Hos 12:4, 5, Zech 3:1-7, Mal 3:1, Rev 8:3-5, 10:1-10, 18:1, 20:1-4.
• A closely related phrase, “Angel of God” who is clearly God as in Gen 6:13, 8:15, 9:8, 17, 15:13, 17:3, 4, 21:12, 16-21, 35:1, 10, Ex 4:3-8, 6:2, 23:20, 21 , Deut 1:6, 1 Kings 12:22, etc. See also Acts 10:3, 4, Gal 4:14.

The very fact that the NT so confidently asserts that no human has seen God the Father, but many people have seen God/YHWH in the OT means the inescapable conclusion is such epiphanies were of the pre-incarnate Jesus as per John 8:58 – “Truly, truly, I tell you,” Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

Indeed, it appears that the main focus of the OT was the pre-incarnate Christ, with a few important exceptions. In fact, the Gospel of John actually says this:

John 1:18 – No one has ever seen God [the Father]; the unique God, the One in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known.

Thus, taking this verse as it reads suggests that the “Father” was essentially unknown before Jesus revealed Him. This confirms the statement in Isa 9:6 that the Messiah (the future “Jesus”) was the One known as the “Father” in the OT.

Cautionary Note: The conclusion is not to suggestion that Jesus only was YHWH of the OT; far from it. Indeed, YHWH is three persons consisting of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

CONCLUSION

Where the Bible makes no distinction between the members of the Godhead, we should follow suit and make no distinction. However, in some circumstances, it is possible to make a distinction but this should be done with great caution without being digmatic.

APPENDIX - “Author of Life”

Expanding on the above point, the NT authors often call Jesus the source of life in some way. Here is a sample:

• Acts 3:15 - You killed the Author of life, but God raised Him from the dead, and we are witnesses of the fact. [The Greek title ἀρχηγός = “author/originator/prince”, is only ever applied to Jesus in the NT: Acts 3:15, 5:31, Heb 2:10, 12:2. This “Author of life title is a proxy for Jesus as “Saviour” and source of eternal life.]
• John 1:3, 4 - Through Him [the Word] all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.
• 1 John 1:1, 2 - That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life. And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.
• 1 John 5:11, 12 - And this is that testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
• John 3:36 - Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life. Whoever rejects the Son will not see life. Instead, the wrath of God remains on him.”
• John 5:21 - For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He wishes.
• John 5:24 - Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not come under judgment. Indeed, he has crossed over from death to life.
• John 5:26 - For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.
• John 6:54 - Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
• John 8:12 - Once again, Jesus spoke to the people and said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows Me will never walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life.”
• John 10:28 - I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand.
• John 11:25, 26 - Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in Me will live, even though he dies. And everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”
• John 17:2 - For You granted Him authority over all people, so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him.
• 2 Tim 1:1 - Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life in Christ Jesus

Answer 2

Preface

While I think this question moves far more into dogmatics than hermenutics, there is enough overlap that it's worthy of tackling.

Opera ad extra sunt indivisa aut communia.

There is the ancient proverb that "works to the outside of the Trinity are indivisible or shared." This truth covers the context of your question. I'll list some paragraphs from my Dogmatics notes and then draw some conclusions:

II. The relation of the three Persons in the one Godhead,
the same in essence but distinct in subsistence,
is one of mutual permeation and in-existence.

1.  The three Persons are the same in essence, they are one (aequalitas, consubstantialitis, ὁμοούσιος, αὐτοούσιος but not ὁμοιούσιος).

    a)  The essential equality consists in this that the three Persons have but one Essence (unitas essentiae).
        cf  Dt 6:4; 1 Cor 8:4; 1 Tim 2:5; Ga 3:20.

    b)  Each Person has the whole Essence of God undivided.
        cf  Col 2:9.

    c)  Hence all divine attributes are equally ascribed to each one of the three Persons.

2.  The three Persons are clearly distinguished as being really distinct and subsisting individually (distinctio, pluralitas).

    a)  This is a plurality of Persons (pluralitas hypostatica, personalis, personarum).
        1)  In general
            cf  Jn 14:16,17,23,26,28.
        2)  In particular—on the relation between
            -a) Father and Son.
                cf  Jn 5:23,32,37; 8:49,54; 12:26; 14:13; 16:15; He 1:5,6.
            -b) Father and Spirit.
                cf  Jn 14:16,26.
            -c) Son and Spirit.
                cf  Lk 24:49; Jn 14:26; 16:7,14; Ac 2:33.
        3)  Hence this plurality must not be conceived as
            -a) Pluralitas accidentalis
                (three Persons: mere names for divine attributes).
                cf  Hafenreffer: Pluralitas in divinitatis unitate est hypostatica seu personarum, nam essentia quidem divinitatis est una, sed personae sunt plures: adeoque in mysterio divinitatis est quidem alius et alius, sed non aliud et aliud. Alia namque persona est Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti, sed non alia et alia, verum una est omnium personarum essentia.134
            -b) Pluralitas modalis 
(three Persons: names for modes of divine operation).
                cf  Quenstedt: Persona aliter ab essentia, aliter ab alia persona distinguitur: ab illa non re, sed ratione, cum fundamento in re, ab hac vero re ipsa, omni operatione intellectus humani cessante.135
            -c) Pluralitas multiplicativa
(three Persons: parts of the divine Essence).
                cf  Quenstedt: Vera et realis personarum divinarum distinctio non infert essentiae divinae divisionem aut multiplicationem. Deus enim non dividitur in tres personas, sed tres personae inter se distinctae unicam illam numero essentiam indivisam et infinitam indivisim participant, ita ut quaelibet persona eandem essentiam habeat sine eius multiplicatione aut divisione. In hoc enim mysterio datur alius atque alius uJpostatikw'", non aliud et aliud oujsiwdw'". Atque ita tres illae realiter distinctae personae sunt et manent oJmoouvsioi.136
                cf  Gerhard: trinum Deum dicimus, sed triplicem dicere christiana religione prohibemur.137 (But cf German hymn #609: O heilige Dreifaltigkeit).

    b)  Each Person has its own mode of subsistence,
        its personal characteristics (notae internae).
        1)  These are represented in Scripture as acts
            (actus personales, opera ad intra).
            -a) Regarding the Father we find two.
                -1) Generare.
                    cf  Ps 2:7; Ac 13:33; He 1:5.
                    cf  Quenstedt: Haec generatio Filii non fit derivatione aut transfusione, nec actione quae incipiat aut desinat, sed fit indesinente emanatione, cui simile nihil habetur in rerum natura. Deus Pater enim Filium suum ab aeterno genuit et semper gignit nec umquam desinet gignere. Si enim generatio Filii finem haberet, haberet etiam initium, et sic aeterna non esset. Nec tamen propterea generatio haec dici potest imperfecta aut successiva, actus namque generationis in Patre et Filio consideratur in opere perfectus, in operatione perpetuus.138
                -2) Spirare.
                    cf  Jn 15:26 coll jn 20:22; Mt 10:20.
                    cf  Hollaz: Intelligitur spiratio non externa, qualis erat insufflatio Christi ad discipulos, sed interna et immanens, cum fiat intra deitatis sinum; non transitoria et evanescens, qualis est hominum spirantium, sed aeterna et permanens, quia Spiritus Sanctus ab aeterno procedit … ; non spiratio accidentalis sed substantialis.139
                    Note. The “sending” in Jn 14:16,26, does not indicate an “ opus ad intra ” but refers to an act of the Father in His dispensation of grace.
            -b) Regarding the Son we find one.
                Spirare.
                cf  Ro 8:9; Ga 4:6; Philip 1:19.
                cf  Lk 24:49; Jn 15:26; 16:7; Ac 2:33;—coll Jn 20:22.
                Note. This act is ascribed to the Son in conjunction with the Father: they are “ unum agens ”.
                cf  Nicaenum 7: “ Filioque ”.
            -c) Regarding the Spirit we find one.
                Procedere.
                cf  Jn 15:26.
                cf  genitive Mt 3:16; 12:28; Ro 8:11,14; 1 Cor 2:11,12; 3:16; etc.
                cf  Hollaz: Spiratio passiva seu processio Spiritus Sancti a Patre et Filio, i.e. aeterna Spiritus Sancti origo, qua ipse intra sinum deitatis a Patre et Filio, unius eiusdemque numero essentiae communicatione, ut commune utriusque spiraculum producitur.140

        2)  The “ actus personales ” may be expressed as attributes (participles).
            -a) The Father is
                -1) ἀγέννητος, non-genitus, non-generatur; non-spiratus.
                -2) Generans; spirans.
            -b) The Son is
                -1) γέννητος; spirans; μονογενγής, πρωτότοκος.
                    cf  Jn 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 Jn 4:9;—Col 1:15.
                -2) Non-spiratus.
            -c) The Spirit is
                -1) Non-generans; non-generatus.
                -2) Spiratus, πνευστός; procedens.

        3)  The “ opera ad intra ” are also expressed as abstract nouns.
            -a) ἀγεννησία
                paternitas, generatio activa spiratio activa.
            -b) γεννησία, generatio passiva, filiatio.
                spiratio activa.
            -c) ἐκπόρευσις, processio, spiratio passiva, emissio.
                cf  Hollaz: Dicitur spiratio passiva non physice, quasi inferat potentiam passivam aut imperfectionem, sed grammatice, quia Spiritus Sanctus non spirare sed spirari dicitur. Neque spiratio activa et passiva sunt duae spirationes, sed est una eademque spiratio, quae ratione principii spirantis et producentis spiratio activa, ratione termini producti passiva vocatur. Ceteroqui purissima est emanatio Spiritus Sancti a Patre et Filio.141
            -d) DD Quid est nasci, quid processus, me nescire sum professus.142

    c)  The peculiarity (character hypostaticus) of each Person appears in its particular relation to the world (notae externae, opera ad extra).
        1)  There is ascribed especially
            -a) To the Father the work of creation.
            -b) To the Son the work of redemption.
            -c) To the Spirit the work of sanctification.

        2)  There is to be observed a certain order of the Persons.
            -a) Though
                -1) Opera ad intra sunt divisa.
                    cf  Quenstedt: Actiones divinae ad intra personales sunt, quae ad ipsum Deum ita terminantur, ut tamen pro principio agendi non agnoscant essentiam divinam, quatenus ea omnibus tribus personis communis est, sed prout certis characteribus et proprietatibus hypostaticis est determinata. Unde haec opera ad intra personalia sunt divisa, h.e, non sunt tribus personis divinis communia, sed uni tantum personae vel duabus personis propria.143
                -2) Opera ad extra sunt indivisa aut communia.144
                    cf   Jn 1:3,10; Col.1:17; He 1:3;— Job 33:4; Ps 33:6;104:30.
                    cf  Jn 17:17;—Eph.5:26; He 2:11
                    cf  Gerhard: In operibus ad extra et respectu creaturarum, quando nominatur tantum una persona, vel duae, tota Trinitas intelligitur.145
            -b) Yet such is the case:
                servato ordine et discrimine personarum.
                -1) The order is: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
                    cf  Mt 28:19
                    cf  Jn 5:19; 16:13–15. (Ro 11:36?)
                    Note. In 2 Cor 13:14, Jesus is named in first place as the Mediator.
                -2) This is not an order of rank, but of relation.

For our purposes we can scroll down to C2-1 (though the rest is vital in laying a foundation of understanding the Triune God.).

When our Triune God carries out work and communicates within himself, then the acts/actions of the persons of the Trinity are divisible. The list of these qualities/actions of the persons within the Trinity is fairly short:

• Which person sends the Son? (The father)
• Which person sends Holy Spirit (Father & Son)
• Which person dies on the cross (the son)

These are examples of internal works. External works then are shared/indivisible. So, for example:

• Which person created us?
• Which person raised Jesus from the dead?
• Which person creates faith in us?

The answer the bible gives us, is that since these actions are directed outside (external works) of the trinity (i.e. towards us), they are shared.

It shouldn't surprise us then that, in a more generic way, God, Lord, etc. are used, since the three persons within the Trinity share in their works for us. In many examples then, all three persons are active. And the title then refers to all three at the same time.

Answer 3

It's significant that Jesus himself gave a tremendous basis for recogising that three persons share the name of the one God before he returned to heaven. Only from around that time onward could his followers begin to think of the one God as a 'godhead' of three persons. Three times the Apostle Paul used three Greek words to express this idea of the divine 'godhead' - theios, theiotes and theotes. There is no Hebrew equivalent for that in the Old Testament, of course. This is not surprising, as it took the incarnation of the Son of God and his resurrection then return to heaven to provide the necessary revelation of the complexity of the one Being of God.

Of course, the word 'trinity' is nowhere found in scripture. It came from a Latin word, trinitas, used by early Church Fathers who had to speak out against the view that Jesus was a creature, not God incarnate. So, an excellent starting point for answering this question is to see Jesus' own words as showing the need to first recognise that there ARE three persons subsisting in the one Godhead. What were those words?

"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 28:18-19 A.V.

Not baptizing in three names - baptizing in the one name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. He did not say "in the names of..." (plural). He spoke of a singular name. If the significance of that sinks in, then it will be clear that Christians from the first century on would review all mention of God in the Hebrew scriptures in light of that revelation. They would have to work backwards, as it were, with eyes now opened to something of the complexity of the one God.

We see evidence of them being able to do that with New Testament statements about the prophets of old "seeing" Christ. Centuries before the foretold Messiah arrived, they had faith in this One as being the divine one who would resurrect the dead, who created everything, who is worthy of worship. See 1 Peter 1:11-12, 2 Peter 1:21, Heb. 11:8-19 & 24-27 and Rev. 1:10. Christ himself gave indications of that, for example, when he challenged those who prided themselves in understanding the Hebrew scriptures to explain what king David meant by saying God said the Lord who would descend from David was also David's Lord (Ps. 110:1 & Mk. 12:35-37). They could not answer, but had they noted Christ's resurrection and return to heaven, then they could. Hindsight is needed.

Trinitarians have this blessing of hindsight to help sort the matter out. They can then review the Hebrew scriptures to see the activity of the pre-incarnate Son, and of the Holy Spirit, which the Greek scriptures often throw light on. Of course, those who insist Jesus is a created creature still won't get it.

It's easier to sort out in the Greek scriptures which often state whether it's the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit in any given New Testament text.

Yet it cannot be overlooked (and trinitarians don't) that some texts deliberately don't distinguish, as the three are united in that aspect of what the scripture speaks. For instance, in Revelation the vision of the throne of God in heaven has the glorified Christ in the midst of that throne, where God sits, and the seven-fold Spirit of God surrounds that one throne. That vision shows there's no need to distinguish in such instances. Other parts of scripture deliberately give an emphasis to one or other of the Godhead to show that one having a particular role in that particular matter.

As for the question of "which one is speaking" or whether "all 3 are speaking" in any text is moot, given that the Son is the Word of God, and that the Holy Spirit inspired the writing and gives the understanding. All three equally 'work' throughout all of scripture, whether or not there's any specific mention of God.

Answer 4

I agree with the answers already given.

The Bible invests the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit with the attributes of person-hood. Grammatically it distinguishes between them when they are juxtaposed within the same sentence (i.e. the grammar makes clear that one is not the other). A passage such as John 14:15-17 will suffice to demonstrate subject/object distinctions that exist between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (i.e. which means that the subject and object of the verb are not the same).

John 14:15-17, "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. vs15, If you love Me you will keep commandments.vs16, and I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; vs17, that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive because it cannot behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you."

So, in that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all spoken of as persons, and are not each other, there are either three persons or Jesus lied, which means the Bible lies.

In conclusion, where no distinction is made, (i.e. Isaiah 42:8), it is obviously unnecessary to make a distinction. The persons of the Trinity are persons in relation to each other, any one of the persons in relation to us is simply God. In that there is only One God, if God says to us His glory He will not give to another, that is because there is only One God.

Answer 5

It is helpful to place a discussion on the tripartite nature of God in logical perspective.

Paradigm: 1) a typical example or pattern of something; a model 2) a set of linguistic items that form mutually exclusive choices in particular syntactic roles. "English determiners form a paradigm: we can say “a book” or “his book” but not “a his book.”"

This points out there are linguistic limitations of making a complete description of an example which needs no additional details. For example, if we substitute throne for book in the above definition we can say "a throne" or "his throne" but not "a his throne."

Isaiah 6:1

In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw אדני, Adonai sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple.

The image is perfectly clear; the description leaves one wanting more. Whose throne? Who is Adonai (without the definite article)? Is Adonai seated on "a throne" or "his throne?" The throne cannot be "a his throne" so is it "someone else's throne?"

Even when more specific details are provided, questions may remain.

Genesis 1:26

Let us make man in our image and after our likeness...

Based on the New Testament let us make identifies Father and Son.

1 Corinthians 8:6

yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

In this case to speak of "one" is to consider which was not. Yet, is it correct to omit the Spirit from our image or our likeness when speaking specifically of man?

Genesis 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being

Herein lies how over analyzing leads to the unworking of what is clearly plural. As soon as one demands linguistic clarity, one imports the concept of singularity from the perspective of human understanding, as if what we as humans understand as an event may be imposed on God.

One of the great tragedies in Christian theology is the process of adding linguistically to the Biblical paradigm. The added terms are then attacked by those who dispute the meaning and/or appropriateness of the added terminology. The debate then goes back and forth until what was undeniably clear is now difficult to see.

Let us make man in our image and after our likeness