God Dwells in Christ Through the Word

The idea that God dwells in Christ through the Word should find a great deal of agreement with trinitarians, when it is understood and defined properly. Like trinitarians, patternists believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man. We also believe that Jesus’ divine nature is a distinct person within the godhead called the “Word” (“Logos”), and that this Word dwelt among us through the incarnation of Christ (Jhn 1). As discussed in previous articles, we do not believe that it would be proper to call this Word “God the Son,” as the sonship of Christ toward God is derived from his human nature, not his divine nature. But with regard to the natures of Christ, this becomes a mere disagreement in terminology; there is little material difference between the divine Son of the trinity, and the divine Word of the pattern.

The primary impact of this change in terminology is on the nature of God’s fatherhood. If Jesus is a son of God in the same sense that Christians are sons (and daughters) of God, as a human faithfully reflecting the image and likeness of God, then the natural reading of the text would be to view the entire godhead (“God”) as the father of Jesus, and of the Christian. As I defended in the last article, not only do we see distinct persons within the godhead; the godhead itself is personal. Patternists call this composite person “the Father,” a term which is synonymous with “God,” who is comprised of two divine persons known as “the Word” and “the Spirit.” These two persons who are one provide us with the pattern after which mankind was created, the reason that God created man to leave his father and mother, to be joined to his wife as one flesh (Gen 1:26-27).

While trinitarians would disagree with the above rendering of the Father, once it is understood what we mean by “the Father,” they should have a great deal of agreement with us on this final tenet. We believe that the Father dwells in Christ through the divine person of the Word. When translated into a trinitarian understanding of Christ, using a trinitarian definition of terms, this simply means that God dwells in Christ through the Son/Word. With some qualifications about the nature of that indwelling, trinitarians should have little difficulty agreeing with this tenet of pattern christology.

Before reaching agreement in this area however, work needs to be done to first define what exactly patternists mean when we say that God dwells in Christ. Some trinitarians understandably chafe at this claim, because scripture teaches that Jesus’ followers are also indwelt with divinity through the Spirit (Rom 8:9), making it difficult to understand how Jesus’ situation is different from that of an everyday Christian. Viewing the incarnation as an indwelling of God in Christ has led some groups to either diminish the true divinity of Jesus, or deify everyday Christians.

This too is understandable. Much of the same language that scripture uses to describe Jesus’ relationship to divinity is also used to describe a normal Christian’s relationship to divinity. For example, Jesus is described as a temple for divinity (Jhn 2:19-22, Rev 21:22). So are we (1Co 6:14-20). In fact, describing the Church corporately, scripture teaches that together with Christ, we comprise a temple for the Spirit of God, with Jesus serving as the cornerstone (Eph 2:19-22, Rev 3:12). If it’s true that God dwells in Christ, and if this is the only relationship to divinity that he experiences, then it becomes difficult to understand how he can be viewed as uniquely divine among men.

So there’s an understandable desire among some trinitarians to reject the idea that God dwells in Christ, viewing the hypostatic union as joining God and man in some other way. While there certainly may be other ways that Jesus’ human nature relates to his divine nature, it’s difficult to outright reject the concept of an indwelling when we survey the text of scripture. Major passages that are used (even by trinitarians) to establish Jesus’ divinity do so by describing Him as a union of God dwelling in man. So even if it cannot totally explain the nature of the hypostatic union, the indwelling of God in Christ must at least be acknowledged. The purpose of this article is not primarily to solve the mystery of how that is best explained, but rather to simply affirm two truths that are difficult to reconcile.

1. Scripture teaches that Jesus is uniquely divine among men, and he manifests divine attributes that we do not, such as omnipresence (Mat 18:20), or omniscience (Jhn 16:30) etc.
2. Scripture also teaches that God dwells in Christ in some sense, and it does so in key passages that teach the divinity of Christ (Col 1, Jhn 1).

Notably, both the trinity and the pattern face the difficulty of reconciling the above concepts in their respective systems; this is not a problem that’s specific to pattern christology. Without question, scripture teaches us that God dwells in Christ, and without question, scripture teaches us that Jesus is uniquely divine among men. We can acknowledge those truths without necessarily understanding how best to reconcile them.

With that said, an article on this subject would be incomplete without at least some speculation into how Jesus’ relationship to divinity differs from our own, so we’ll spend some time toward the end developing a potential solution. In essence, we can acknowledge that God dwells in Christ through the divine person of the Word, and that this is similar to how God dwells in the bride of Christ through the divine person of the Spirit. However, that indwelling is not what grants Jesus his divinity, any more than the indwelling of the Spirit grants us divinity. Rather, it seems to be the union of Jesus’ human and divine natures into one composite person that allows him to be regarded as God with us.

Regardless of the particular means of reconciliation that we use, let’s first establish the less popular of the two points above, that God dwells in Christ through the Word.

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father. We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, … giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. … For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Col 1:1-3, 12-14, 19-20)

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. (Col 2:8-10, emphasis mine)

There’s a lot worth discussing in Colossians 1. First, as with many places in the New Testament, Paul uses the terms “God” and “Father” interchangeably. The phrase “God, the Father” in verse 3 should not be taken as speaking of a single person in the godhead, but rather as speaking of the godhead as a whole. This phrase comes on the heels of verse 2, which establishes God as the Father of Paul and of those at Colossae. The Colossians are not children of one person in the godhead, “God the Father.” Rather, they are children of “God” (cf. Paul’s similar greeting to the Romans 1:1-10). Because they/we are children of God, we are heirs of God (sharing in the inheritance of the saints, v. 12), and co-heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17). This co-inheritance is possible because he is a son of God in the same way that we are — human children of a divine God.

Second, concerning the purpose of this article, Colossians 1 and 2 teach us that God dwells in Christ. Notably, the first description of indwelling in 1:19 claims that the fullness dwells in the Son. The second description in 2:9 clarifies that the fullness of God dwells in Christ bodily. Because of this parallel language, we know that the term “Son” in 1:19 is clearly not being used to describe Jesus’ divine nature, but rather his human nature within which God dwells. While the passage speaks of the Son doing both divine and human activities (such as creating the universe and dying on a cross, respectively), when it describes the ontological nature of the God-man in these two places, the Son is distinguished from the deity that dwells within the Son.

This would seem to disagree with the trinitarian notion that Jesus’ divine nature is the Son. If that were an accurate representation of scripture, we would expect to see the language here describe the Son as the divine nature that indwells Christ, or at least that is united to Christ’s human nature. Instead, the Son is viewed as the container within which the fullness of deity dwells; a distinction is made between the two. So while trinitarians will cite Colossians 1 and 2 as strong support for the divinity of Christ (and rightly so), when the passage is examined in detail, it seems to affirm Jesus’ divinity, but deny the trinitarian framing of his divinity.

In any case, regardless of the issues above, both trinitarians and patternists should be able to agree that this passage seems to teach that God dwells in Christ, at least in some sense.

“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going.”

Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. (Jhn 14:1-17, emphasis mine)

John 14 also provides a lot of interesting details worth examining. First, this is the only passage I am aware of that explicitly states that the Father dwells in Christ. There are several passages in John that teach that the Father is in Jesus (in some sense), but this one is particularly useful in that it explicitly defines what Jesus means when he says that the Father is in him — that he is referring to an indwelling. As we’ve seen, Colossians 1 and 2 can agree with the idea that the Father dwells in Christ, in that Paul teaches that divinity dwells within the Son/Christ, and the divine nature is spoken of in a personal way — namely, it was “pleased” to dwell in the Son. But we are not told in that passage which person(s) of the godhead performed the indwelling; John 14 identifies it as the Father.

To be fair to trinitarians, this is not necessarily a contradiction with their viewpoint, which claims that Jesus is the Son incarnate, not the Father. Any number of divine persons could dwell within Christ; we know, for example, that at the time of his baptism, the Holy Spirit rested upon him, if not in him (Mat 3:16-17). But this passage warrants an explanation, particularly in light of the indwelling described in Colossians 1 and 2. Most trinitarian commentaries I’ve read simply side-step the issue (e.g. Don Stewart, David Guzik, David Brown). Matthew Henry on the other hand addresses the issue head-on, but in his treatment of the passage, he doesn’t sound much like a trinitarian. He actually seems to agree more with a patternist view.

The Father is said to dwell in him ho en emoi menoµn-he abideth in me, by the inseparable union of the divine and human nature: never had God such a temple to dwell in on earth as the body of the Lord Jesus, ch. 2:21. Here was the true Shechinah, of which that in the tabernacle was but a type. The fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily, Col. 2:9. The Father so dwells in Christ that in him he may be found, as a man where he dwells. Seek ye the Lord, seek him in Christ, and he will be found, for in him he dwells.

— Matthew Henry, Commentary on John 14

Matthew Henry’s interpretation of the indwelling of John 14 is that this is describing the hypostatic union, “the inseparable union of the divine and human nature.” Rather than view Jesus’ divine nature as God the Son, Henry identifies the Father as the divine person serving that role. If trinitarian theology had a mechanism by which the persons of the Father and the Son could overlap, or be used interchangeably, then it might be possible to say that God the Father and God the Son both served as Jesus’ divine nature in some sense. But trinitarians explicitly deny any overlap of the persons within the godhead, making Henry’s rendering of John 14 difficult to reconcile with his belief in the trinity.

Patternists on the other hand would agree wholeheartedly with his rendering of John 14; this is clearly a description of the incarnation, such that God dwells in Christ as a temple/tabernacle among his people. Because the terms “God” and “Father” are often used interchangeably by new testament authors, both in this passage (e.g. Jhn 14:1) and elsewhere, we have no problem affirming that the Father dwells in Christ, because this is no different from saying that God dwells in Christ. Because God (the Father) is a composite person, a union of two divine persons (the Word and the Spirit), it is accurate to say both that the Father dwells in Christ, and that the Word dwells in Christ. To put it succinctly, our Father God dwells in Christ through the person of the Word.

At the very least, we can say that the indwelling described in John 14 is challenging to fit within a trinitarian paradigm, while it does fit nicely within a patternist paradigm. Beyond agreeing with pattern christology, this passage also seems to provide some evidence for it, specifically for an overlap between the persons of the Father and the Son. To be clear, patternists agree with trinitarians in claiming that scripture strongly teaches a distinction between the Father and the Son, that they are distinct persons. However we also affirm that there can be a sense in which they are the same person, depending on the context.

This is not a contradiction — and if it were a contradiction, trinitarians would face a similar difficulty. Take for example the following question: is Jesus God, or is Jesus distinct from God? Well, it depends on the context. Without question, scripture teaches that Jesus is God (e.g. Jhn 20:27-29, 8:58), but this passage also teaches that Jesus is distinct from God.

“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. (Jhn 14:1)

Here Jesus draws a distinction between himself and God, and says that people should believe in both. So while there is a sense in which he is God, there is also a sense in which he is distinct from God (cf. Jhn 1:1). Again, this is not a contradiction; both can be true simultaneously. Patternists explain this through the concept of a composite person — that Jesus’ divine and human natures join together as one unified person, but that they are also distinctly personal, and can behave as such. This is why we see the Son (Jesus’ human nature) speaking with the Father (Jesus’ divine nature) as distinct persons, while at the same time behaving as a single person in other places, such as later in this passage.

Trinitarians on the other hand (with the exception of those like Matthew Henry) will generally deny that John 14 teaches that Jesus is the Father in any real sense. Instead, the usual claim is that Jesus is the Father’s perfect representative, but he is not the same person as the Father. For example,

Jesus Christ represented God the Father when He was here on the earth… Jesus did not say He was the Father, but rather He was the One who perfectly represented God the Father. However, Jesus testified that God the Father was with Him in a mystical way.

— Don Stewart, Does the Bible Teach That God the Father Is a Distinct Person from God the Son, Jesus Christ?

In his treatment of this passage, Stewart defines two senses in which Jesus relates to the Father. First, he is the Father’s perfect representative. This is why he can say, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” According to this interpretation, when Philip asked to see the Father, and Jesus gave this reply, his complaint to Philip was that he didn’t know Jesus in the sense that he didn’t understand Jesus’ role as the Father’s perfect representative.

The second sense in which Stewart identifies a relationship between Jesus and the Father is that the Father was truly with Jesus in some mystical way. Not only was Jesus his representative, but the Father dwelt with/in him. According to Stewart, this indwelling had nothing to do with Jesus’ response to Philip that if you see Jesus, you see the Father. Rather, it’s an incidental detail in the passage that’s interesting, but irrelevant to the discussion about Philip and the other disciples seeing the Father.

The problem with this is that there is a direct flow of logic between Philip’s request to see the Father, and Jesus’ claim that the Father dwells in him.

1. Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”
2. Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”
3. Jesus elaborated, “How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?”

In other words, when Jesus rebukes Philip for his unbelief, it isn’t because Philip failed to believe that Jesus was the Father’s perfect representative. Rather, it was because Philip failed to believe that the Father is “in” Christ (specifically that he “dwells in [Jesus],” as the second half of verse 10 elaborates). The indwelling of the Father in Christ is the very reason that Philip should have recognized that he had seen the Father in Christ, specifically through the works that the Father had done through him. Certainly there probably is a representative sense in which Jesus manifests the Father to us, but in this passage, it is the real presence of the Father in Christ that the disciples are rebuked for failing to recognize.

Nevertheless, it is still possible to interpret this passage without appealing to an overlap in the person of the Father and the person of the Son. One could agree that Philip should have recognized the real presence of the Father in Christ, without giving ground on the claim that Jesus is the same person as the Father. But to my ears, verse 9 reads much more naturally and personally when we allow the Father to not only work through Jesus, but to speak through Him as well. “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (Jhn 14:9). Certainly, Jesus may be complaining that Philip doesn’t have an accurate ontological understanding of his role as a temple for the Father. But it could also just be the Father himself saying through Jesus, “I am right here Philip. Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me?”

As one final point of interest in this passage, it’s worth observing that very soon after Jesus speaks about the Father dwelling within him (which in a patternist view would be through the person of the Word), he moves on to speak about the Spirit who would soon dwell in us. This is significant because the proximity of those ideas in John 14 would suggest that Jesus is intentionally drawing a parallel between the sense in which the Word of the Father dwells in him, and the sense in which the Spirit of the Father dwells in us (cf. Jhn 14:15-17, Mat 10:19-20).

This isn’t a parallel that’s particularly convenient for someone (like me) who wants to emphasize the difference between Jesus’ relationship to divinity and our own, to preserve the idea that he is uniquely divine. But as discussed above, we can affirm that God dwells in Christ in a way that is similar to how God dwells in the bride of Christ, and yet do so without deifying the Christian, or losing the true divinity of Jesus.

In any case, regardless of this seeming parallel, and regardless of the seeming difficulties that trinitarians face in this passage, both trinitarians and patternists can recognize that here too, we find evidence that God dwells in Christ.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. … And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (Jhn 1:1-4, 14)

We’ve discussed issues with the trinitarian interpretation of this passage in a previous article, specifically an implicit change in the meaning of “God” that occurs when the passage shifts from claiming that the Word was “with God” to claiming that the Word “was God.” The problem is highlighted when you swap the terminology of John 1 for more common trinitarian language.

In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with the Father, and the Son was the Father.

Trinitarians need the word “God” to mean “God the Father” when it describes the Word as being distinct from God, but then they need its meaning to change to “the essence of God” when it describes the Word as being God. Yet John uses the same greek word for “God” in both places, without any indication of a change in meaning. Rather than describe a plurality of persons in an impersonal godhead, the language used in verse 1 fits more naturally in a framework based on composite personhood.

Notably, the pattern faces its own problems, if we were to claim that this passage is best understood through the lens that multiple persons (such as the Word and the Spirit) together form a single, composite person (God). Claiming that the Word was “with” the Spirit presents no difficulty, but claiming that the Word was “with” God is unusual, because the person of “God” would be viewed as distinct from one of his constituent parts. As discussed in the article, the most natural interpretation is to view this through the lens of the hypostatic union, specifically the preincarnate hypostatic union known as the Angel of the Lord.

In the beginning was the angel of the Lord, and the angel was with God, and the angel was God.

This fits with the revelation that we have concerning the angel of the Lord, a being who is both described as God, and someone distinct from God — Jesus’ preincarnate form. Jesus was with God, according to his created angelic nature; and Jesus was God, according to his divine nature. Interpreting verse 1 through the lens of a hypostatic union (rather than plurality within the godhead, or a relationship between the composite person of God and one person in the godhead) fits very naturally into the flow the language. Much like the titles “son of God,” “son of man,” and “angel of the Lord,” the title “Word” here can be used of Christ in regard to both his divine and created natures. Thus the Word was with God, according to his angelic nature, and the word was God according to his divine nature.

A greater defense of this interpretation can be found in the article on Christ’s preincarnate form, which concludes that even if John 1:1 uses the title “Word” in reference to the angel of the Lord, we still have good reason to believe that it primarily describes his divine nature, through a divine person within the godhead called the Word. So for the purposes of this article, patternists can agree with the trinitarian definition of the Word, as speaking of a divine person within the godhead, even if we disagree with their framing of the Word’s relationship to the Father. Does John 1 then give us reason to believe that this Word dwells in Christ, or does it relate to him in a way that’s different from what we’ve seen in other passages?

John 1:14 does describe one sort of indwelling. Rather than say that the Word dwells in Christ, it teaches that the Word dwells among us through Christ. So trinitarians who oppose the idea that God dwells in Christ through the Word could argue that John 1 does not teach a hypostatic union based on indwelling, but rather that the Word “became” flesh in some other way.

However we do have some evidence of a union based on indwelling, given the meaning of the word “dwell” in John 1. True, the Word here is described as dwelling among men, not necessarily within Christ. But “dwell” here specifically describes dwelling in a tent or tabernacle. This evokes all of the old testament imagery of how God dwelt among his people under the old covenant, by erecting a tent in their midst, within which his presence would dwell. So God would dwell in the tent, and his tent would then dwell in the midst of the camp of Israel, among the other tents of his people.

When the Word became flesh however, God began to dwell among his people in a new way — not in tents made with human hands, but in a living human tent (Jhn 2:19-22). We now have a new and much more fitting tabernacle in the body of Christ, which came to dwell among us, and around whom our tents will be pitched for all of eternity (2Co 5:1-5, Rev 7:9-12).

So despite the fact that “dwell” in John 1 describes Jesus’ posture of dwelling among his people, it still lends support to the concept of an indwelling Word. God dwells in Christ just as he previously dwelt in the tabernacle. Then that union of God and tabernacle further dwells in the midst of his people.

In the beginning of the article, we discussed two truths that are difficult to reconcile. First, Jesus is uniquely divine among men. Second, divinity dwells in both Jesus and the Christian. Major passages that speak to the divinity of Christ also render his relationship to divinity as one of indwelling; this makes it difficult to understand how his condition is different from that of the everyday Christian. While this is a mystery that both the trinity and the pattern have to deal with, our willingness to point it out probably does more damage to the patternist cause, given that other non-trinitarian groups also emphasize this point, and come to vastly unbiblical conclusions. It makes us an easy target for bad-faith rhetoric among those who view the trinity as the only possible conclusion for biblically-minded Christians.

For the time being, I need to give an answer of “I don’t know” to the question of what ontological difference exists between Jesus’ relationship to divinity, and our own. The more I study the Bible, the more parallels I find, which is honestly a terrifying thought; I wish the opposite were true. To be sure, there are many, many passages which speak of Jesus in a way that describes him as unique among men. But studied carefully, these often don’t actually speak to the ontology of the hypostatic union (i.e. how his divine and human natures relate), but rather to some other issue.

For example, Jesus is described as possessing unique authority over the cosmos, and this is often cited as evidence of his unique divinity. But his authority doesn’t grant him divinity; Adam previously had all authority on earth, but he wasn’t divine. In the case of Christ, his authority is greater than Adam’s, but this is still a property of his human nature, something he was given at a point in time due to his faithfulness to obey God, even to the point of death on a cross.

Other issues are at play. We are certainly weaker than Jesus on account of our sin, and this affects many passages that speak of the supremacy and uniqueness of Christ. But this too does not impact ontology; when we are sinless, possessing the fullness of the Spirit, will we therefore be divine? Still other passages actually refer to created beings as “gods,” requiring careful study to avoid unbiblical and damaging conclusions. At this point, the only passages I am aware of that directly speak to the ontology of the hypostatic union are those that speak of it as an indwelling. Passages that draw a distinction between Christ and the believer tend to be speaking of other issues.

At the end of the day, I haven’t been able to find good resources (trinitarian or otherwise) on this particular subject, which has made arriving at a confident conclusion somewhat difficult. I’m looking specifically for someone who has carefully divided passages that speak of Christ’s ontology from those that speak of other issues, then combined the relevant testimony of scripture into a strong answer concerning the difference between Jesus and the believer. Such a resource may certainly exist; I just haven’t found it. In the absence of good insight from others, I’ll need to manually examine the plethora of passages that allegedly speak to the question myself, studying and praying through them for a long while, prior to arriving at a confident answer.

For the time being, I’m content to live with the tension of not having an answer to everything. We can acknowledge the tension that a divine indwelling produces — that God dwells in Christ through the divine person of the Word, and that this is similar to how God dwells in the bride of Christ through the divine person of the Spirit. However, that indwelling is not what grants Jesus his divinity, any more than the indwelling of the Spirit grants us divinity. Rather, there must be some other trait that allows him to be regarded as God with us. At the very least, the union of Jesus’ human and divine natures into one composite person (perhaps on account of his unique form of conception, Luk 1:34-35) offers one difference; Christians do not claim to be God himself come in the flesh; we retain distinct personhood from the divine Spirit that dwells within us.

Regardless of the particular answer we give to this question, both trinitarians and patternists can affirm that God dwells in Christ through the person of the Word. When combined with the other tenets of pattern christology however, this leads patternists to a significantly different model of the godhead. Rather than three persons who are one, we believe that God consists of two persons who are one, the Word and the Spirit who together form the composite person of the Father.