What do you think?
Rate this book
The Divine Name(s) and the Holy Trinity, Volume One: Distinguishing the Voices
Few things are so vital to Christian life yet so mired in controversy as the language we use to name the mystery of the Trinity. This project offers a fresh map of Trinitarian language that is simple, yet profound in its implications for theology and practice. Soulen proposes that sacred scripture gifts us with three patterns of naming the persons of the a theo-logical pattern characterized by oblique reference to the Tetragrammaton (the divine name); a christo-logical pattern characterized by the kinship vocabulary of Father, Son, and Spirit; and a pneumato-logical pattern, characterized by the open-ended multiplicity of divine names. These patterns relate in a Trinitarian they are distinct, interconnected, and, above all, equally important. The significance of this thesis resides in its power to map the terrain of Trinitarian discourse in a way that is faithful to scripture, critically respectful of tradition, and fruitfully relevant to a broad range of contemporary concerns.
- GenresTheology
312 pages, Paperback
First published September 2, 2011
14 people are currently reading
48 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 23, 2016
In this first volume of R. Kenneth Soulen’s approach to an understanding of the Trinity, Soulen presents biblical and historical arguments for understanding the nearly ineffable concept of God as Three-in-One. The Divine Names and the Holy Trinity looks at confessional, manuscript, and canonical evidence for an early understanding of the Trinity. The author notes in his introductory remarks that the second volume will consider the subject from the perspective of contemporary theology and finally, address his contribution to the understanding of Trinity to finish the two-book series.
In this book, he points out how the early church clearly understood the continuity between God’s personal name as expressed in the Tetragrammaton (Consonants in which God’s personal name is written in the Hebrew manuscript combined with the vowels from Adonai, the word for Lord. To keep from saying the divine name, devout Jews read Adonai wherever the divine name appears.) and the sacra nomine (special abbreviations in early Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament and early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Understood in this way, a verse long taken as one of the earliest Christian creeds, 1 Corinthians 8:6, clearly deals with the Father-Son metaphor in such a way as to show that Christ participates in the Name (I would argue that the conclusion of the Christological hymn in Philippians 2 does so, as well.). And, he uses the sacra nomina to demonstrate continuity between the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), 1 Corinthians 8:6, and the early version of the Nicene Creed.
Many people know that I have a weakness in Church History. At the point in my life when I was completing my basic pastoral degree (M.Div.), I had kind of a “tunnel vision” and tuned out of much of it because it was “Catholic” and didn’t mean a lot to me. So, I very much appreciated Soulen’s coverage of creedal ideas of the Trinity in early Church History and even developing what he called the “Dionysian” tradition and the “Reformation” traditions. The former includes the extra-biblical Pseudo-Dionysius, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas. None in this tradition believe it is possible to find a perfect set of names or model to explain the Trinity, but they believe that affirming and denying aspects of these names or models broaden our understanding.
The “Reformation” traditions are wary of approaches to understanding the divine using natural theology or focusing on the Tetragrammaton. Luther clearly goes against Soulen’s thesis by insisting that the Tetragrammaton is not the NAME but the formula of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit replaces said personal name of God. Yet, in later writing, he acknowledged that the Tetragrammaton was a “foreshadowing” on the Trinitarian formula. On the other hand, Karl Barth apparently grasped the significance of the personal name for God. Barth understood that God could remain mysterious and unseen, in charge of the universe, while still being able to become perceptible in a way that humans could relate to God. The Reformation tradition doesn’t like the analogies of the fathers like Augustine, but these theologians cling to the threefold formula (which to many modern people has unfortunate associations due to human frailty).
In dealing with the Old Testament pattern of using God’s personal name, Soulen noticed a threefold pattern which put a lot of texts together for me. Often in the Old Testament, the first line using God’s name has God’s personal name—suggesting God’s uniqueness, otherness, or transcendence.
The second phrase using God’s name emphasizes God’s presence with God’s people. Yet, the expected third iteration usually seems different. Yet, even when it is different (considering the needs when given), it seems to express God’s blessing when the people are faithful to the covenant relationship. So, one has God who is unique (Rudolf Otto’s wholly other), God who reveals God’s presence, and God who becomes involved in the lives of God’s people (as they allow God to work through the covenant). This may be one of the most useful observations among many helpful insights within this volume.
In Soulen’s chapters on New Testament usage, he continues with his ternary combination of: uniqueness, presence, and blessing. In part of this discussion, he points out the interesting counterpoint between “Hallowed by thy name” in the Model Prayer and God’s eschatological promise in Ezekiel 36 (p. 197). Only God can cause God’s name to be holy and fulfill this promise. But even as Jesus points away from Himself and toward the bearer of the divine name, Jesus opens up the possibility of Jesus’ revealing the name more clearly (as in the Christ Hymn of Philippians 2). And I particularly enjoyed Soulen’s discussion of how the use of the divine passive by Jesus demonstrates that the Father is working in Jesus—not one or the other, but both (p. 200). And even more so in Jesus’ “I was sent” and “has been given” statements (p. 201).
At another point, Soulen contends with the supersessionists who are so focused on the use of “Father” in Jesus’ prayers that they believe “Father” has overtaken the personal name of God as given at the burning bush (p. 215). Soulen reminds us that Jews didn’t use the personal name of God in their prayers, either.
As this volume winds to conclusion, Soulen considers the naming of the Trinity which emphasizes Christ (Father, Son, Spirit or God, Christ, Spirit) to be one valid method and the naming of the Trinity which emphasizes the Spirit and blessing to be another. Soulen writes that one shouldn’t seek one characteristic of naming at the expense of the other (p. 238). He contends that the reason Trinitarian approaches are so polarized today is because of this either/or approach to interpretation. He concludes that there is nothing wrong with new metaphors as long as we strive to be true to the biblical view. This work is impressive and welcome. There is no doubt about me getting the second volume when it is published.
In this book, he points out how the early church clearly understood the continuity between God’s personal name as expressed in the Tetragrammaton (Consonants in which God’s personal name is written in the Hebrew manuscript combined with the vowels from Adonai, the word for Lord. To keep from saying the divine name, devout Jews read Adonai wherever the divine name appears.) and the sacra nomine (special abbreviations in early Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament and early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Understood in this way, a verse long taken as one of the earliest Christian creeds, 1 Corinthians 8:6, clearly deals with the Father-Son metaphor in such a way as to show that Christ participates in the Name (I would argue that the conclusion of the Christological hymn in Philippians 2 does so, as well.). And, he uses the sacra nomina to demonstrate continuity between the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4), 1 Corinthians 8:6, and the early version of the Nicene Creed.
Many people know that I have a weakness in Church History. At the point in my life when I was completing my basic pastoral degree (M.Div.), I had kind of a “tunnel vision” and tuned out of much of it because it was “Catholic” and didn’t mean a lot to me. So, I very much appreciated Soulen’s coverage of creedal ideas of the Trinity in early Church History and even developing what he called the “Dionysian” tradition and the “Reformation” traditions. The former includes the extra-biblical Pseudo-Dionysius, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas. None in this tradition believe it is possible to find a perfect set of names or model to explain the Trinity, but they believe that affirming and denying aspects of these names or models broaden our understanding.
The “Reformation” traditions are wary of approaches to understanding the divine using natural theology or focusing on the Tetragrammaton. Luther clearly goes against Soulen’s thesis by insisting that the Tetragrammaton is not the NAME but the formula of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit replaces said personal name of God. Yet, in later writing, he acknowledged that the Tetragrammaton was a “foreshadowing” on the Trinitarian formula. On the other hand, Karl Barth apparently grasped the significance of the personal name for God. Barth understood that God could remain mysterious and unseen, in charge of the universe, while still being able to become perceptible in a way that humans could relate to God. The Reformation tradition doesn’t like the analogies of the fathers like Augustine, but these theologians cling to the threefold formula (which to many modern people has unfortunate associations due to human frailty).
In dealing with the Old Testament pattern of using God’s personal name, Soulen noticed a threefold pattern which put a lot of texts together for me. Often in the Old Testament, the first line using God’s name has God’s personal name—suggesting God’s uniqueness, otherness, or transcendence.
The second phrase using God’s name emphasizes God’s presence with God’s people. Yet, the expected third iteration usually seems different. Yet, even when it is different (considering the needs when given), it seems to express God’s blessing when the people are faithful to the covenant relationship. So, one has God who is unique (Rudolf Otto’s wholly other), God who reveals God’s presence, and God who becomes involved in the lives of God’s people (as they allow God to work through the covenant). This may be one of the most useful observations among many helpful insights within this volume.
In Soulen’s chapters on New Testament usage, he continues with his ternary combination of: uniqueness, presence, and blessing. In part of this discussion, he points out the interesting counterpoint between “Hallowed by thy name” in the Model Prayer and God’s eschatological promise in Ezekiel 36 (p. 197). Only God can cause God’s name to be holy and fulfill this promise. But even as Jesus points away from Himself and toward the bearer of the divine name, Jesus opens up the possibility of Jesus’ revealing the name more clearly (as in the Christ Hymn of Philippians 2). And I particularly enjoyed Soulen’s discussion of how the use of the divine passive by Jesus demonstrates that the Father is working in Jesus—not one or the other, but both (p. 200). And even more so in Jesus’ “I was sent” and “has been given” statements (p. 201).
At another point, Soulen contends with the supersessionists who are so focused on the use of “Father” in Jesus’ prayers that they believe “Father” has overtaken the personal name of God as given at the burning bush (p. 215). Soulen reminds us that Jews didn’t use the personal name of God in their prayers, either.
As this volume winds to conclusion, Soulen considers the naming of the Trinity which emphasizes Christ (Father, Son, Spirit or God, Christ, Spirit) to be one valid method and the naming of the Trinity which emphasizes the Spirit and blessing to be another. Soulen writes that one shouldn’t seek one characteristic of naming at the expense of the other (p. 238). He contends that the reason Trinitarian approaches are so polarized today is because of this either/or approach to interpretation. He concludes that there is nothing wrong with new metaphors as long as we strive to be true to the biblical view. This work is impressive and welcome. There is no doubt about me getting the second volume when it is published.
January 25, 2023
Tracing the use of the the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) in church history with Barth and Aquinas, for example and the allusion to it by its silence in the NT, Soulen supports the fascinating thesis that there are three layers of divine naming in Scripture: theological (referring to the Father), christological (referring to the Son), and pneumatological (referring to the Holy Spirit). The first naming specifically refers to the uniqueness of God which is denoted by the proper name YHWH. The second naming, centered on Jesus, brings into the picture the divine name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (cf. Matt 28) and thus God's presence. The third naming refers to God's blessing found the open ending naming of God found in such phrase as "I am the bread of life." There is simply too much in this book to capture in this one short review, but, suffice it to say, this is an excellent discussion of the naming of the Trinitarian God of the Bible by focusing on the Jewish and early Christian practice of reverencing the divine name. Highly recommended.
June 29, 2024
Read Irrevocable
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews