Luke 15 Trinity

Discussion in 'Exegetical Forum' started by Kinghezy, Dec 20, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kinghezy

    Kinghezy Puritan Board Freshman

    Someone commented that the three parables in Luke 15 (lost sheep, lost coins, prodigal son) could be viewed as a symbol of the Trinity with Jesus=Shepherd, Father=Father, and Holy Spirit=woman. I find that a little gimmicky and generally I like the approach that we shouldn't overanalyze parables where every detail has some deep meaning which I think that conclusion is getting to. It seems to me, these parables are mainly focused on how the Pharisees/scribes are responding to the sinners who are coming to Jesus and yet again smacking the Pharisees around some.

    Does anyone find validity in finding the Trinity in these passages?
     
  2. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    I....wouldn't go there. The text itself makes no mention of this (Nor has anyone in church history).

    Even if the analogy held, it's not clear how the Woman or the Shepherd fully possesses the divine essence while being distinct persons.
     
  3. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Sophomore

    Since Scripture was "breathed out" by the Triune God, we should not be surprised when we find different instances and/or levels of "three-ness" throughout. However, such an interpretation of this arrangement of parables feels too much like the hermeneutical methods of, say, Origen and his fourfold method (particularly the allegorical). It is not rooted in historical-grammatical exegesis. It might be a cool theory, but is, at very best, highly speculative.
     
  4. Kinghezy

    Kinghezy Puritan Board Freshman

    Also, my understanding (and this may be starting to get past my pay grade) that all acts of God are trinitarian so it makes me uneasy to try separating each of the persons.
     
  5. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Sophomore

    What exactly do you mean? Can you flesh this out a little more?
     
  6. SeanPatrickCornell

    SeanPatrickCornell Puritan Board Freshman

    Ehhhhh don't get too hung up on that point. We don't "divide the substance" (as per Chalcedon) but we also don't "confound the Persons" (also as per Chalcedon). Each Person of the "Ontological Trinity" is co-Equal, co-Eternal, etc. but the "Economic Trinity" does allow for different acts / roles to be taken by the different Persons.

    For example, although the Triune God does the whole work of salvation as One God, nevertheless each Person of the Trinity has a distinct role. The Father elects; the Son does not elect and the Spirit does not elect. The Son atones; the Father does not atone and the Spirit does not atone. The Spirit regenerates; the Father does not regenerate, the Son does not regenerate.
     
  7. Kinghezy

    Kinghezy Puritan Board Freshman

    Sean's clarification is helpful. I should have given more thought before posting, and realized with Taylor's question I had backed myself into a corner .

    I guess the "woman" would be my hangup in trying
    say each one references a person of the Trinity. I could buy the Shepherd is primarily an image of the Son and the Father is (wait for it) an image of the Father. I do not see how the woman is substantially different than the Shepherd or that the parable clearly articulates something that is unique to the Spirit.
     
  8. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    I think she means the old scholastic claims that all external acts of God are undivided.
     
  9. Ed Walsh

    Ed Walsh Puritan Board Junior

    For a real example in Luke of the three Persons together in one short passage try Jesus' institution to the His office of the Messiah at His baptism. Luke 3:21-22

    21 When all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also was baptized; and while He prayed, the heaven was opened.
    22 And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him,
    and a voice came from heaven which said, “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.”​
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2018
  10. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Sophomore

    Yeah, that was what I assumed to be the foundation of his dilemma. I guess wasn’t very clear in my question. I was curious about his use of the term “separate.”
     
  11. Kinghezy

    Kinghezy Puritan Board Freshman

    I think my language was sloppy and not well thought out. I was probably thinking along the lines of a single will, but not accounting for the difference that we may see in regards to actions.
     
  12. timfost

    timfost Puritan Board Junior

    The official Roman Catholic position is that the first table of the law consists of three commandments, the second seven commandments. Augustine espoused this as well, arguing that since the first table was about God, it was fitting for it to have three.

    The doctrine of the Trinity stands on its own without necessitating a speculative allegorical hermeneutic.
     
  13. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Sophomore

    This, right here. :agree:
     
  14. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    Oh.....Patrick.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page