Summary of Scripture and Metaphysics: Aquinas and the Renewal of Trinitarian Theology by Matthew Levering

Introduction

Problem: Scripture VS. Metaphysics: Modern Trinitarian theology often opposes scriptural and metaphysical modes of articulating truth. The result? “First, some have repudiated Greek metaphysics, arguing that it has served as a means of the Church’s distancing herself from the living God of Israel and has enabled the Church to supersede and domesticate this God. Secondly, some have sought to redefine “metaphysics” along scriptural lines, by developing a Christological and Trinitarian metaphysics (e.g. Paschal mystery = analogy for Trinity)” (1).

Solution: Contemplation = Goal of Trinitarian Theology: Levering argues that Scriptural and metaphysical modes of reflection came unglued when theologians no longer recognized contemplation as the rightful “end” of Trinitarian theology (2). Therefore, the renewal of Trinity theology requires “that theologians reject the alleged opposition between scriptural and metaphysical modes of reflection, without conflating the two modes” (2) and put forth contemplation, once again, as the primary goal of Trinitarian theology. Only when contemplation is the #1 goal do “the technical precisions of metaphysics come to be seen as… ways of “illumining the meaning of scriptural revelation” (8) and “deepening our contemplative union with the living God revealed in Scripture” (2).

Each of the 7 chapters in Levering’s book addresses an aspect of these concerns regarding the relationship of Scripture and metaphysics in the theology of the triune God. Levering seeks to articulate the persuasiveness of Thomistic speculative Trinitarian theology from within the practice of dialogue with influential contemporary exegetical and theological positions.

Note: This summary in no way claims to capture all of the brilliant nuances that Levering puts forth in his book. It is a mere summary that will hopefully encourage you to read the book yourself.

Chapter 1: Sacra Doctrina: Wisdom, Scripture, and Metaphysics

In Chapter 1, Levering presents Aquinas vision of “doing” Trinitarian theology as an exercise of theocentric contemplative ascent, in which he employs metaphysical investigation as a spiritual exercise in aid of the believer’s participation in God’s own knowledge, which is perfected in the beatific vision. This is contrasted by Karl Rahner’s criticism of Aquinas’ approach as being overly philosophical, abstract, and referring “hardly at all to salvation history.”

Sacra Doctrina

For Aquinas, his entire Summa is a work of sacra doctrina. As outlined in the 1st article of the Summa, which serves as a “methodological prolegomenon” to his entire work of theology, Aquinas states that sacra doctrina is (1) a “science” (scientia) – a knowledge of things that have been divinely revealed (God & all things insofar as they are referred to God as their beginning & end); (2) a “wisdom” acquired by study & received in faith because its principles are obtained by divine revelation (God’s own knowledge – supreme wisdom – is the content of SD, as delivered to the Church & embodied in Scripture).

St. John: Model of Contemplation

For Aquinas, St. John the Apostle is the model of this contemplative ascent to the knowledge of the triune God. Because his loving friendship with Christ, St. John’s work of sacra doctrina, his Gospel, was the fruit of inspired contemplation. In this work, John must engaged in a lot of metaphysical questioning. For example, how do you reconcile Jesus’ statements that He proceeded and came forth from the Father (8:42) and that He and the Father are one (10:30)? And consider the 7 “I AM statements” in John’s Gospel. St. John must have interiorly questioned and probed the issues at stake in divine naming.

Chapter 2: YHWH and Being

In Chapter 2, Levering examines Aquinas’ treatise on God’s existence and God’s name by contrasting it with R. Kendall Soulen’s Post-Supersessionist Trinitarian theology. Soulen criticizes “classical” Trinitarian theologies for (1) making God’s identity as YHWH irrelevant (now superseded by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) & (2) replacing YHWH with “being” or ousia as a 4th element into the Trinity.

Aquinas demonstrates that the revelation of God’s existence to Israel & the investigation of God’s name have both deeply biblical/salvific context. That’s why Aquinas’ treatise on the triune God contemplates God by means of a progressive investigation of the “divine names,” to use Pseudo-Dionysius’s expression.

The Revelation of YHWH

For Aquinas, “being” is not separate theologically from the revelation of “YHWH,” since both names belong to the covenantal instruction given to Moses (“I am who am” + “YHWH”). The two names complement each other, revealing God’s historical presence as infinite, sheer, eternal Presence. In revealing Himself as “I am who am,” this does NOT render God immutably ‘lifeless’ but immutably ‘life-full’ (Weinandy, Does God Suffer?, 77). The name “I am who am” both recalls God’s free covenantal relationship with and for Israel… and reveals a metaphysical truth about God’s essence or nature. As sheer incomprehensible being, God unites His historical salvific activity with His metaphysical reality. Therefore, “I am who am” is no abstract name but a personal God revealed to Israel (the transcendent God is the immanent God). For Moses, he knew that his mission depended upon knowing God’s name (Ex 3:13).

Chapter 3: Scripture & Metaphysics in the Theology of God’s Knowledge & Will

In Chapter 3, Levering compares Aquinas’ theology of God’s knowledge and will VS. that of Jewish biblical exegete and theologian, Jon D. Levenson.

Levenson

Levenson describes well the exegetical problems that face metaphysical accounts of God in his unity and argues powerfully that “God of metaphysics” cannot be the God of the covenants. For Levenson, God has (1) a changing, inconstant, conflicting will: negative side (punish) vs. positive side (bless); (2) uncertain knowledge (YHWH did not create the chaos in the opening chapter of Genesis); (3) a need to master the evil impulses in the world & in himself to win total mastery over creation that Israel knows, in faith, he will win. Levenson’s work is “representative of an anti-metaphysical turn in Old Testament theology, and in biblical exegesis in general” (109). He contrasts the God of the Old Testament with (his view) of the God of metaphysics (as distant, abstract, unchanging perfect being).

Aquinas

Levering shows that Aquinas’s metaphysical account of God’s unity defends God’s radical presence (or immanence) far better than a non-metaphysical account can. To do this, we first need to consider 3 aspects of Aquinas’ intepretation of biblical texts for speculative theology: (1) Interpret one text in light of the whole. Since the whole of the Bible contains God’s revelation of Himself, any biblical text about God must be considered in the context of other biblical texts about God (especially the biblical texts in which God speaks or acts to reveal His identity) (cf. Dei Verbum 12); (2) Biblical texts must be illumined metaphysically by analyzing, in terms of being & causality, the concepts & images expressed in the biblical texts (God’s being & causality vs. idols); (3) Human language used to describe God and/or His acts may be either analogical or metaphorical. If metaphorical, the language may in fact describe a change in humans relation to God, rather than in God Himself.

God’s perfections

“Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48). Aquinas states: “A thing is perfect in proportion to its state of actuality because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection” (STh I q.4, a. 1). Having estalibhsed in Articles 2-4 in the Summa that God is pure Act & thus the perfect fullness of “to be,” we can now state that God’s perfection is in accord with His infinite mode of being. Therefore, all perfections that belong in a limited way to finite beings are attributes of God. Furthermore, the perfections in God are simple, not diverse, because He is sheer, undivided Act. Whatever limited perfections we find in creaturely beings, we can attribute those to God in a perfect way (in His infinite, unfathomable mode).

1st: God’s perfect knowledge

Since “to know” is a perfection of finite rational existence, God possesses the perfection of this according to His simple, infinite mode. God’s knowledge is infinite (cf. Job 12:13, Rm 11:33). He has perfect knowledge of Himself (cf. 1 Cor 2:11). God, in his supreme act of understanding, perfectly comprehends Himself. Simply put, God is His knowledge.

Therefore, God (as ultimate cause) also has perfect knowledge of everything else (His effects). In knowing Himself, God knows all effects that proceed from His as a cause (cf. Heb 4:13). From His timeless eternity, God knows everything exhaustively and simultaneously, not generally, but specifically (cf. Prov 16:2, Ps 94:11).

And because God knows everything from His timeless eternity, He is the supremely active & engaged God! He is perfectly present, in His eternity, “within” all moments of time as Creator & sustainer of being (cf. Ps 33:15). He truly knows & love us from within (not from without). His intimate involvement is no enemy to our freedom because He is the Author of our freedom!

2nd: God’s perfect will

God’s intellect and will are the same. God eternally knows Himself and eternally delights in this knowledge as fully possessed. In knowing Himself, God also knows all goodness. Therefore, God’s will is completely moved by the knowledge of His own essence. God’s beatitude or happiness is so full that there is nothing more to desire, and so His will simply delights: “As to contemplative happiness, God possesses a continual and most certain contemplation of Himself and of all things else…” (STh I q. 26, a. 4).

Why did God create then? Since the perfection of our wills have not only an aspect of self-fulfillment (possession of the proper good & rest in it) but also self-giving, then it must analogously belong to God according to His infinite mode of being (cf. STh I q.19, a.2). God, out of perfect freedom and sheer gift, wills other things to share in His own goodness (cf. 1 Thess 4:3, Wis 11:26). Nothing can be added to His infinite goodness but things can certainly share in and reflect His wondrous goodness is various ways.

Does God change His will? God does not change His mind (cf. James 1:17). When the Bible depicts God as changing, the literary genre of metaphor shows that it is WE who in relation to God, not God in relation to us. In fact, it is precisely God’s unchanging goodness that constitutes the ground upon which Israel, despite its failings, can be assured of God’s covenant faithfulness (cf. Mal 3:6).

What about sin and hell? God is the primary, universal “cause” of all things. We are the particular, secondary “causes” of some things. All of our secondary “causes” are included in the will of the universal “cause.” God’s universal will is to order all things to His goodness. We cannot stand outside this order of God’s goodness. God is like a just judge who wills that all people should live (His “antecedent will”). However, God allows people to choose whether to live in justice or whether, by injustice, experience death that is punishment (His “permissive will”). God wills only being, and sin is the absence of being. And God permits sin and evil only in order to accomplish a greater work He, in His supreme wisdom & goodness, has in view (cf. Prov 15:11, Rm 8:28).

Conclusion: When we join God’s perfect knowledge to His perfect will, God is the wondrously intimate cause at the heart of each and every thing. God is intimately, limitlessly, and lovingly engaged with creation by His active will & wisdom.

Chapter 4: The Paschal Mystery and Sapiential Theology of the Trinity

In Chapter 4, Levering compares the Trinitarian theologies of Barth & Balthasar VS. Aquinas

Barth & Balthasar: They put forward the Paschal mystery, rather than “the metaphysical structure of spiritual act” (111), as the foundation for speculation about the inner life of the Trinity, and thus the central analogy for the Trinity. We can call them “Paschal mystery” theologians. For Levering, their attempts are noble (to highlight the centrality of the Paschal mystery) but many problems arise when Christ’s suffering, qua suffering, becomes the central analog for the divine life.

Aquinas: Although Aquinas hardly makes reference to the Paschal mystery in his formal discussions of the triune God in Himself, Levering states that if we look closely at Aquinas’ treatise on Christ’s Paschal mystery, we can indeed see, contrary to what these “Paschal mystery” theologians say, that Christ’s passion can indeed be the prime locus of the revelation of God (without thereby suggesting that Christ’s suffering, qua suffering, is an analog for the divine life).

Aquinas’ treatise on the Paschal Mystery (STh III, q.46, a.3)

Trinitarian life ad intra: First, Aquinas holds that the Trinitian life ad intra is constituted by absolute self-giving. In generating the Son, the Father gives and communicates everything to the Son (cf. John 3:34, 5:20, Super Ioan. 5, lect. 3, no. 753). The generation of the Son – “by speaking the entire Trinity in his Word” (138) – is the Father’s self-gift & self-communication. Through this perfect gift of love, the Son is the perfect image of the Father. As image (cf. Heb 1:3, Col 1:15), the Son is perfectly loved by the Father (for like is a cause of love).

Trinitarian life ad extra: Second, Aquinas states the Trinitarian life ad extra is also constituted by absolute self-giving. Christ’s mission is to reveal this to us. As Son, He reveals His Father (cf. John 17:6, Matt 11:27). As Word, He manifests the Speaker. As the Wisdom of God, Christ’s shares His supreme wisdom of the Trinity with His friends. Furthermore, the Paschal mystery is the culmination of all of Christ’s words and actions as supreme Teacher. Following Augustine, Aquinas remarks, “Christ hanging on the Cross is like a teacher in his teaching chair.” The Paschal mystery most fittingly reveals God’s Trinitarian wisdom and love (cf. Rom 5:8, 1 Peter 2:21). Barth & Balthasar would probably agree with this.

But whereas Balthasar tries to get at self-giving through radical intra-divine abandonment on the Cross, Aquinas approaches the self-giving of the Paschal mystery through “the purifying pedagogy with which God has instructed Israel (i.e. largely influenced the Mosaic testimony to God’s being and simplicity, and other attributes), and through Christ’s oral teaching before His passion, death, and resurrection.

Therfore, contrary to Balthasar, the Father “abandoned” His Incarnate Son only in the sense of not shielding Him from those who would crucify him. Christ did not experience the abandonment of God that unrepentant sinners in hell go through (because that depends upon possessing a perverted will). But Christ did under the most intense suffering precisely because of his intimate knowledge of the Father. In suffering innocently for the sins of all others, Christ knew fully the glorious love of the Father that the sinner rejects; in this way, His perfect knowledge of the Father enabled Him to suffer, out of love, immeasurably profound pangs of sorrow for sins. The Father inspired Christ’s human will with this perfect charity by infusing Christ’s humanity with the fullness of the grace of the Holy Spirit. In Christ’s passion, one thus sees manifested the incarnate Son’s obedience to the Father through the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion: For Aquinas, “the Paschal mystery is Christ’s ultimate teaching about his Father, and at the heart of this sapiential teaching is self-giving” (142). “The Paschal Mystery of Jesus Christ reveals God’s wisdom and love in Trinitarian form” (136).

Chapter 5: Scripture and the Psychological Analogy for the Trinity

In Chapter 5, Levering gives two reasons for Aquinas’ use of the pyschology analogy.

1st Reason: Apologetic

Aquinas uses the psychological analogy to correct the metaphysical errors underlying the Trinitarian heresies of Arius & Sabellius: “Biblical exegesis itself, then, calls for an adequate metaphysical understanding of spiritual act. Jesus’ words, “From God I proceeded” (John 8:42), require that His hearers understand what He means by “procession.” Jesus was speaking about His own mode of being, that is, His own relation to the source of being, God. Either He meant that He proceeded from God but not as God (Arius), or that He proceeded in the sense of the Father proceeding to outward act (Sabellius), or that He proceeded as a mere human being (Paul of Samosata), or that He proceeded as a distinct mode of being God. Since the first way (outward processions) reduces Jesus to a mere creature, the second way is necessary. This second way is psychology analogy” (154).

2nd reason: Contemplative

Aquinas also uses the psychological analogy for contemplative purposes. Since God is Spirit (John 4:24), spiritual creatures reflect the divine identity in the highest manner, even though they fall woefully short (Gen 1:27). The spiritual power to know and love God is the pinnacle of the creature’s participation, both naturally and by grace, in the divine being, since spiritual nature manifests the greatest similitude to the triune God (154).

In order to truly contemplate the Trinity, one must rise up interiorly from contemplation of the image – the dynamism of finite spiritual act healed and perfected by knowing and loving God in Himself – within us.

There are two processions in our spiritual, intellectual nature: (1) Intellect – knowing an object as true by means of the procession of a concept and the act of judgment; (2) Will – willing the object known as good by means of the procession of love.

In our act of understanding, the procession of a concept (an inner word) takes place within our intellects. “The more a thing is understood,” states Aquinas, “the more closely is the intellectual conception joined and united to the intelligent agent; since the intellect by the very act of understanding is made one with the object understood” (STh I q.27, a.1, ad.2).

When God knows Himself in His Word, this unity is perfect. The generation of the Word is a perfect act generating a perfect act. This procession of the Word is also the “generation” of a “Son” because God’s act of understanding, contrary to us, is the same as the divine nature. “Since the Word is absolutely perfect likeness proceeding from God and existing in the same nature, the Word is perfectly generated or begotten, and so the name “Son” applies supremely” (157).

But if God is supremely simple, isn’t His intellect = His will? Yes and no. Aquinas resolves this dilemma by positing analogously that a distinction of procession based upon an order of origin with the divine act. Although the divine Act is supremely one; yet, as the Act of an intellectual nature, it must involve analogously this order of origin. As St. Augustine said, “Nothing can be loved by the will unless it is conceived in the intellect.”

Ultimately, the processions of the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct in God, but they are intimately related. As Aquinas states, “the Son is the Word, not any sort of word, but one Who breathes forth Love” (q.43, a.5, ad 2). “This point should caution against any suggestion that Aquinas’s use of the psychological analogy tends toward a rationalistic equation of God, who is infinite and incomprehensible, with the human mind… The interplay between Word and Spirit is far more mysterious than what we understand analogously from the human processions of the intellect and the will” (158, 9).

Psychological Analogy + Relations

Since “processions” tend to conceive of Persons as emanating from the essence, it can give an inadequate understanding of divine personhood. Therefore, Aquinas explores the relations that one finds constituted by the processions. In the order of origin of the processions, relations of “opposition” and mutual dependence emerge – the Father is the relation “begettor,” and the Son is the relation “being begotten.”

Relation adds to the psychological analogy the element of stable, though not static, personhood. Also, the category of relation possesses two aspects: (1) “in” – since relation must always subsist in a substance; (2) “to” – since relation indicates a “towards something.”

The relation Father – Son, as a clear relative opposition, nicely exposes the meaning of divine “relation.” The Father is God (“in”) + the “begettor,” paternity (“to”). The Son is God (“in”) + the “begotten,” filiation (“to”).

The relation “spirating Love” to “Love being spirated” is opposite. The Holy Spirit is the relation “Love being separated.” The Father and the Son are the relation “spirating Love.” The Holy Spirit is God (“in”) + the “spirated” (“to”).

Psychological Analogy + Relations + Persons

Aquinas shows that “Person” is applied analogously to God. He argues for the fittingness of the term by looking at two features of personhood: (1) Individuality = “Persons are individual substances of a rational nature” (Boethius); (2) Incommunicability = “Spiritual self-possession gives an “incommunicability” to the person” (Richard of St. Victor).

These two aspects fittingly illumine the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are Persons who subsist in (infinitely) rational nature, although the divine nature is not itself differentiated in them.

In questions 30-43, Aquinas builds upon this to investigate the distinct characteristics of the Persons by returning to the order of origin exposed biblically and metaphysically in questions 27-8, and thus illumines the truly distinct, active Persons witnessed to in narrative form by Scripture.

“Aquinas’ metaphysical analysis enriches biblical exegesis by expressing the relationality of the divine Persons who subsist, in distinct modes, as the one God. Through sapiential contemplation of biblical revelation, we thus come to know more profoundly the thoroughly relational communion that is the subsisting Persons” (163).

“As subsistent relations fully in act, the persons of the Trinity are utterly and completely dynamic and active in their integral and comprehensive self-giving to one another, and could not possibly become more dynamic or active in their self-giving since they are constituted, and so subsist, as who they are only in their complete and utter self-giving to one another” (Thomas Wienandy, Does God Suffer?, 119, qtd in 163).

“To share, by a knowing fueled by love, in this relational act – the one divine Act expressed, in the order of origin of the processions, distinctly by the divine Persons – is to enter into a glorious dynamic of perfect communion. Christ is Savior not only because He bears our sins, but ultimately because He purifies our hearts and draws us, by his Spirit, into the communion of the relational three-Personed God” (164).

Chapter 6: Biblical Exegesis and Sapiential Naming of the Divine Persons

In Chapter 6, Levering seeks to reveal the “biblical motifs that infuse Aquinas’s metaphysically sophisticated analysis of the proper names of the Persons” (168) in questions 33-38 of the Summa. To do so, Levering uses exegetical insights from Ben Witherington III and Laura Ice’s book, The Shadows of the Almighty: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Biblical Perspective. In doing so, Levering wants to put forward a case for Aquinas’ work within contemporary discussion regarding what Christians should say about the distinct Persons whom, as one God, we worship.

1: The Person of the Father

1. Principle: The Father is the “principle” of the Son and the Holy Spirit because both the Son & the Spirit proceed from Him (cf. Jn 5:26). “Principle” is more fitting than “cause” because principle can signify the order that things have in relation to each other (order of origin), rather than “cause” – which suggests a temporal priority, a difference of substance, a dependence of the effect on the cause in a way that makes the effect lesser than the cause in perfection or in power (subordination). The Father is the “principle not from a principle.” He is the unbegotten. The one not “from another.” And yet, He is not superior in any real sense to the two Persons who proceed. Aquinas’ technical precision helps safeguard this great mystery.
2. Jesus’ Father: In the OT, God is addressed seldom as “Father” and never prayed to or addressed personally as Father. In the NT, Jesus reveals a highly personal sense of “Father” as Abba. The Father is the Father of the only-begotten Son. And only in Jesus do we have access to His Father. In fact, what is meant by “Father” in the OT is actually God in his unity, and what is meant by “Father” in the NT is the Father of the Son. In the NT, “Father” signifies the relation that distinguishes Him as a distinct Person in God. This relation is paternity – the Father is the principle of the Son. “Father” names the relation paternity (thus the noun Father in God, as an active relation, should be thought of more like a verb). Furthermore, Father is more appropriate than Begetter or Genitor because those terms give the impression of something in process of being made, whereas Father expresses, in a resolutely personal manner, the full existence of the other term in the relation. “Father” is properly the name of the divine Person who is distinguished in the Godhead by paternity, or generation. Perfect divine generation without destroying divine unity. The Father is eternally the Father of the Son (cf. Jn 1:18).

2: The Person of the Son

1. Word: The 1st & chief meaning of “word” is an interior concept of the mind. Implied in this 1st meaning is the concept of a procession – the interior word proceeds from the intellect. Since processions belong solely to the Persons in God, “Word” has a personal term when applied to God. Only the Father speaks the Word, whereas all 3 Persons understand & are understood. In the Word, the whole Trinity (as well as all creatures) is spoken b/c the Father’s Word expresses everything. The Word thus subsists distinctly as a Person in God, in relation to the Father who speaks & is thus a proper name of the divine Son. Contemplating the Son as Word thus offers a way to understand the meaning of filiation in God (cf. Jn 1:18). As the Word, Jesus possesses the immaterial, divine qualities that had been attributed to Wisdom. The Gospel of John shows a purified concept of Wisdom in light of the triune God.
2. Image: Christ is the “image” or “icon” of the invisible God (Col 1:15). That is, Christ is the perfect likeness of God, the exact representation of God. Aquinas states that when “image” is used of the Son, it refers to being of the same divine nature. The Image properly names the Son because the Son receives the divine nature as begotten & something that is begotten from another is always of like species or its image (whereas something spirated from another is not necessarily its image).

3: The Person of the Holy Spirit

1. Holy + Spirit: Since “holy” and “spirit” are terms that can apply equally to all 3 Persons, how does “Holy Spirit” distinguish characteristics that specify this Person in the Trinity? (1) The name “Holy Spirit” indicates that this Person possesses what the Father & the Son possess (all 3 are “holy” and “spirit”) and is therefore divine. Furthermore, whereas in the OT, the Spirit (ruach/shekinah) is often seen as an impersonal agent, in the NT, the Spirit (pneuma/paraclete) is a distinct, personal, divine agent who shapes peoples & events. (2) The names “holy” and “spirit” denote unique properties of love, what makes love unique – a) “Spirit” seems to signify impulse and motion – we call breath & wind by the term “spirit” – love is an impulse and motion of the will of the lover toward the beloved; b) “holy” is attributed to whatever is ordered to God. The Holy Spirit proceeds in the “ordering” of God the Son to God the Father, as the Love that, in the divine order of origin, is a Person. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father & the Son is the only way to account for the Holy Spirit as a relation distinct from the Son (cf. Jn 16). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (as from one principle – one perfect spirative power).
2. Love: Love is a proper name for the Holy Spirit. “To love” VS. “To spirate love” – “to love” belongs to all 3 Persons. The Father & the Son love (essentially) as spirating Love. The Holy Spirit loves (essentially) as Love proceeding. In the Person of the Holy Spirit, the relation Father-Son is expressed as that of Lover-Beloved (cf. STh I, 37.1.3).
3. Gift: To be from the Father and the Son is the same as “to be the Gift of God.” Since love implies to give the gift of oneself freely without the intention of receiving anything in return, the Father and the Son both give their Gift in spirating their mutual love. He is the 1st Gift. Gift is a proper name of the Holy Spirit because He proceeds but is not a principle (unlike the Father and the Son) & because He is Love (cf. Luke 11:13).

Conclusion: Overall, Aquinas’ goal is contemplative, using metaphysical ascesis to purify us in deeper contemplative knowledge & union with the Father. “From each of these names, Aquinas draws precious insights in order to enable us to see both the perfect unity of Persons and the chiseled specificity of their personal characteristics. He does so without losing sight of the fact that all our language about the divine Persons is analogous, and that therefore utmost caution and reticence is required in the task of applying names of the Persons” (196). By using the wealth of raw data in the New Testament to construct a doctrine of the Trinity, Aquinas sapientially illumines this “raw data” so that we see the New Testament’s revelation of the Trinity, God in Himself, with contemplative clarity that, by purifying our knowing, crystallizes (as it were) the steps of the mystical dance revealed in Christ who, through the Spirit, invites our participation in the inexhaustible life of the Father” (196).

Ch. 7: Essence, Persons, and the Question of Trinitarian Metaphysics

In Chapter 7, Levering puts forward the value of Aquinas’ distinctions between what is common in God (divine essence) and what pertains to the distinctions of Persons in God in qq.30-31, 39-42. In light of a contemporary “Trinitarian ontology,” Aquinas’s distinctions are critical to show how the God proclaimed as one in the Old Testament is the same God who is proclaimed as one and three in the New Testament.

Trinitarian ontology suggests that Christian revelation deconstructs and radically reconfigures any prior account of “being” or “God.” Attempt to show that “being” is not a reified 4th, as if “being” were somehow outside of the Trinity. In particular, Levering looks at the work of 3 contemporary thinkers: (1) Catholic: W. Norris Clarke, S.J.’s Exploration in Metaphysics – “being” itself is relational – “being” flowers internally into relations; (2) Orthodox: John Zizioulas’s Being as Communion – focuses on the concept of “Person” – the Person of the Father as the principle or cause of all being – to show that “being” is communion. The Father freely constitutes the Trinity; (3) Lutheran: Reinhard Hütter’s Suffering Divine Things – “being” is the Trinity – the threefold communion rather than the oneness per se.

Twin errors of Trinitarian ontology: (1) Conflate God’s unity (one) and Trinity (three) so as to render one or the other unintelligible, (2) make the divine essence a reified “fourth” in the Trinity. In particular, Clarke risks making “being” a 4th in the Trinity, from which the 3 Persons emerge; Zizioulas & Hütter cast doubt on how each Person, in Himself, is fully God (since they derive the unity – one “God” – from the 3 persons).

5 Aspects of Aquinas’ approach:

1. Redoublement: God can be viewed under 2 aspects: (1) 1st what is common among the Persons – the “essence”; (2) 2nd what is proper to each Person. These two modes are necessary to speak about the Trinitarian mystery. “Since a divine Person is a Person precisely in possessing the divine essence in a mode distinct from that of the other Persons, the concept of Person as subsisting relation integrates the concept of “essence” (215).
2. Undividedness: Aquinas uses the metaphysical term “undividedness” of the divine being to understand numerical terms applied to God. Numerical terms, when applied to God, do NOT signify quantity; quantity belongs only to material things. Rather, numerical terms, when applied to God, signify metaphysical undividedness. “So when we say, the essence is one, the term one signifies the essence undivided… and when we say the persons are many, we signify those persons, and their individual undividedness” (STh I, q.30, a.3). The divine being or essence is strictly undivided even as subsisting distinctly in three Persons. Being is undivided. Being, qua being, is NOT intrinsically relational. “Relation to” pertains solely to the divine relations. The relations do NOT derive from the divine being. The divine being is the same in each Person.
3. Identity of Essence and Person, Distinction of Persons: Aquinas says that he proceeds with care & modesty to express the real identity of the divine being & Persons while preserving the real distinction of Persons. He avoids language that appears to derogate from their perfect unity in being (essence). Words like “other” and “distinction” are okay, but “separation” and “division” are not. Also, words that describe the essence but obscure its communicability like “singularity” and “only” must be avoided. Divine simplicity requires a real identity of the divine essence with the Persons: otherwise there would be multiple gods. Appropriation – that of appropriating essential attributes that belong to what is common/shared in God to distinct Persons – helps to further integrate the essence conceptually within the Persons.
4. Differentiation of the Persons by Communication of the Essence: Aquinas differentiates the Persons in terms of the communication of the essence (relations of origin). Divine Persons are differentiated in the Trinitarian processions by two “principles of difference,” origin and relation. Aquinas prefers “relation” because relation is intrinsic to a thing & can account of a “stable” personhood. Because of the divine simplicity, if there are relations in God, then there are distinct divine Persons. These are subsistent relations. In God, the relation (relative property) is the Person. Since relation signifies existence towards something, relations in God are distinct solely from each other. These relations do not alter (or relate to) the one being in which they subsist, because they are the one being in which they subsist. The distinction of Persons is utterly relational.
5. Appreciating the Order of Origin and Mutual Indwelling of the Persons: For Aquinas, the eternal order of origin in which the communication of the divine nature occurs is the supreme contemplative height of Trinitarian theology and Christian faith. This order is revealed in the NT by the names Father, Word and Image (Son), Love and Gift (Holy Spirit), in which names we see an order of intra-divine processions whose analogical signification can be teased out by contemplative references to the processions in the soul. It is by penetrating, in sapiential contemplation, the mystery of this revealed order that theologians gain deeper insight into the Trinity” (229). The Persons also dwell perfectly within each other because they are subsistent relations & share the very same, undivided essence (being). This is perichoresis, or the mutual indwelling of the Persons. In each Person, the relational reality of the other Persons is present.

Conclusion

“The primary goal of theology as an exercise of contemplative wisdom is to gain knowledge of God in himself. Within this exercise, Scriptural and metaphysical instruction complement one another. The knowledge of God in himself is sought not for the sake of any created good, but simply because of the glory and beauty of God. However, such knowledge is sought within, and made possible by, the context of the triune God’s self-revealing gifts of creation and redemption. In seeking contemplative ends, we attain practical ends as well. As Jesus said, “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well” (Matt 6:33)” (238).

“The ultimate relevance of the doctrine of the Trinity… consists in human beings’ acquiring the practices of contemplation [through prayer and study], which form the spiritual exercise by which we are drawn away from idols and united, in Christ, to the true God in friendship” (21). Therefore, “Contemplative Trinitarian theology belongs to the interior spiritual conversion by which self-centered human beings become God-centered” (3).

“Once this view of contemplative wisdom is adopted, then the quest for immediate relevance, excitement, and practical import becomes less urgent. It becomes less urgent not because the quest is now relativized (although it is) – and certainly not because the quest has been abandoned in a form of quietism – but rather because the quest has been, in the manifestation of God’s “name” in his mystical Temple, fulfilled. Simply put, contemplating the majesty and intimate presence of God suffices to calm fears about God’s presence. What we learn of God’s analogous “characteristics” in his unity and Trinity inflames our longing for eternal union with this God of infinite and simple being, goodness, wisdom, and love; who is Creator, Sustainer of every aspect of creaturely being, and Redeemer; who is personal Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Word, Image, Love, and Gift; who is three and one perichoretically, as a mystical dance” (L, 240).