Christ on the throne
By Michael Bell
[Updated with Comments from Joshua Hearne]
This is Part 2, of a multi-part series looking at the deity of Christ. Here are the links to the Introduction and Table of Contents.
We want to continue by discussing what we do not mean when we say that Jesus Christ is God.
We do not mean that Jesus is the Father. The New Testament is very clear to distinguish between God as he is revealed as Father, and God as he is revealed as Son.
Although it is very difficult to use a two dimensional diagram to describe what God is like, this diagram may help. Although we say that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, it is clear that we do distinguish between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.
Writers in the early church compared God to a river. Each stage of a river is different, from where it may start as a spring bubbling out of the ground, through the meandering in may experience through the countryside, to the delta it forms as it empties itself into the ocean. We would not try to say that the start of the river is indentical to the end of the river, and yet we would say that each part of it is the river.
If a guide takes me to the head of the Amazon river, he would say “that’s the Amazon river.” When he takes me to the middle of the Amazon river, he would say, “that’s the Amazon river.” When he takes me to where the Amazon river empties into the ocean, he would say, “that’s the Amazon river.” Each part of the river is called the river, and yet each part of the river makes up the river as a whole.
That being said, every analogy of the Trinity will break down if stretched too far. This is simply as a result of not being able to describe the infinite with finite language.
As Joshua Hearne, a co-author of Eclectic Christian notes in the comments:
The problem with the river image is that a particular section of the river is not simultaneously source and delta. We must be careful not to slip into modalism and assert that each of the three coequal persons of the trinity are one God serving/manifesting in three different roles. This is a similar theological problem to what we end up with when we look at “forms of water” or “the egg.”
I agree that you can’t limit the Trinity to the roles that are played within the Trinity. Each of the three persons of the Trinity have different roles to play, but their interdependence is so much greater than the roles they play. The river analogy breaks down when you consider that a river can have many sources. Take away one source, and you still have a river. A river may, or may not have a delta. Not having a delta does not detract from the fact that it is a river.
The same can not be said for the Trinity. I believe that there is an interdependence in the Trinity that is not properly captured in the river analogy. I wanted to conclude my series looking at the interdependence of the persons of the Trinity, but I will try and change around my original posting plan so that I look at it first and use it a framework on which many of the other posts will hang.
It is very difficult (if not outright wrong) to put God into a box. It is impossible to describe the infinite in finite terms. So understand that I am not trying to delineate the edges of the box, rather it is my attempt to say, “Here is what we do know about the deity of Christ. Please understand that our knowledge is imperfect, and our understanding of the topic is imperfect, but we present it as best we can so as to improve your knowledge and understanding.”
So, keep these illustrations and analogies in mind. When we come to some of the more difficult explanations, they may be of help.
Do these illustrations help you? I am very much interested in your feedback, and your comments are always welcome.
Michael Bell
Joshua Hearne
Tim Melton
Joel Black
Jan 14, 2009 at 11:56 pm
[...] Jesus is not the Father [...]
Jan 15, 2009 at 12:41 am
Actually the river idea works well. I grew up trying to get my head around the trinity as water in three forms…liquid, ice and steam. Although both work to some extent , I like the river image as it is all one continuem. There is an old proverb as well that says “The sharpest sword cannot cut a stream so that it will cease to flow” I like that idea as well, that of an inseperable triune God. Interesting posts!
Jan 15, 2009 at 12:57 am
Thanks for the comment Cynthia. I try to pop in and visit your blog every couple of days. I am interested in seeing where your spiritual journey takes you.
Mike
Jan 15, 2009 at 10:04 am
I like the illustration of the river. I was told that the Trinity was like a egg, there is the egg yolk, the egg white and the shell, yet all three make up just one egg.
Jan 16, 2009 at 11:48 am
But the problem with the river image is that a particular section of the river is not simultaneously source and delta. We must be careful not to slip into modalism and assert that each of the three coequal persons of the trinity are one God serving/manifesting in three different roles. This is a similar theological problem to what we end up with when we look at “forms of water” or “the egg.”
If you want to get somebody to say something that has already been deemed heterodox, then the easiest way is to ask them to talk at length about the Trinity. It is a holy mystery and defies imaging and rationalization. That is not to say that we shouldn’t try to talk about it but, rather, that we must be very clear that we cannot wrap it up in words and thoughts. We can point toward the idea but not grasp it in our hands.
Jan 16, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Hi Josh,
Every analogy of the Trinity will break down if stretched too far. That being said, I am not sure I fully understand your objection. You state that “a particular section of the river is not simultaneously source and delta.” Sure, and Jesus is not simultaneously Father and Son.
The three persons of the trinity have different roles to play, but their interdependence is so much greater than the roles they play. The river analogy breaks down when you consider that a river can have many sources. Take away one source, and you still have a river. A river may, or may not have a delta. Not having a delta does not detract from the fact that it is a river.
The same can not be said for the Trinity. I believe that there is an interdependence in the Trinity that is not properly captured in the river analogy. I will change things around a bit from my original posting plan to look next at how I see this interdependence working.
As to your comments about mystery, it is very difficult (if not outright wrong) to put God into a box. It is impossible to describe the infinite in finite terms. So understand I am not trying to delineate the edges of the box, rather it is my attempt to say, “Here is what we do know about the deity of Christ. Please understand that our knowledge is imperfect, and our understanding of the topic is imperfect, but we present it as best we can so as to improve your knowledge and understanding.”
I will move a form of your comments into the main section of the post.
Mike
Jan 16, 2009 at 1:49 pm
But, we err in our thinking even if we go so far as to say that “Jesus is the savior” to the exclusion of the Father and the Spirit. All three persons are involved in every work of the Triune Godhead or we have created modes of existence. My objection to the river analogy is, in essence, that it assumes too much distinction between the three persons…the part of the river that is the source is not also the part that is the delta but the Spirit is as much the Creator or the Redeemer as the other persons.
Jan 16, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Josh,
I agree with you totally. I think we are starting to jump ahead a bit. For example when I talk about Salvation, I want to show how both Son and Father are called Saviour. (Notice the extra “U” in Canadian English). Their role in salvation is quite different though… but we will get there eventually.
Still don’t fully get your river concerns. The source is not the delta, and is not the meandering middle, but both are involved in bringing life to a parched land. Just like the Spirit, is not the Father, and is not the Son, but all are involved in bringing Salvation life to us.
Jan 16, 2009 at 2:08 pm
My issue isn’t a big one–it’s largely semantic–but I think that the river analogy (though one of the better analogies I’ve heard) tends to suggest too much distinction between the coequal and perichoretic persons of the Triune God. I look forward to new parts of the series–I’ve not had a real in depth discussion of Trinitarian theology since div school.
Jan 16, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Perichoretic??? You get a virtual slap on the wrist, for using an obscure term without explaining it! For the rest of us, perichoretic has to do with the interdependence and intertwining of the Trinity. When posting about the interdependence of the Trinity I will post a graphic that helps illustrate it.
Jan 16, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Oops. Like I said, it’s been a while since one of these Trinity discussions and sometimes those seminary words sneak into otherwise regular speech.
My apologies–whom should I speak to about penance?
Jan 17, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Jan 19, 2009 at 2:04 pm
What a thorny topic. Personally I don’t put a lot of importance on subjects that require so much explaining. Not that I’m against explaining them, I always enjoy speculation on difficult matters, but I don’t think they matter toward salvation. I found reading Plato, Philo of Alexandria, and a few other Helenistic philosophers helpfull. They set up the frame work for formulating the Trinity. I don’t think anyone will fully explain or define the roles of the beings in the trinity. It is a simpler idea though than the Kabalaist Tree of Life, I think that one has like 12 persons.
Jan 19, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Hi Mike,
As we go through the series, especially towards the end, we will explain the importance of it.
Mike Bell
Jan 19, 2009 at 10:09 pm
I like the triangle chart thing. that is helpful. I have preached the h2o analogy cynthis mentioned. I use a pitcher of water a block of Ice and a steam iron. People said it helped. I am looking forward to the series!
Jan 22, 2009 at 10:29 am
[...] back to our triangle diagram and imagine that the only part of the diagram that you can see is the part that says [...]