Trinity Sunday
(First Sunday after Pentecost)

Old Testament Texts

The two Old Testament texts for Trinity Sunday focus on the creative power of God, and, as such, they provide commentary on the Gospel lesson, where Jesus proclaims to his disciples in Matthew 28:18 that “all authority in heaven and on earth” has been given to him. Genesis 1: 1-14a is the sweeping account of creation of order from chaos. Psalm 8 is a hymn that celebrates the creative power of God. Taken together these texts provide the vast stage upon which we must interpret this final saying of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew.

The Lesson: Genesis 1:1-2:4a

Creation and Chaos

Setting. Creation mythologies are common throughout the ancient Near East. The words creation and mythology require a brief definition to provide the proper background for interpreting Genesis 1. First, mythology in the context of the ancient Near East means something that is ultimately true. From this starting point we would say that the story of Jesus is mythological because the account of his life goes beyond a three-year sequence of historical events and actually becomes a description of all of reality. This meaning runs against our current usage, where myth frequently means just the opposite, that something is “false,” as in the statement, “That’s a myth!” We frequently use this word pejoratively when someone lies or when a statement is not factual. Second, creation is the preferred genre in the ancient Near East for addressing the ultimate questions about the world that are the subject matter of mythology. Creation mythologies, therefore, are profoundly theological, for they always address at least the following four questions: (1) Who is God? (2) What is the nature of this world? (3) What is the relationship between God and this world? and (4) Who are we? or What does it mean to be human in the larger context of God’s relationship to this world? All of these questions are central to Genesis 1, yet our interpretation will be limited to the first three. Psalm 8 will address the fourth question.

Structure. Genesis 1: 1-14a is a rhythmic and repetitive text, which uses many stereotyped phrases in describing six days of creation. A number of scholars have observed that the rhythmic language results in the following five-part pattern for each day of creation: (1) Introduction: “And God said”; (2) Command: “Let there be”; (3) Completion: “And it was so”; (4) Judgment: “And God saw that it was good”; (5) Time Sequence: “And it was evening.” The six days of creation are structured into yet another harmonious balance in which the last three days of creation build off the first three in the following manner:

Day 1 Light,
Day 2 Sky
Day 3 Land/Plants
Day 4 Luminaries
Day 5 Birds/Fishes
Day 6 Animals/Humans

The six days of creation are also framed by an introduction and a conclusion, which present a stark contrast between chaos in 1: 1-2 and God at rest in 2:14a. which results in the following outline:

I. Introduction (1:1-2): Description of Uncreated Chaos
II. Six days of Creation (1:3-31): Structuring of Chaos
III. Conclusion (2:1-4a): Description of God at Rest

Significance. Two concerns are important for preaching this text. The first is how the creation story in Genesis 1 answers the three questions of mythology that were listed above – namely, Who is God?, What is the world? and, What is God’s relationship with the world? A brief look at the introduction and conclusion to Genesis 1: 1-14a will provide a framework for answering these questions. The second issue is whether it is possible to preach a sermon on the Trinity from an Old Testament text like Genesis l? Can we really talk about Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the narrow context of the first creation story? An examination of the role of Genesis 1: 1-14a in the larger context of Scripture will provide guidelines of how we claim this text on Trinity Sunday.

First, what then does Genesis 1 say about God and creation? The introduction in 1: 1-2 provides important information for answering this question, for it describes reality prior to God’s creative activity, which begins with light in v. 3. Verse 1 attributes the creation of the heavens and the earth to God alone. The verb “to create” in v. 1 is only used with God as its subject. Thus v. 1 sets the tone for the entire account of creation, which has prompted scholars to describe this verse as a title for the whole piece. Verse 2 shifts the focus momentarily from God to a description of earth prior to the creative activity of God. Verse 2, therefore, is best interpreted as a snapshot of uncreated chaos, which, from the imagery of the verse, might be characterized as an enormous oil slick: It is formless, dark, and wet. Furthermore, the Hebrew words for “darkness” and “deep” invite the interpreter to see personality in the chaotic oil slick, for these words suggest cosmic powers from other ancient Near Eastern creation mythologies like the Babylonian Enuma Elish. These allusions to personality suggest that the subsequent divine acts of creation will not simply be a mopping up of an inanimate oil slick, but that the six days of creation (or the imposition of structure) are actually a limitation of a certain kind of power in the universe – the power of chaos. These opening verses say a great deal about God and creation. Verse 1 is a strong, unequivocal proclamation about the power of God to create. Then v. 2 makes it clear that the power to create is not effortless. The presence of chaos in this verse underscores two things: that there is resistance to God’s structuring of a good creation – there is real evil in the world; and that creation is itself an act of divine grace – we don’t fashion creation it is given to us. Finally the picture of the deity at rest in 2:1-4a demonstrates that God is an able creator who is capable of overcoming any resistance.

Second, is it possible to preach from Genesis 1: 1-14a on Trinity Sunday? Verse 2 makes reference to the “spirit of God” moving over the face of the waters. Frequently this reference is equated with the Holy Spirit, hence the use of this text on Trinity Sunday to anchor the Godhead in the origins of creation. Such a direct and anachronistic reading of Trinitarian theology presents problems because the “spirit of God” in v. 2 is a much more ambiguous concept in the Old Testament than the third person of the Trinity in Christian theology. In fact, the phrase may simply mean “mighty wind” in this context. Thus if we are focusing only on the imagery and language in Genesis 1 and trying to read more recent understandings of God back into the Old Testament, then we must conclude that it cannot be used as a Trinitarian text, for, even if we identified the “spirit of God” with the Holy Spirit, we would still have to find Jesus someplace in the text to fill out our Trinity.

If the question is posed somewhat differently, however, from the perspective of what the Trinity actually means for Christians concerning Who God is? and What this world is?, then Genesis 1 becomes a powerful Trinitarian text. By confessing God as Trinity, we celebrate God as being the original Creator of this world (Father), its Saviour (Son), and the One who continues to sustain it through time and brings it to its fulfilment (Holy Spirit). A confession of God as Trinity, therefore, requires a large vision of God and God’s relationship to creation – not only as the Originator of the world, nor even simply as its Saviour, but also as the one who brings it to its end. This large vision of God in relationship to creation through time allows us to read Genesis 1 on a much larger scale. We frequently interpret Genesis 1 only as an account of the origin of the world, and thus try to locate the Holy Spirit at that point. Genesis 1, however, has a much larger role in Scripture than simply providing an account of origins, for it is as much a vision of the end of the world as it is of its beginning. In many ways, the history of salvation story that is woven through Scripture (from the call of Abraham to the ministry of Jesus) is really an attempt to get back to the first chapter of Genesis. Biblical scholars describe this kind of linking of the origin and end of creation as being urzeit (primeval time) and endzeit (end time or eschatology). When we view Genesis 1 as having this larger role throughout Scripture, as both beginning and end, then it becomes a profoundly Trinitarian text, for it provides us with a glimpse of the end, which presupposes the full range of God’s power as Creator, Saviour, and Sustainer. The creator God at rest, who has successfully restructured chaos, goes to the heart of what it means to confess God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and it also provides the context for interpreting Jesus’ post-Easter proclamation “that all power in heaven and on earth” is now his, for this statement is really about the power of God as Trinity – as Creator and Sustainer, as well as Saviour.

The Response: Psalm 8

What Are Humans?

Setting. Psalm 8 is a hymn of praise that modulates between an individual voice (vv. 1b-8) and a community refrain (1b, 9). The central motif of the community refrain is the celebration of the name of God, which accounts for the inclusion of this psalm on this Sunday.

Structure. Psalm 8 separates into two sections: vv. 1-4 and 5-9. The community refrain begins the first section (1b) and concludes the last section (v. 9), with the result that the praise of God’s name throughout the earth frames the entire psalm. The voice of the individual singer takes up the middle portion of the psalm. Within this section, the central theme of the psalm appears to be the question of v. 4: “What are human beings that you are mindful of them?” Most commentators agree that this question and the description of the role of humans in creation that follows in vv. 6-8 is based on the account of creation of humans in Genesis 1:26. Thus Psalm 8 should be read as inner-biblical reflection of Genesis 1.

Significance. Psalm 8 is somewhat unusual in that it is a hymn of praise that addresses God in the second person (“you”). The use of the second person establishes a certain intimacy in the relationship between the singer and God, which is striking because it contrasts with the vast (and impersonal) creation imagery that is the subject matter of much of the hymn (God is sovereign; majestic; creator of heavens, moon, and stars; and so on). This contrast between the intimate relationship of singer and God on the one hand, and the vastness of the creation order on the other is an important point of entry into interpreting Psalm 8, for it provides the background for the central question in v. 4: What are humans to God in the larger context of the universe? On such a larger stage our first response would be that humans are insignificant in the larger drama of creation. Psalm 8 is a hymn of praise because just the opposite is true. God is not only mindful of earth-bound mortals (v. 4), but he has even given them a formative role as actors on the large stage of creation. One suspects that this paradox – between the insignificance of humans in the larger context of creation and the degree of attention that God bestows on them – may provide insight for interpreting v. 2, which has no parallel any place in Scripture. Perhaps it is the frail human mortals who are the babes of v. 2 that God has chosen as a defence against evil, even though God had so many more resources at his disposal (“You have set your glory above the heavens.”) This fact is then what prompts the wonder and awe of the psalmist concerning the position of humans in the larger drama of God’s creation.

New Testament Texts

The lectionary brings together two quite distinct passages in the lessons for this Sunday. But at a glance anyone can see that these texts were selected because they contain Trinitarian language in seemingly polished formal statements. Either lesson or both lessons provide(s) scriptural precedent for reflection on the doctrine of the Trinity, but neither text is actually an expression of fully formulated Trinitarian thought, as is clear from reading the entire books in which these passages occur.

The Epistle: II Corinthians 13:11-13 (14)

Appealing to and Blessing the Congregation

Setting. The problem Paul confronts in II Corinthians is a controversy caused by certain self-professed Christian preachers who have come among the Corinthians with boldness. Paul refers to these opponents as “super-apostles,” perhaps a sarcastic allusion from the apostle but possibly the self-designation of the super-apostles. The text of II Corinthians is difficult, containing several hard, if not impossible, transitions (see any standard commentary). The tones of the recognizable sections of the letter vary; Paul is sometimes conciliatory, sometimes defensive, sometimes laudatory, and sometimes fiercely pugnacious. The verses in this lesson conclude the final section of the letter (chapters 10- 13), which is by far the most combative part of the epistle.

Structure. II Corinthians 13 falls into two main parts: vv. 1-10 are Paul’s final warning and admonitions to the Corinthians, and vv. 11-14 formally close the letter. The first unit, vv. 1-10, has two sub-sections. Verses 1-4 inform the Corinthians that Paul is about to pay them a visit and warns them to make sure they are ready. These verses set the subsequent material in context, including our lesson. Verses 5-10 issue an appeal and plainly state Paul’s purpose for writing.

The actual lesson for today, vv. 11 – 14, may cause a slight problem, because some English language Bibles versify these lines 13:10-14 (e.g., KJV) while others mark the text with vv. 10- 13 (e.g., NRSV). It is not that some translations have an additional verse, but that some divide v. 12 in Greek into two parts in English, vv. 12-13. The motivation for shifting this section from three to four verses is superstition – namely, a desire to avoid ending this letter with verse 13:13. Critical editions of the Greek text versify 13:10-13.

Significance. Near the beginning of the chapter (vv. 3b-4), Paul makes his argument both relevant and christological by maintaining the christological paradox of weakness and power. The idea of divine power perfected in weakness comes from the heart of Paul’s theology. It is a striking and difficult concept, but in essence Paul believes that his human weakness serves as a conduit for the very power of God into the real world. Paul may mean that as he has suffered the Corinthians’ foolishness in his weakness (having been formerly shamed by their conduct). Now, because he did so, they shall experience the power of God confronting them as it will be manifested in Paul’s presence. At root Paul’s conviction is that the sovereignty of God cannot be thwarted, though the Corinthians may attempt to resist or reject it.

Paul appeals for the Corinthians to examine their life as a church and to straighten up – the second person language is plural here. The reason Paul gives for the Corinthians’ auditing and altering their congregational existence is purely christological: Christ is in/among them. Paul’s own desire for the Corinthians is clearly stated in verses 9b- 10, but translations generally miss the sense of the statement. The word translated “perfection,” “improvement,” or “perfect” (katartisis) in 13:9b was originally a medical term for setting bones, so that Paul longs for the correction of what is fractured in Corinth. Paul calls for repair work to be done! This insight into the text may help us know how to employ this lesson for preaching.

The letter concludes in three moves in verses 11-13 [14] – our reading for today. Paul issues final admonitions, exchanges greetings, and pronounces a lofty benediction. Verse 11 reiterates Paul’s essential advice and plainly theologizes the directions with a kind of blessing. The power to face their problems and work the necessary changes for which Paul calls will not simply come from the Corinthians. It will ultimately come from God, and Paul recognizes that crucial fact here. Verse 12 may cause us a few problems, especially if we try to follow the apostle’s advice; for we do not know exactly what the “holy kiss” was. Speculating on the meaning is no solution to our ignorance, and experimenting won’t guarantee we’ll find the truth! Perhaps this verse can best remind us that there are some things we don’t know! What we can know about the holy kiss is that it is holy because it was passed among the holy ones or saints who have been made holy by the reconciling work of God in Christ. Not the act, but the God-created context of the Church makes this enigmatic kiss sacred.

Finally, for Trinity Sunday, we come to the very stylized benediction. Some regard this as the earliest Trinitarian formulation, but such an interpretation is beyond the sense of the Pauline text in its historical context. But this negative historical conclusion won’t preach! Nor should it! Notice these items in relation to this verse: First, the order is striking. Paul mentions, in turn, the Lord Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit. From texts like I Corinthians 15 we know that Paul has a notion of ultimate christological subjugation, but for the present, God’s work is being advanced by the risen and exalted Lord Jesus. In the context of Paul’ s full range of statements about God, Christ, and the Spirit, we find no developed doctrine of the Trinity; here he is actually declaring the grace and love of God in God’s dealings with the Corinthians, and he is declaring that their own existence, fellowship, and participation is in a God-created context.

A sermon could be developed from Paul’s appeals and reasoning in the larger passage in which the verses of our lesson occur and, then, worship could conclude with the pronouncement of this benediction. Or, should one concentrate on the Trinity in the sermon, verse 13 [14] could be a point of departure for a didactic sermon that will move beyond the text but show the anchoring of later Christian reflection in the biblical waters of this passage.

The Gospel: Matthew 28:16-20

The Who, What, and How of Discipleship

Setting. Matthew tells the story of Jesus’ Passion in a manner similar to the other Gospels, but there is a distinctive point of view on the events, and there is additional information found only in Matthew’s story. The Resurrection account is similar to the stories found in Luke and John, but here there is a high percentage of material found only in Matthew. The ending of the gospel according to Matthew (the lesson for this Sunday) is part of Matthew’s unique material. We find the disciples on a mountain in Galilee with the risen Jesus.

Structure. Verses 16-17 open the scene and locate the disciples in time, place, and mood. Verses 18-20 are a pronouncement by Jesus in three evolving parts: a declaration of Jesus’ authority (1 8b), a commissioning of the disciples (19-20a), and a reminder that issues a promise (20b).

Significance. This closing scene of Matthew is set on a mountain in Galilee. A specific identification is not important, for this mountain functions more symbolically than literally. Throughout Matthew one encounters Jesus and his disciples on mountains: Jesus (without the disciples) is tempted by Satan on a mountain (4:8); Jesus speaks his most famous sermon on a mountain (5: 1); Jesus goes off alone to pray on a mountain (14:23); Jesus does miraculous healing as he sits on a mountain (15:29); the Transfiguration of Jesus occurs on a high mountain (17: 1)-and now the ending comes on a mountain. The mountain motif in Matthew conjures up our memory of Old Testament mountains that were places of divine work and revelation, so the mention of a mountain here creates a level of expectation.

The strange note about the reaction of the disciples is probably an editorial device to create an ideal sense of a historical reality, namely that there was a mixture of reactions among the disciples to the Resurrection with some doubt mixed into the worship. Matthew does no more than recognize and recall this phenomenon. His candour may help us use this powerful story in our own preaching, for the mood in congregations today is usually not different from the disposition Matthew attributes to the disciples – genuine reverence is laced with troubling doubts. Notice that Christ issues no rebuke.

As a risen Jesus comes to the disciples, he speaks words that emphasize the meaning of the present exaltation of Christ for discipleship. The combined statements (declaration, commission, reminder, promise) have the force of comforting the disciples – some of whom have lingering doubts. The statement about Christ’s authority employs the passive form, stating subtly that God has empowered Jesus to empower others. Acting on his authority, Jesus directs the disciples into mission (“therefore,” 28:19). The mission is the making of disciples through the activities of baptizing and teaching. The sequence in this direction recognizes that the work of making disciples is ultimately the work of the risen Christ and God. The activities – baptizing and teaching – revise a “conversion” logic that would have the disciples teaching so as to persuade others who would, in turn, be baptized. In Matthew’s theology, Christians become disciples through baptism; and they are disciples by doing what Jesus commands, that is what he taught. The last part of the risen Jesus’ words reminds the disciples of his promised eternal presence. This Gospel opens with the angel calling the child “Emmanuel,” or “God with us”; and now at the end Jesus, authorized by God, promises constant and eternal presence. The disciples are to work with Jesus, not merely for him.

This text names the Trinity in the reference to baptism (28:19). Again, this is not a fully developed concept, which a reading of Matthew shows. Remarkably the version of this text cited by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History III. 5.2) prior to the Council of Nicea had the words “in my name” instead of “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”; so that it is not impossible that the earliest version of this tradition did not contain this formula – although there is no serious textual evidence to support this reading for Matthew. Thus what can this formula mean in Matthew? Since Matthew understands Christianity to be living the words of the earthly Jesus by/in the power and the presence of the risen Lord Jesus, these words may simply mean that as God sent Jesus, now God sends the Holy Spirit (the spirit of the risen Jesus) to direct and comfort faithful disciples.

Trinity Sunday: The Celebration

Ordinary time is always bracketed by special days, whether after Epiphany or Pentecost. After Epiphany the days are the Baptism of the Lord and the Transfiguration. After Pentecost they are Trinity Sunday and Christ the King.

Trinity Sunday represents a summing up of the divine activity that we have been celebrating since the beginning of Advent. It also suggests a reminder of the whole work and being of God in creation, redemption, and sanctification which is still ongoing and provides the context for our life of celebration and witness throughout the rest of ordinary time.

Today is also a celebration of Sunday, the Lord’s Day, as distinct from the Sabbath, so it can be an opportunity to reinforce what is meant by the sanctification of time, the use of time as a means of remembering what God has done. The hymn, “O Day of Rest of Gladness,” makes the Trinitarian connection explicitly and so is most appropriate as the opening hymn on this day:

On you, at earth’s creation,
The light first had its birth;
On you, for our salvation,
Christ rose from depths of earth;
On you, our Lord victorious
The Spirit sent from heaven;
And thus on you, most glorious,
A threefold light was given.

Having said so much about the action of the Trinity, it is perhaps more important to stress the being of the Trinity in order to avoid some kind of functionalist heresy. What the Church is involved in on this day is the praise of God for being God – no more and no less. This can be a day for the liturgy and the sermon to help people rediscover the mystery of the faith and to adore the mystery of God for its own sake. This is no time for a theological treatise; it is time to be “lost in wonder, love, and praise.”

A discussion of the Trinity in terms of being can help diffuse much of the controversy surrounding language, since it will make clear the inadequacy of any language to describe God. Thoughtful consideration of the topic can help open the way to the use of alternate images that can expand our appreciation of what may have been originally intended but is now obscured by the traditional Trinitarian language. Augustine’s understanding of the Trinity as a trinity of love, each part participating fully in the life of the other parts so that they are indistinguishable, commends much sanity and charity in the contemporary debate. Today the Church celebrates the mystery of love, not a problem in mathematics.