The Relationship between the Ontological

Trinity and

the Economic Trinity

Seung-Goo Lee, Ph. D.Associate Professor of Systematic Theology

Kukje Theological SeminarySeoul, Korea

Unlike other religions in the world, Christianity has a

trinitarian understanding of God. Sometimes it is even

asserted that theism in the Christian sense of the word must

be referred to as Christian theism, since Christian theism

is different from other theism.1 Hence to understand

properly the trinitarian God of Christian theism is almost

tantamount to understanding Christianity itself. It is,

however, difficult to understand the triune God. This does

not only mean that we cannot comprehend the triune God, but

also means that the effort to describe the way in which God1 Cf. Cornelius van Til, The Defense of Faith

(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company,1955), 9-13, 114; idem, Christian-Theistic Evidences (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961); idem, A Survey of Christian Epistemology (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970), 62; idem, Christian Theistic Ethics (Phillipsburg:Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971).

1

is, after accepting the mystery of the triune God is

difficult. One of the main difficulties of understanding the

Trinity lies has to do with the proper relationship between

the ontological and the economic Trinity. In this paper I

want to examine the question as to what is the right way to

understand the relationship between the ontological and the

economic Trinity.

The economic Trinity is the Trinity revealed in the

economy (oikonomia)of God. Hence the term the ‘economic

Trinity’ or ‘the Trinity of revelation’ has been used.2 As

Juengel said, “the doctrine of economic Trinity understands

the being of God in relation with man and his world.”3 In

contrast to this economic Trinity, the ontological Trinity

refers to the Trinity-in-God-himself. That is, the

ontological Trinity is “to understand God himself without

regard to God’s relationship with man”,4 and to understand

the Trinity as describing “the immanent ontic structure of2 For an explanation of this term, see Otto Weber,

Foundatuion of Dogmatics, vol. 1, trans. Darrell L. Guder (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 388; Helmut Thielicke, The Evangelical Faith, vol. 2: The Doctrine of God and of Christ, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 179; Paul Jewett, God, Creation and Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1991), 305. Weber and Jewett use also the terms like ‘revelational Trinity’ and ‘functional Trinity’.

3 Eberhard Juengel, God as the Mystery of the World, trans. Darrell L. Guder (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 346.

4 Ibid.

2

the being of God”.5 Hence the terms the “ontological

Trinity,” the “eternal Trinity,” the “essential Trinity,’ or

the “immanent Trinity.”

According to Wolfhart Pannenberg, the distinction

between the economic and ontological Trinity can be traced

to eighteenth century theologian Johann Augustus Urlsperger

(1728-1806).6 As far as the terminology is concerned,

Pannenberg may be right. The concept itself, however, is

already found in the writings of the earlier theologians.

While in earlier days theologians treated the ontological

and the economic Trinity without a clear conscious

distinction, concrete usage of these terms appeared with the

rise of the tendency to disregard the ontological aspect of

the Trinity. Hence, Juergen Moltmann is more correct when he

said that it is common to distinguish the ontological and

the economic Trinity after Tertullian’s rejection of

modalism, and that especially the Cappadocian fathers

clearly distinguished these two.7 G. C. Berkouwer also made

5 Thielicke, 76.

6 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematische Theologie, Band 1 (Goettingen: Vandenhoek and Ruprecht, 1988), 317, n. 122=E.T., Systematic Theology, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 291, n. 111. See also Weber,388, n. 124.

7 Juergen Moltmann, Trinitaet und Reich Gottes (Muenchen: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1980)=E.T., The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God, trans. Margaret Kohl (London: SCM Press, 1981), 151; idem, Der gekreuzigte Gott (Muenchen: Christian

3

it clear that the church used the distinction between the

ontological and the economic Trinity in her efforts to fight

against modalism.8

In this paper I would like to contrast three models of

looking at the relation between the ontological and the

economic Trinity, and to consider which model might be more

biblical and realistic. The three models could be stated as

follows under each proposition that represents its position.

<<The Classic Model>>

“The economic Trinity is the ground of cognition for theontological Trinity, and the ontological Trinity is theground of being for the economic Trinity.”

<<The Model of the New Theology of the Cross>>

“The economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity, and vice

versa.”

<<The Model of Only the Economic Trinity>>

“There is only the economic Trinity; the ontological Trinityis only the summary of the economic Trinity.”

Kaiser Verlag, 1972)=E.T., The Crucified God, trans. R. A. Wilson and John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1974), 235ff.

8 G. C. Berkouwer, A Half Century of Theology, trans. and ed. Lewis B. Smedes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 259.

4

Let us begin with the examination of the classic model

of understanding the relationship between the ontological

and the economic Trinity.

I. The Classic Model

By the classic model I mean the historic understanding of

the Trinity. In the discussion of classic model I will not

give much attention to different understandings of the

Trinity between the Eastern Church and the Western Church,

but concentrate on their common element. I will first state

the basic proposition in which the Trinity is understood.

1. Basic Statement

<Proposition 1>

“The economic Trinity is the ground of cognition for theontological Trinity, and the ontological Trinity is theground of being for the economic Trinity.”

According to the classic understanding of the Trinity,

the relation between the ontological and the economic

Trinity is as follow. We get to know that God is the triune

God through God’s relationship with this world. God,

however, does not become a triune God in His relation with

this world. God himself was and is a triune God, even before

5

He has any relationship with this world. Hence, we can say

that God reveals Himself as a triune God in the course of

his economy, since He himself was and is a triune God. God

reveals his Trinity through his economic relation with this

world. In its ideal form, the classic model for

understanding the Trinity has the following process of

thinking.

First of all, there is recognition of the economic

Trinity. That is, we can recognize that God is the triune

God in the process of examining God’s creation and

redemption through Christ, especially, while examining the

coming of Christ, his self-disclosure, the coming of the

Holy Spirit to the new testament church on Pentecost, the

works of the Holy Spirit in the church, the response of the

church to the Holy Spirit (esp., Acts 5:1-16). Jesus Christ

and the One whom he calls his father, and the Holy Spirit

who was sent by the Father and the Son (John 14:26; 15:26;

16:7) are one triune God. In the process of this recognition

we can also see some aspects of their relationship. That is,

God the Father and God the Son have a relationship of a

father and a son, and the Holy Spirit is the one who could

be sent by the Father and the Son. All of these amount to a

recognition of the economic Trinity.

Secondly, in the process of recognizing the economic

Trinity we come across several statements that show the

relationship between these three persons. For example, the

6

term “only begotten son” (monogenh/v) (John 1:14) and the

expression “the only Son who is in the bosom of the

Father”(John 1:18), with the clause “Today I have begotten

you” in the Psalm 2:7, lead us to the conclusion that the

Son is the one who has been begotten by the Father. And the

statements that the Holy Spirit will be sent by Jesus from

the Father (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7) and that the Holy

Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 15:26) show that the

Holy Spirit is the one who will be sent to us in the process

of God’s economic relation with us.

Finally, with the help of the second stage of our

understanding of the Trinity, we begin to understand that

the Father is eternally begetting the Son and the Son is

being eternally begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit

is being sent, or is being processed by the Father and the

Son by applying the economic relationship into eternity.

In this way, the classic model of the Trinity provides an

understanding of the ontological Trinity through an economic

understanding of the Trinity. Behind this thinking there is

the assurance that God will reveal Himself as He is in

Himself. That is, the assurance that the ontological Trinity

is the basis of the economic Trinity is the guiding

principle in the classic model. In order to confirm this

summary of the classic model, let us look at the way in

which two reformed theologians understood the Trinity.

7

2. John Calvin on the Trinity

John Calvin, like most of those who hold the classic model,

develops his arguments without clearly distinguishing

between the economic and the ontological Trinity. It seems

to me that for him there is no need to distinguish between

these two, because the ontological Trinity is revealed in

the economic Trinity. This is a common phenomenon in the

writings of most theologians who hold the classic model. If

we placed them in a modern debate concerning the

relationship between the ontological and the economic

Trinity, however, they would make it quite clear that the

triune God reveals Himself as He is in the process of

creation and redemption.9 There are some hints of this in

Calvin’s discussion of the Trinity. Let us look at the way

in which he speaks of the Trinity.

9 In his good study on Calvin’s triniatarian theology P. W. Butin also showed this point centering his emphasis onthe economic trinity. Philip Walker Butin, Revelation, Redemption, and Response: Calvin’s Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). It seems to me, however, that it is pity thatButin did not clearly discuss the relationship between the ontological and the economic trinity in the thought of Calvin. Butin showed a tendency to emphasize the economic trinity. See also his Reformed Ecclesiology: Trinitarian Grace Accordingto Calvin, Studies in Reformed Theology and History, I/1 (winter, 1994), 5-8, eps. 6: “Calvin’s articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is … predominantly economic.”

8

Calvin begins his discussion of the Trinity by

explaining that several words which do not appear in

Scripture --- e.g., Trinity, persons, homoousios , etc. ---

are useful for the interpretation of Scripture, so that they

are especially useful for refuting the wrong thinking and

distorted teachings about the Trinity. One sentence which

Calvin quotes from Augustine clearly shows what Calvin’s

attitude is on these terms: “On account of the poverty of

human speech in so great a matter, the word ‘hypostasis’ has

been forced upon us by necessity, not to express what it is,

but only not to be silent on how Father, Son, and Spirit are

three.”10 The reason why we use the word “hypostasis” is not

because this is the word that can be used to show exactly

what God is like, but that we cannot help not speaking of

God as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That is,

these terms are used in our difficult effort to express the

fact of revelation in our human language. What Calvin wants

to say in this part can best be summarized with the

following statements: “Say that in one essence of God there

is a trinity of persons; you will say in one word what

Scriptures states, and cut short empty

talkativeness”(Institutes, I. xiii. 5).

10 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), I, xiii, 5. From now on quotations from the Institutes will be given in the main text in this form (Institutes, I, xiii, 5).

9

Thus after defining the term “person” as “a subsistence

in God’s essence, which, while related to the others, is

distinguished by an incommunicable quality”(Institutes, I,

xiii, 6), Calvin proceeds to the discussion of homoousios of

the Father and the Son and to the discussion of the

differentiation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

In his discussion of the divinity of the Son, Calvin

first of all talks about the divinity of the Logos asarkos and

then goes on to the discussion of the “Word endued with

flesh.” The order of this discussion is very instructive for

our purpose, because this shows how Calvin thinks about the

relation of God the Father and the Logos asarkos. That is,

here we can see a hint of Calvin’s understanding of the

ontological Trinity. Referring to I Pet. 1:10-11, Calvin

says that “because Christ had not yet been manifested, it is

necessary to understand the Word as begotten of the Father

before time”(Institutes, I, xiii, 7). He then refers to the

“creation by the Word of God” in Genesis 1. He understands

this creation by the Word of God in the light of Heb. 1:2-3,

and says that “here we see the Word understood as the order

or mandate of the Son, who is himself the eternal and

essential Word of the Father”(Ibid.). For Calvin, however,

the most important passages in relation with the divinity of

the Son are John 1:1-3, for “John at once attributes to the

Word a solid and abiding essence, and ascribes something

uniquely His own”(Institutes, I, xiii, 7).

10

On the basis of these discussions, Calvin concludes

that “unchangeable, the Word

abides everlastingly one and the same with God, and is God

himself”(Ibid.). Then in relation with those who would

readily accept the divinity of the Son, but deny the

eternality of the Son, Calvin says that “the Word, conceived

beyond the beginning of time by God, has perpetually resided

with him”, and he concludes that “by this, his eternity, his

true essence, and his divinity are proved”(Institutes, I, xiii,

8).

Only after showing the eternal divinity of the Son this

way, does Calvin discuss the divinity of Christ in the OT

(Institutes, I, xiii, 9), the Angel of Jehovah (Institutes, I,

xiii, 10), the divinity of Christ in the NT on the basis of

the witnesses of the Apostles (I, xiii, 11), of the works of

Christ (I, xiii, 12) and of the miracles of Christ (I, xiii,

13).

In relation to the divinity of the Holy Spirit,

Calvin’s discussion is centered on the works of the Holy

Spirit and the biblical expressions which identify the Holy

Spirit with God (Institutes, I, xiii. 14-15).

We conclude, therefore, that Calvin’s discussion of the

Trinity makes it clear that God has a triune relationship

with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit from eternity,

and that this triune relationship has been clearly revealed

in the economic process. For Calvin, it is not even possible

11

to think of the economic Trinity constituting the

ontological Trinity. This is clearly shown in his response

to those who have doubts about the eternal Sonship of the

Christ.

3. Herman Bavinck on the Trinity

We see almost the same view of the Trinity in Herman

Bavinck’s understanding of the Trinity as we saw in

Calvin.11 Bavinck is, however, more helpful, because he

explicitly speaks of the relation of the ontological and the

economic Trinity. From this explicit explanation we can

gather that he discusses the Trinity with what we called the

“classic model” in mind. Let us quote one passage from him:

As in the ontological trinity the Father is first inorder of subsistence, the Son second, and the HolySpirit third; so also in the history of revelation theFather preceded the Son, and the Son preceded the HolySpirit….The Father comes without having been sent; theSon is sent by the Father, Matt. 10:40; Mark 9:37; Luke

11 John Bolt also made this point in his doctoral dissertation on Bavinck. See John Bolt, “The Imitation of Christ Theme in the Cultural-Ethical Idea of Herman Bavinck”(Ph. D. Dissertation, University of St. Michael’s College, Toronto School of Theology, 1982), 74, n. 274: “In his explication of the trinitarian order Bavinck clearly reflects Calvin’s discussion of the Trinity in Institutes, I, xv.” See also p. 127: “…in both the ontological and economicTrinity, Bavinck follows Calvin and Kuyper ….”

12

9:48; John 3:16, 5:23, 30, 37; 6:8ff.; and the HolySpirit is sent by both Father and Son, John 14:26;16:7.

But this procession in time is a reflection of theimmanent relation existing between the three persons inthe ontological trinity, and is based upon generationand spiration. The generation of the Son is the eternalarche-type of the incarnation of the Logos, and theprocession from the father and the Son is the proto-type of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Hence, thechurch-fathers derived the knowledge concerning theeternal and immanent relations existing between thepersons of the trinity from what was revealedconcerning those relations in time. In this they werecorrect.12

Here Bavinck says that the Trinitarian structure expressed

in the history of revelation, that is, the structure of the

economic Trinity, can be seen as a reflection of the

structure of the ontological Trinity. He recognizes that the

church fathers drew the ontological Trinity from the

understanding of the economic Trinity and he himself also

accepts this. According to Bavinck, therefore, the church

fathers had already distinguished between the economic and

the ontological Trinity and recognized that the economic

Trinity reflects the ontological Trinity, even though they

did not use these terms.

In the classic model, therefore, as we have seen, God

has his trinitarian relationship from eternity, and it is12 Hermann Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, trans. William

Hendriksen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), 320.

13

clear that the economic process within time does not affect

God. In this sense, the following statement by Thielicke

succinctly shows the intention of the classic understanding

of the Trinity: “…the orthodox doctrine of the essential

Trinity maintains that the Trinity is immanent and original

in God apart from his work, and that the deity is eternally

Father, Son, and Spirit in itself before ever creating

anything, entering into union with the individual, or

dwelling in the fellowship of believers.”13

Do all theologians who emphasize the Trinity have the

same understanding on this matter? Surely not. Let us turn

to the second model in order to see a different

understanding of the Trinity.

II. The Model of the New Theology of the Cross

By the new theology of the cross I mean the theologies which

Juergen Moltmann and Gerhart Juengel of the protestant

theological faculty of the Tuebingen University developed

within the last thirty years or so. They wanted to renew

theology by centering upon the cross of Jesus, and they

thought that their approach would renew and reshape Luther’s

theologia cruxis for the 20th century. It seems to me, however,

that it is difficult to identify their approach with

13

?Thielicke, 176f.

14

Luther’s theology of the cross. Hence the term ‘the new

theology of the cross.’ How did Moltmann and Juengel

understand the relation of the economic and the ontological

Trinity? In this paper I will concentrate only on Moltmann’s

view.

1. Basic Statement

<Proposition 2>

“The economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity, and vice

versa.”

This proposition, which was first used by Karl Rahner,

and then by Barth, Moltmann, and Juengel in their own ways,

can be interpreted in various ways. In other words, the

meaning of this proposition is somewhat ambiguous.These

theologians sometimes present this proposition in the way in

which we understand the classic model. Rahner presents this

proposition in the following way:

In the process it [the psychological theory of theTrinity] really forgets that the countenance of Godwhich turns towards us in this self-communication is,in the Trinitarian nature of this encounter, the verybeing of God as he is in himself, and must be if indeedthe divine self-communication in grace and in gloryreally is the communication of God in his own self tous.14

14 Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, trans. William V. Dych (New York: The

15

Moreover, he is saying that the ontological Trinity is theground of the immanent Trinity, and that the ontologicalTrinity precedes the economic Trinity. So if we read onlythese words, we may think that Rahner is presenting thetraditional position in a modified form that can beunderstood in the modern situation. Also when we readMoltmann stating following material, we almost come to theconclusion that he is simply repeating the classicviewpoint.

If the immanent Trinity is the counterpart of praise,then knowledge of the economic Trinity (as theembodiment of the history and experience of salvation)precedes knowledge of the immanent Trinity. In theorder of being it succeeds it.15

There is only one, single, divine Trinity and one,single divine history of salvation. The triune God canonly appear in history as he is in himself, and in noother way. He is in himself as he appears in salvationhistory, for it is he himself who is manifested, and heis just what he is manifested as being.16

Statements about the immanent Trinity must notcontradict statements about the economic Trinity.Statements about the economic Trinity must correspondto doxological statements about the immanent Trinity.17

Seabury Press, 1978), 135.

15 Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 152f.

16 Ibid., 153.

17 Ibid., 154.

16

In spite of the impression which these quotations leave,

after closer examination we conclude that Moltmann does not

have a classic understanding of the Trinity. Indeed, at one

point Moltmann clearly says that “in order to grasp the

death of the Son in its significance for God himself, I

found myself bound to surrender the traditional distinction

between the immanent and the ontological Trinity.”18

Moreover, in a 1973 article he states:

If the doctrine of the Trinity could be developed fromthe event of the cross, then not only the distinctionbetween God in himself(Gott an sich) and the God for us(Gott fuer uns), but also the distinction between theimmanent and the economical Trinity are abolished…. Godhas a threefold relationship with us; and thisthreefold relationship between God and us is neithertype nor analogy of the immanent trinity, but immanenttrinity itself.19

What is he saying? Are there contradictions in his

understanding of the Trinity? I do not think so. How then

can we understand the meaning? When we closely examine

Moltmann’s book, we conclude that Motmann, by using the

proposition that “the economic Trinity is the ontological

18 Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 160.

19 Moltmann, “Gesichtspunkte der Kreuzestheologie heute,” Evangelishe Theologie 33 (1973), 362f., cited in Horst G. Poehlmann, Abriss der Dogmatik (1975), tran. into Korean Shin-Gun Lee, Dogmatics (Seoul: Korean Institute of Theology,1990), 157.

17

Trinity, and vice versa”, expresses the idea that the economic

Trinity is itself the ontological Trinity, and that the

economic Trinity is the center of God’s revelation in the

process of history, and that the ontological Trinity is

merely the metaphysical summary of the economic Trinity’s

doxological meaning. To state it bluntly, according to this

new theology of the cross, it is not the case that there is

an inner relationship between three divine persons from

eternity which is revealed in the process of time. Rather,

from our understanding of the economic self-revelation of

God we logically draw out God’s Trinitarian structure. There

may be an ontological Trinity at the end of the day; we can

proleptically refer to this Trinity in our doxology. What is

important for Moltmann, therefore, is the economic Trinity.

Or at least we can say that for him the economic Trinity is

the one that may enrich God’s being. Let me substantiate

these points by examining his writings.

2. Moltmann’s Understanding.

In his book The Crucified God from 1972 Moltmann tries to

understand the Trinity in relation to the cross.20 He says:

“The material principle of the doctrine of the Trinity is

20 Moltmann, The Crucified God, trans. R. A. Wilson and JohnBowden (London: SCM Press, 1974). In this section page references from this book will be given in the main text.

18

the cross of Christ. The former principle of knowledge of

the cross is the doctrine of the Trinity”(241). He even says

that “a trinitarian theology of the cross …. develops from

this history [of the cross] what is to be understood by

‘God’(247). So he demands a “revolution in the concept of

God”(152). Moltmann writes:

… what happened on the cross was an event between Godand God. It was a deep division in God himself, in sofar as God abandoned God and contradicted himself, andat the same time a unity in God, in so far as God wasat one with God and corresponded to himself (244).

That is, on the cross God revealed himself as the one who

alienated himself from himself and at the same time

corresponded to himself. Moltmann also expresses this same

idea in the following way:

In the cross, Father and Son are most deeply separatedin forsakenness and at the same time are most inwardlyone in their surrender. What proceeds from this eventbetween Father and Son is the Spirit which justifiesthe godless, fills the forsaken with love and evenbrings the dead alive, since the fact that they aredead cannot exclude them from this event of the cross;the death in God also includes them (244).

According to Moltmann, therefore, the Trinity of God was

revealed on the cross. Can this be understood as saying that

since the cross is the expression of the love of God, we can

understand who God is in relation to the cross, or that the

19

economic trinity is revealed on the cross? The following

statement of Moltmann shows that he gives much more meaning

than this to the event of the cross.

If in the freedom given through experience of it thebeliever understands the crucifixion as an event of thelove of the Son and the grief of the Father, that is,as an event between God and God, as an event within theTrinity, he perceives the liberating word of love whichcreates new life (249).

For Moltmann, the event of the cross is not only an event of

the economic Trinity, but also an event within the Trinity.

Or rather, if we put it in the words of Richard Bauckham’s

interpretation of Moltmann, “the event of the cross is the

Trinity.”21 Accordingly, Moltmann says that “the history of

Christ is the inner life of God himself,” and that the

Trinity is “an event of love in the suffering and death of

Jesus”(249). He even says that we should not think “as

though the Trinity were already present in itself, in the

divine nature”(245). That is to say, we should not think

that first there was the ontological Trinity, and then the

economic Trinity was revealed. Rather, Moltmann thinks that

the ontological Trinity is constituted in the event of the

cross. Richard Bauckham also interprets Moltmann in this

way. So Bauckham says that at this stage [from The Theology of

21 Richard Bauckham, “Juergen Moltmann,” in One God in Trinity: An Analysis of the Primary Dogma of Christianity, eds. Peter Toon and James D. Spiceland (Westchester, Illinois: Cornerstone Books, 1980), 120.

20

Hope to The Crucified God] Moltmann thinks of God becoming

Trinity in the history of Jesus.”22 And he adds that

“Moltmann very much wished to understand the trinitarian

relationship of Father and Son as a relationship which

happens in the history of Jesus, and especially in the

cross, and will not allow this happening to be a mere

reflection of supra-temporal truth.”23 Indeed, Motmann

himself thinks that his understanding of the Trinity

“overcomes the dichotomy between immanent and economic

Trinity and between the nature of God and his inner tri-

unity”(245). Let us quote one more passage form The Crucified

God:

The Trinity therefore also means the history of God,which in human terms is the history of love andliberation. The Trinity, understood as an event forhistory, therefore presses towards eschatologicalconsummation, so that the ‘Trinity may be all in all’,or put more simply, so that ‘love may be all in all,’so that life may triumph over death…. If Christianbelief thinks in trinitarian terms, it says thatforsaken men are already taken up by Christ’sforsakenness into the divine history and that we ‘livein God’, because we participate in the eschatologicallife of God by virtue of the death of Christ. God is,God is in us, and God suffers in us, where lovesuffers. We participate in the triniatarian process ofGod’s history (255).

22

?Ibid., 116, Bauckham’s own emphasis. 23

? Ibid., 116f., his own emphasis.

21

For Moltmann, therefore, our history is the history of God

and in this history God accomplishes his trinitarian

process.

In The Trinity and the Kingdom from 1980, Moltmann also

develops a similar argument, but this time in a more nuanced

way. First, after explaining the meaning of the terms of the

immanent and the economic Trinity, he asks whether this

distinction is necessary and rightly answers that this

distinction “secures God’s liberty and grace” and “it is the

logically necessary presupposition for the correct

understanding of God’s saving revelation”(151). He, however,

immediately revise this discussion as we can easily see in

the works of those who work after Barth. That is, Moltmann

is saying that we should conclude in the way in which he

just described only in the situation in which in which

freedom and necessity are confronting each other. He

continues, however, that God is love and God is forced to

love neither by external necessity nor by internal

necessity, so there is no need to think of this kind of

distinction being necessary. Moreover, he says: “The notion

of an immanent Trinity in which God is simply by himself,

without the love which communicates salvation, brings an

arbitrary element into the concept of God which means a

break-up of the Christian concept”(151). So Moltmann wants

22

to see the economic and immanent Trinity “rather form a

continuity and merge into one another” (152). Only in the

sphere of doxology is there room for the immanent Trinity.

In this sense, Moltmann is saying that “the economic Trinity

is the object of kerygmatic and practical theology; the

immanent Trinity the content of doxological theology”(152).

Hence for Moltmann the economic Trinity has priority.

In this sense he says that “knowledge of the economic

Trinity (as the embodiment of the history and experience of

salvation) precedes knowledge of the immanent

Trinity”(152f.) and that “from the very beginning, no

immanent Trinity and no divine glory is conceivable without

‘the Lamb who was slain’”(159). In this way, for Moltmann,

the economic Trinity was prior in his thinking and that the

event of the cross affects the Trinity (immanent Trinity)

and even constitutes the immanent Trinity. Indeed, Moltmann

says in one place that “the economic Trinity not only

reveals the immanent Trinity; it also has a retroactive

effect on it”(160). It is true that Moltmann does not think

that the process of history is the process of God’s self-

development just as Hegel did, and that Moltmann emphasizes

the differentiation between his position and that of Hegel

(166). However, Moltmann also emphasizes that the history of

the world corresponds to the passiones trinitatis ad intra (160);

that is, the history of the world affects God himself.

23

Therefore, for Moltmann, only when the history and

experience of salvation are completed and perfected, does

the economic Trinity complete and perfect itself to immanent

Trinity (161). In this way, we can clearly see that for

Moltmann either the economic Trinity is the process which

constitutes the immanent Trinity, or at least the economic

Trinity affects the immanent Trinity.24

We can then conclude that even though the perspective

of the new theology of the cross is somewhat ambiguous and

that there is room for different interpretations, those who

hold this view think at the very least that the ontological

Trinity are enriched by the economic Trinity, and that the

ontological Trinity is merely a doxological anticipation of

what will be there only at the end of the history. This is

the second model of understanding the Trinity. Let us turn

to the next model.

III. Hendrikus Berkhof’s Model of Only the Economic Trinity

Hendrikus Berkhof’s understanding of the Trinity can be

summarized by the following two statements. (1) Berkhof, to

use the traditional term that he wants to avoid, tries to24 For a similar discussion in relation with the event

of the cross being affecting God, see Bauckham, 128, 129. Especially, p. 129: “Thus God’s experience of history results in an enrichment of the Trinitarian being of God himself.”

24

understand the Trinity only as an economic Trinity; and (2)

in the process of arguing for this, Berkhof destroys the

traditional concept of the Trinity. Let us examine these

points in turn.

First of all, Berkhof understands the Trinity only as

an economic Trinity. That is, he tries to understand God not

as the God who is in himself, but as the God who has a

relationship with us. In fact, Berkhof is not happy at all

with the traditional distinction between God as He is in

Himself and the God as He is in relation with us. He thinks

that the ontological Trinity is based on the economic

Trinity.25 He tries to understand the Trinity only as an

economic Trinity.

To see the Trinity only as an economic Trinity, Berkhof

places an emphasis on the covenant between God and man.

Hence the title of the section in which he deals with the

Trinity is “the Covenant as Tri-(u)nity.” This covenant is

an event that makes the covenant fellowship possible between

God and us by making us God’s sons and daughters. Berkhof

insists that we should regard the Trinity “as a description

of the ‘structure’ of the one covenant partner, God”(336).

25 Hendrikus Berkhof, Christelijk Geloof, Revised Edition (Nijkert, the Natherlands: Uiteverij G. F. Callenbach, 1985), trans. Sierd Woudstra, Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study of the Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 337. Hereafterin this section, citations from this book will be given in the text only as the page number.

25

So he thinks that we cannot speak of the Trinity as “one

essence in three persons”(336). That is, God, Jesus and the

Spirit “do not constitute one being in eternity, but one

history in time”(336). In another place, he says that the

Trinity is “not the name for an intra-divine mystery but a

description of what has happened and is happening between

God and men in revelation and covenant.”26

This entire event of the Trinity in the history,

according to Berkhof, “is grounded in God’s eternal

determination to be a God of blessing, a determination which

belongs to his very nature”(337). God by his sovereign love

is involved with us in this process of history, and this

“also does something to him” and “enriches him”(337). So we

may even say that God becomes a triune God in the process of

history. It is true that Berkhof tries to avoid the

expression of God becoming a triune God. Instead he says

that “the trinitarian event arises from the very nature

(essence) of God and leads to it” or “the Trinity is natural

(essential) for God”(337). He immediately adds, however,

that the Trinity “describes how God, according to his

eternal purpose, extends and carries on in time his own life

so as share it with man”(337). So he makes it clear that the

trinitarian event is an event which happens in time in

relation with us, and by this event God himself is extended

26 Hedrikus Berkhof, Introduction to the Study of Dogmatics, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 106.

26

and enriched. For Berkhof, therefore, the Trinity is “a

continuing and open event, directed to man”(336).

Accordingly, people are invited to participate in this

trinitarian event; “we are made to share in the relationship

between Father and Son”(366). It is true that Berkhof makes

it clear that this participation does not happen in such a

way that the uniqueness of the relationship between Father

and Son disappears. He emphasizes that he does use the term

trinity, not ‘multy-unity’(336), because he presupposes the

distance in essence between the trinitarian relationship and

the relationship between God and men. The distance, however,

is only in relation to origin, not contents. Berkhof

clearly makes this point in his discussion of Jesus.

It is now clear from our discussion that Berkhof’s

Trinity is the economic trinity. He does not proceed from

this economic trinity to the ontological trinity. He thinks

that such an attempt is a wrong understanding of the

Trinity. He tries to understand God as a trinitarian event

that appears in the process of history. Such a Trinity is

“not a description of an abstract God-in-himself, but of the

revealed God-with-us”(337).

Let us then turn to the second point of our discussion

concerning Berkhof’s undersatnding of the Trinity; that is,

that he destroys the traditional understanding of the

Trinity. Let us begin with his understanding of the Spirit.

27

Berkhof, as we have seen, thinks that we can speak of

the Trinity only in the covenant relationship between God

and man, the coming-together of God and man. This coming

together of God and man, however, “takes place in the Spirit

who proceeds from the Father to the Son and then in turn

proceeds from the Son to human beings”(335). In that event

we can see “the being of God in action: creating, acting,

suffering, and struggling”(335). And the name which

“expresses the personhood in God in its outward actions” is,

according to Berkhof, the Spirit (336). In his other book

entitled The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, he says that the Spirit is

“the name given to the presence of the exalted Lord, whose

activity, after that of the earthly Jesus, is now addressed

to the entire inhabited world.”27 For Berkhof, then, the

Spirit is “the name for God in action toward the

world”(335), and the Spirit is “God-as person, God-in-

relation”(336). The Spirit is no longer, for Berkhof, one

divine person in the Trinity as in the traditional

understanding of the Trinity. Rather, the Spirit is the name

for God who is in covenant relationship with man.

The supreme act of God as Spirit is “the creation of

new man, the true Son”(331). Berkhof speaks of the

relationship between this man and the Spirit as follows:

27 Berkhof, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (John Knox, 1964); Introduction, p. 109. See also his Christian Faith, 329-32.

28

In that man the covenant is confirmed and in him theSpirit makes his abode on earth. From now on the Spiritand Christ coincide. As totally faithful covenantpartner, Jesus is the form of the Spirit, calls theSpirit to the earth, and creates room for the Spirit.From now on the activity of the Spirit exists in themode of the outpouring of the absolute covenantaloneness between God and Jesus, and of the new life hehas obtained for us in that oneness (331).

So Berkhof speaks of “Father-Son-Spirit” or “Father-Spirit-

Son” as “the summarizing description of the covenantal

event”(335). Berkhof thus understands the Father as the

divine partner of this event, the Son as the human

representative, and Spirit as the bond between them, “the

bond between the Son and the sons and daughters whom he

draws to the Father”(335f.). When Berkhof speaks of the

Spirit as the vinclum amoris between the Father and the Son in

this way, it looks like that he is following the Augustinian

tradition.28 We have to remember, however, that for

Augustine the Sprit is one divine person in the Trinity,

whereas for Berkhof the Spirit is merely the name for the

God who is in relationship with us. It is difficult,

therefore, to identify Berkhof’s understanding with the

Augustinian tradition.

28 Cf. Augustine, De Trinitate, trans. Arthur West Haden, revised by William G. T. Shedd, St. Augustine: On the Trinity, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. III (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,1887), Book Viii and Book IX.

29

What then is the relationship between the Father and

the Son? According to Berkhof, the new beginning between God

and man which the older prophets prophesized was

accomplished in Jesus. This Jesus is “the true man and the

faithful covenant partner”(286f.), and the Son par excellence,

“in whose God-created relationship with God the covenant is

renewed and forever established”(287). In other words,

“Jesus is the true Son of God precisely because he is human,

the true-covenant-partner of God….”29 That is, Jesus is the

“new beginning from above”, and the one who “finally

fulfills the sonship.” Hence he is “the son, the only-

begotten son”(287). For Berkhof, however, there is no pre-

existant God the Son. As Klass Runia clearly said, “it is

obvious that Berkhof has no place … for the idea of pre-

existant in an ontological sense.”30 It is true that Berkhof

says that Jesus is different from other human beings, other

sons of God. So Jesus is called by Berkhof as “the Son” “the

only-begotten Son.” But it does not mean that there is

something like the eternal generation of the Son by the

Father.

There is, therefore, a close relationship between

Jesus’ relationship with God and our relationship with God.

In one place, Berkhof gives us this explanation: “As regards29 Hedrikus Berkohf, Introduction to the Study of Dogmatics, 106.

30 Klass Runia, The Present-day Christological Debate (Leicester, England and Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 1984), 74.

30

its origin, and thus as regards its representative power,

Jesus’ sonship is unique. But as regards its content it is

that to which all of humanity is called through the covenant

way of Israel”(288, emphasis is mine). That is, Jesus

accomplished what the Israelites as the representative of

man should have accomplished, but haven’t accomplished.

Jesus “far ahead of us, enters a new way of human existence,

in which the covenant and sonship intended by God will

finally reach their full development”(288). Jesus is the one

who reveals the true humanity. In this sense, for Berkhof,

Jesus is “not a purely vertical incident (in-cident,

‘intrusion’) on the way of Israel and in the history of

mankind”(286). Because, as far as the content is concerned,

there is no difference between sonship of Jesus and our

sonship. Only in regard to its origin and its representative

power, is Jesus’ sonship unique.

What does it mean that Jesus is unique as regards the

origin of his sonship? Berkhof thinks that he is “a new

start from God, ‘conceived by the Holy Spirit’”(291). He is

hence the Son of God.31 This does not mean, however, that

Berkhof accepts the virgin birth of Christ. Berkhof thinks

that the biblical narratives of the virgin birth are merely

“later enrichment of the tradition, to give concrete

expression to the confession that Jesus, the Son by pre-

31 Berkhof, Introduction to the Study of Dogmatics, 106.

31

eminence, could not be generated by man”(p. 298).32 For

Berkhof, Jesus is merely a man, but a man in whose human ‘I’

the ‘I’ of God is “fully and exhaustively permeated”(291).

This subjectivity is sometimes called as God’s “Spirit” or

God “himself”(291). “In virtue of this permeation he becomes

the perfect instrument of the Father”(291). And this

fulfilled covenant relationship means the new union between

God and man, which is beyond our experience and imagination.

The fulfillment, however, does not abolish our humanity, but

brings the supreme fulfillment.

This fulfillment is not a static one which is

accomplished at once, but one which passed through a

history, a history in which “after much inner turmoil and

struggle, he ends by fully participating in the life of the

Father and in his work in the world”(291). For Berkhof,

therefore, Jesus is a man who is filled with God in his

historical life. Jesus is not the God-man who has divinity

and at the same time humanity. Berkhof thinks that speaking

of the two natures of Christ itself is a way of obscuring

the unity of his person (292). His position can be referred

to as one which speaks of anhypostasis of the divine

personality, to use the traditional Christological language.

Berkhof himself would oppose the use of this terminology,

since he tries to escape the problem of the two natures of

Christ as a whole.32 See also Runia, 74.

32

For Berkhof, then, the father and the Son are not two

divine persons in the traditional understanding of the

Trinity. Although he refers to the Father and Jesus , he

does not call them two persons of the Trinity. What we can

get from him is that he regards the son as one who

represents man. So for Berkhof, the Father, the Son and the

Spirit are not the three persons of the Trinity; rather they

are three aspects of one covenantal relation between God and

man. In this sense, Berkhof destroys the traditional

understanding of the Trinity.

So far we have examined Berkhof’s understanding of the

Trinity which not only centers on the economic Trinity, but

also is only the economic Trinity, and does not allow any

room for the ontological Trinity.

IV. Conclusion

What should we think after examining these three models

of understanding the relationship between the ontological

and the economic Trinity? To modern taste the perspective of

the new theology of the cross and the perspective of

Hedrikus Berkhof, which in a sense both reflect the modern

ethos, may be more fitting than the classic model. What

matters is not, however, what is fitting to our taste, but

what is consistent with God’s self revelation which God

himself disclosed in the process of history and

33

inscripturated. It is true that all three models, which we

have examined, appeal to the Scriptures and assert that they

are faithful to the biblical revelation. When we look at the

logical consequences of these perspectives, however, we

cannot help but question whether in the perspectives of the

new theology of the cross and of Hendrikus Berkhof these

assertions can be sustained. Berkhof loses the eternality of

the Trinity and tries to understand the Trinity differently

from the traditional understanding of the Trinity. We also

raise the question as to whether in the new theology of the

cross the eternal immutability of God can be sustained.

Those who have the perspective of the new theology of

the cross would say that the reason we are raising this

question lies in the Greek conception of the immutability

with which we think of God and in our denying in fact the

activities of God in the process of history. We cannot help

but point out, however, that it is not the case that we are

faithful to the history of God and are fair to the

activities of God only when we say that even God gains

something and has new experiences in the process of history.

Hence we cannot deny that even though similar terminology is

used, there is a big difference between the theological

presuppositions of the classic model and the model of the

new theology of the cross. In a sense, the perspective of

the new theology of the cross, which emphasizes God’s new

experience in the process of time and history, is the one

34

which has a neo-Hegelian approach to theology in the 20th

century. In a similar way, the perspective of Hendrikus

Berkhof, which sees only the economic Trinity, has a neo-

Schleiermacherian approach to theology in the 20th century

while bearing in mind all the criticisms against the

theology of Schleiermacher and taking the form that could

avoid these criticisms. In such a way, the phantom of Hegel

and the phantom of Schleiermacher are moving over the

theological world of the 20th century, with new customs,

more effective strategies, and with strong logical weapons.

For us who are in such a situation, therefore, the

wisdom and courage of the theologian who fought against the

thoughts of Hegel and of Schleiermacher will be needed. In

this sense, while accepting the need of thinking the way in

which we could more effectively deliver the classic model of

looking at the relationship of the ontological and the

economic Trinity, we have to take care not to change our

theology and our conception of God in a way which makes it

compatible with the modern spirit.

What we still have to hold on the basis of the

scriptural revelation is that there is no change within the

being of God from eternity to eternity. That is why the

ontological Trinity is revealed in the economic Trinity. If

God were enriched by the economic Trinity or there were only

the economic Trinity, then God would be the one who needs

history for himself and God could not be a perfect God

35

without the process of time and history. Hence the new

theology of the cross which seems to put an emphasis on the

process of history and on the history of salvation, is in

fact changing the God who accomplishes our salvation in the

process of history. We have to do our best not to change God

himself according to our needs. At the end of the day, what

matters is God Himself, and this God, who was and is and

will be the triune God, gives us salvation. To change God

for our salvation and the process of the history of

salvation, therefore, is in fact to lose God himself who can

save us in the process of history. God does not need

history, and He does not get any help from the process of

history. There is nothing that the history of the world can

do to enrich God. Rather, history itself is created and

proceeds from the hands of God. If one really recognizes God

as the God of history, one cannot speak of Him as being

enriched by the process of history. Hence we need to

acknowledge the ontological Trinity as the ground of being

for the economic Trinity. If it were not for the ontological

Trinity, there would not be the economic Trinity. The

ontological Trinity that might be completed by the economic

Trinity is not the ontological Trinity in sensu strictu. Only

when there is the ontological Trinity, is there the economic

Trinity through which we can recognize and understand God.

We conclude by stating that the Christian understanding

of the Trinity lies in asserting the following proposition

36

without any reservation and without any condition: The

ontological Trinity is the ground of being for the economic

Trinity; and the economic Trinity is the ground of cognition

for the ontological Trinity. The perspective of only

economic Trinity did in fact lose its ground of being; and

the perspective of the new theology of the cross tries to

expand its ground of cognition to be more than the ground of

cognition.

37