How Does the Trinity Work? The Doctrine of Inseparable Operations
Introduction
The doctrinal statement in your church most likely affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. But can you explain it? Can you confidently defend the Trinity from Scripture?
For many Christians, the doctrine of the Trinity is one of those doctrines that quickly gets relegated to the theological file titled “mystery.” Sadly, it tends to end up in that file without any serious care or investigation. Now, there are legitimate mysteries for us as humans. There are “secret things” which belong to the Lord (Deut 29:29). But as Christians, it is both our duty and our delight to study all that God has revealed to us. So, before our “mystery” file gets too full, we should all be constantly searching Scripture to see what we can know about God.
In this post, we’re going to look at just one aspect of the Trinity that we can see in Scripture: the doctrine of inseparable operations. To this end, I hope to achieve three goals.
Define what it is (Definition)
Show where it is taught in Scripture (Defense)
Explain why it matters for your theology (Doctrine)
Definition
Simply stated, the doctrine of inseparable operations means that the works of the Trinity within creation are performed by all three persons inseparably.[1] This does not mean that the three persons act in “cooperation” or “harmony” with one another like musicians in an orchestra. Instead, it means that the persons act as literally one being. In this instance, their action is more comparable to the conductor than to the orchestra (although all analogies must fail).
This doctrine arises from the fact that the persons of the Trinity are one in essence. One theologian clarifies that the divine essence “is numerically one and the same, and therefore the unity of essence in the persons is a numerical unity.”[2] So, the doctrine of inseparable operations arises as a necessary implication of the essential unity of the Trinity. Matthew Barrett recently wrote, “The three persons are undivided in their external works because they are undivided in their internal nature.”[3] (That’s a sentence worth memorizing!)
Biblically, the doctrine of inseparable operations can be seen in something like Christ’s resurrection. The Father (Gal. 1:1), Son (John 10:18), and Spirit (Rom. 8:11) are each individually credited with the action in different parts of Scripture, yet, it is one single action performed by all of them equally. Again, not in participation with one another, but as one being.
One verse of Scripture that is especially helpful for defending this doctrine is John 5:19. (Even though this passage doesn’t directly mention the Holy Spirit, this doctrine includes him as well because he is a partaker of the single divine nature.)
Defense
The context of John 5:19 is a conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees (Shocker!). Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath and told him to “pick up” his pallet (5:8). After being healed, the man was rebuked by the Pharisees for carrying his pallet on the Sabbath (10). Eventually, the Pharisees found out Jesus was behind the healing and accused him of breaking the Sabbath (16). His response to this accusation is remarkable. He does not respond by telling them that their Sabbath codes are illegitimate. Nor does he respond by defending the type of work he did. Instead, he responds by pointing out who it was that performed the work. In verse 17 he says, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” Jesus makes two statements here. Both fueled the Pharisee’s ambition to kill him (18).
First, Jesus called God “My Father,” which implied that he is of the same nature as God and therefore “equal to God” (18; cf. 1:1, 14, 18). Second, by adding “I Myself am working,” he implied that his own work is the very work of God. By saying that the Father “has been working until now,” Jesus is saying that the Father has always been working.[4] Since the beginning of time!
Amazingly, Jesus includes himself in the continuous work of the Father by saying, “and I Myself am working.” When Jesus says he is also working, he is not simply saying that he is working separately or after the Father. Instead, just as the Father has been continuously working “until now,” the Son also has been continuously working “until now.” Greek scholar B.F. Westcott says, “The form of this sentence is remarkable. Christ places His work as co-ordinate with that of the Father, not as dependent on it.”[5] Try to image their shock when this carpenter from Nazareth says he has been working since the beginning of time!
Negative and Positive Unity
In verse 17, Jesus said that God is his Father (same nature) and that they do the same divine work since the beginning of time (same work). In verse 19, Jesus goes on to expand and clarify what he means.
When Jesus claimed equality with God, this obviously upset the Pharisees (18). Verse 19 begins Jesus’ answer to their frustrations. He says, “the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner” (19). The two halves of this verse should be considered as a negative and a positive statement concerning the unity of work between the Father and the Son.
In the first half of the verse, Jesus teaches his unity with the Father in a negative statement. Jesus claims that he does nothing that the Father does not do. He says, “…the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing.” The Greek literally reads, “The Son is not able to do nothing of himself except anything he might see the Father doing.” This statement simply teaches that the Son never at any time performs acts apart from the Father. Stephen Wellum says of this verse, “…the Son does only what the Father does; the Son does all that the Father does…The Son does no less and no more than the Father.”[6] So, in the first half of this verse, Jesus clearly states that he never operates independently of the Father.
It is important to understand at this point that there is no duration of time between the Father acting, the Son seeing, and the Son acting. John Owen says, “The Father doth not first work in order of time, and then the Son, seeing of it, work another work like unto it.”[7] First of all, it is impossible to divide the shared knowledge of the members of the Trinity (a future post will address how/why the Father “shows” the Son anything, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves). Secondly, our ancient friend Cyril points out that if the Son merely observes the works of the Father and replicates a separate but similar work, “Then he will be God by instruction, not by nature!”[8] Instead, both the Father and the Son perform the same works at the same time as one God. This is the exact point Jesus is making to the Pharisees.
In the first half of verse 19, Jesus argued from a negative statement. He never does anything that the Father does not do. In the second half of the verse, Jesus argues positively that he does do everything that the Father does. He says, “whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.” In context, Jesus makes this statement in reply to the Pharisees who were accusing him of breaking the Sabbath (16). His argument here is simple. James Montgomery Boice summarizes, “…everything God the Father does, Jesus does; and everything Jesus does is also done by the Father.”[9] So, if the Pharisees have a problem with what Jesus does, they also have a problem with what the Father does, because the work is performed by both of them inseparably! Jesus is simply expanding what he already explained in verse 17.
In summary, the doctrine of inseparable operations can be defended in John 5:19 for three reasons. First, the preceding context already states that the Son is working the continuous working of his Father (17). Second, in the first half of verse 19, the Son states, negatively, that he never does anything that the Father does not do. Third, in the second half of verse 19 the Son states, positively, that he does everything the Father does. All this together should prove to the Pharisees that Jesus is justified for healing the paralytic (8) because he is God and works inseparably from the Father. These three points make a clear argument to the Pharisees that when they despise the work of the Son they also despise the work of the Father because the two work inseparably as one. This is why Jesus is able to close this paragraph saying, “He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him” (23). If the Pharisees do not like Jesus’ actions, they also don’t like the Father’s actions (5:17, 19) and are therefore dishonoring the Father (23).
Doctrine
The doctrine of inseparable operations may be difficult to comprehend, but we must affirm it if we believe that God’s essence is numerically one (and we do!). As Barrett said earlier, “The three persons are undivided in their external works because they are undivided in their internal nature.”[10] Conversely, if the three persons are divided in their external works, it is because they are divided in their internal nature.
At this point, you might be thinking, “Who cares?” After all, what difference does it make if there is some kind of division in the works of the Trinity?
Here are four implication for denying the doctrine of inseparable operations:
We are forced into polytheism. The division of divine works within creation can only lead to three separate wills and three separate powers within the Trinity. Consequently, the single essence of God is turned into multiple separate divine essences. Heresy!
We might be able to avoid polytheism by saying the Son and Spirit have different natures than that of the Father. However, this would make the Son and Spirit something less than God. Heresy!
We cannot affirm the Nicene Creed which states that the Son is “of the same substance as the Father.”[11] Heresy!
The gospel itself becomes invalid. If the Son is excluded from the works of the Trinity and therefore the nature of God, he cannot truly be a mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5). If he is not of the same essence as the other persons of the Trinity, by whom are we “reconciled to God” (Rom 5:10)? As Herman Bavinck says, “The peculiar feature of the mediatorial works is precisely that they are performed by one person possessing both natures.”[12] If Christ is of a different essence from God, we have no mediator and no hope.
After reading this post, you might be thinking (in an Irish accent), “That’s Modalism!” After all, aren’t the three persons of the Trinity distinct from one another? They certainly are! That’s why my next blog post will discuss a tremendously important doctrine that complements the doctrine of inseparable operations: Divine Appropriations!
Recommended Resources:
On God and Christ by Gregory of Nazianzus (https://www.amazon.com/God-Christ-Theological-Cledonius-Patristics/dp/0881412406)
Simply Trinity by Matthew Barrett (https://www.heritagebooks.org/products/simply-trinity-the-unmanipulated-father-son-and-spirit-barrett.html)
The Trinity: An Introduction by Scott R. Swain (https://www.gracebooks.com/the-trinity-an-introduction.html)
References:
[1] This doctrine applies to the ad extra (or “external”) works of God. This means it applies to “divine activities according to which God creates, sustains, and otherwise relates to all finite things.” This is contrasted with the ad intra (or “internal”) works of God which will be addressed in a later post. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017), 244.
[2] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (1938; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 88.
[3] Matthew Barrett, Simply Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2021), 291. Emphasis original.
[4] Murray J. Harris, John, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015), 109–110.
[5] B.F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (1881; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 84.
[6] Stephen J. Wellum, God the Son Incarnate (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 160. Emphasis original.
[7] John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1979), 3:198.
[8] Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John: Volume 1, Ancient Christian Texts, 144.
[9] James Montgomery Boice, The Gospel of John, Vol. 2, John 5:5:1–8:59 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 57.
[10] Barrett, Simply Trinity, 291. Emphasis original.
[11] http://www.onthewing.org/user/Creed_Nicene.pdf
[12] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3, Sin and Salvation in Christ, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 364.