Board index ‹ Jesus

[Christian]

Can you explain the Trinity to me?

[jimwalton]

John 1.1-2: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." As far as people who aren’t believers in Christ, here we come to one of the most baffling, and laughable, claims of all the things Christians believe: The Trinity. Christians say that Jesus is God with no difference between them—they are one in the same being (John 10.30); and then out of the other side of their mouths they say that Jesus is the Son, a separate person from the Father, and they are different beings (Jn. 1.2). We might as well be saying that summer is winter, right? When pressed on it, they fall back on, “It’s an eternal mystery. We just have to have faith.” Well, if you ask me, that's a cop-out answer. We can do better than that.

First, we all know that faith is based on evidence. It’s never a leap in the dark, but a calculated attitude and subsequent behavior grounded in solid evidence. Now, if we’re talking about things (material stuff), then of course it’s impossible. But since we’re talking about an organic living thing, the gap to understanding shrinks immeasurably.

The evidence of the Trinity is Jesus Himself. The things he did are things that only God could do: heal blind eyes, walk on water, make thousands upon thousands of loaves of bread come out of a single loaf—that sort of thing. Jesus did hundreds, if not thousands, of such things. And he said he is God. But we also know that a voice came from heaven while he was in the water being baptized, and another one on the Mount of Transfiguration. So we have to figure out a way to put this together and make sense of it.

Many people have tried to explain the trinity in these ways:

· Water, ice, and vapor. All H2O, but all different.

· An egg of shell, yolk, and white

· The three dimensions by which we understand space

The one I like best, and the one that I think is closest to reality, is that of an author and his character. The idea originally appeared in a book called A Severe Mercy, by Sheldon Vanauken. Here's how it goes:

One afternoon Davy and I walked in the University Parks and Mesopotamia, talking of some day writing a novel, catching something of the extraordinary variety of Oxford life, including the Studio, a novel that we would put ourselves in as characters. Then, saying, “Some day, maybe,” we went to the Copper Kettle on the High for tea. That night, as usual, a couple of friends came by. One was Julian and the other was a non-Christian friend from Corpus Christi College named Richard, and it was Richard who wanted to talk about Christianity. After considerable talk, he said: “The thing that stumps me is the Trinity: The Trinity and, above all, the Incarnation. You all seem to believe that Jesus was, at the same time, completely a man—and completely God. In the name of common sense, how could he be? You Christians always take refuge in mysteries.”

“Not at all,” I said. “We aren’t hiding behind a mystery in this, at least.”

“Well,” said Richard. “Explain it in some way that makes sense.”

Julian began to say something about the Persons of God, and I could see that Richard wasn’t finding it very helpful. Then I thought of the novel Davy and I had been talking about and murmured to Davy, “I’ve got it!”

“It’s still no good,” said Richard when Julian had done.

“Look, Richard,” I said. “This afternoon Davy and I were talking about writing a novel of Oxford with the Studio in it, and us, and everybody. Now, assuming we could do it—”

“Assuming you could do it,” said Richard, “I’d buy a copy. Not more than five shillings, though.”

“Listen,” I said. “We’re talking about the Incarnation. Okay, suppose I write it—it’s too complicated with two authors—and I put myself in it. There I am, walking down the High, wearing a Jesus tie—in the book. And let's say I make up a lot of characters, not using real people for fear of hurting their feelings. But I am in it, and I, the character, say whatever I would say in the various situations that occur in my plot.”

“What about the Incarnation?” said Richard.

“That’s what I'm telling you, stupid fellow,” I said with a grin. “Don’t you see? I am incarnate in my book. I am out here writing it, so I’m like God the Father. But it’s really me in the book, too, isn’t it? So that’s Jesus, the Son, right? The me in the book speaks my words—and yet they are speeches that I’ve probably never made in real life, not being in those situations. And yet can’t you see that it’s really me?”

“Um,” said Richard. “Yes, right. I see. Go on.”

“Well,” I said. “All right. I’m out here, being the Author of all things—and I’m in the book, taking part in scenes of ‘drammer’ Incarnate in my book. Now, the me in the book: he’s all me, isn’t he? And he’s all character, too, isn’t he? Like the doctrine: God and All man. It makes sense, doesn’t it? And one more thing: suppose the characters run away with the story—authors are always saying that that happens. It might be necessary, whatever I had originally intended, for me to get killed—um, crucified...Anyhow—you see?”

“You win,” said Richard. “It does make sense that way. I’ll have to think about it.”

“There's something else, though,” said Davy. “The other characters—made-up ones. Invented ones. If Van invents characters, they’ll all, even the bad ones, have something of Van in them, won’t they? So, you see? We all have something of God in us—God’s spirit—but only the One, Jesus, is God Incarnate. But God’s Spirit in us...Well, that makes the Trinity, doesn’t it? God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Actually, I’ve never seen it so clearly myself. More tea?”




So, Christian, my conclusion is that it is possible to conceive of the Trinity, and be reasonable about it. Adding the evidence to the logic, we can see the truth. But what does it matter to our culture that he was with God in the beginning? Only that if that is the case, then deity is being claimed for Jesus, and if that is not the case, then deity is not even a possibility, because Jesus is a created being like everyone else. So this statement shows to be false the beliefs of our culture: that he was a good man, that he was a prophet, or that was a moral example or an exemplary teacher. He was those things, but this declaration claims far more: it claims deity for him by aligning him with Gn. 1.1 and being the “God” who created the heavens and the earth “in the beginning”.

[Christian]

It does make a lot of sense… but… literally we are not a book or characters in a book … are we? I mean… it’s just way to present it… but what’s real?

[jimwalton]

Great question. You're right: it's just a way to present it. Here's what's REAL:

Colossians 1:15 says that Jesus "is the image of the invisible God." The word "image" means a manifestation—a way to show something else; a representation to make something more real. Jesus makes the invisible God visible. “Image” is more than “likeness,” which may be superficial and incidental (“Hey, this potato chip looks like my house!”). It implies a prototype, and embodies the essential nature of its prototype. Jesus explained it to his disciples who had asked a similar question, in John 14.9. Jesus has the same character as God.

Then if you turn to Philippians 2.6, Paul says that Jesus had the same nature as God. It means that whatever qualities God has, Jesus has. Whatever the nature of God is, Jesus is. They are the same expression of being, the same nature. God was the creator; Jesus was the creator (John 1:3). Whatever God is, Jesus is (John 10:30). God is eternal; Jesus is eternal (1 John 5:20).

Jesus himself said it in John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." This is a clear statement: Jesus and the Father are not the same person, because he can talk about the differently when he says, "I and the Father." But then he says the two of them are one, meaning "one in essence and nature." His claim to be one and the same entity with God is unmistakeable. He used a Greek work "hen," meaning "one." If he meant they were one person, he would have used the word "heis." And if he meant they were completely separate persons (like a husband and wife in a marriage are "one"), he would not have used the plural that he did. He is saying they function as one.

Now, put all these together: Jesus is the manifestation of the invisible God, has the nature as God, expressing the same being, and that they are one and the same entity, yet not the same person. That's what's real.

[Christian]

So… another thing that I don’t get… Why it gets so contradictory (the bible)

- they are one in the same being (John 10.30);
- Jesus is the Son, a separate person from the Father, and they are different beings (Jn. 1.2)

I mean.. why they wanted to make it so confuse for everybody… I mean.. is not easier if you want to send a message just to send it… and not to riddle around?! Why is that?? Is not amusing at all!

Why if they were one (Jesus and God), why he told to himself…, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." … Did he really said that… why? I mean.. he knew why… but why to said it to a “second person” out loud… I mean.. the idea was that everybody know that he was God… so why talked to God, if he is God… hard to see a character talking directly to the narrator in a book…

I do believe that they are one… I think it makes more sense in every way, shape and form..

[jimwalton]

As to the "contradictions" in the Bible about Jesus, let me tell it this way (since this is what really happened):

So, God is in heaven, and he wants to take on a body, and come to earth, and let the people see him and talk to him, and he wants to die for their sins. Since God is everywhere all the time, when he takes on a body, he can't stop being "up there" (meaning everywhere else). Since he's God, he still has to be everywhere else, even though he's in a body. So now he's in a body, and he's not in the body also. But he doesn't just "BING!"—Here I am in a body! He gets born, in a normal kind of way. So God is his father—the part of him that's not in the body. And the part in the body is the Son. Well, he's obviously different from "not in the body", but he's that God in a body. Sooooooo, he's two, but he's one. He's the same God as the God who is still out there, but he's in a body, so he's obviously somehow quite different from the God who is out there. Am I making sense? So we call them "God the Father" when we're talking about the God who is everywhere, and "God the Son" when we're talking about the God who is in a body.

It's not a contradiction. How else can you stay "God who is everywhere" and yet be "God in a body" at the same time?