Our Missionary God and Our Mission
God incarnated Himself. Became poor, despised. God is the ultimate missionary. He Himself who is the good news, brought good news.
If we are going to be “missional,” i.e. intentionally evangelistic, we must focus on and learn from God the Great Missionary. God’s love is unrelenting and displayed through a vast array of means. It is tangible. It cares. It comes to us. It gives. God’s love is present, active, premeditated.
God’s mission is not disconnected from who He is but expressive of who He is. God’s character, in Christ, literally bled out. God’s missionary heart is not forced but fundamental. God is a God who calls, reaches, and loves the unloving; and He always has been.
We cannot expect our hearts to overflow with missional love unless we meditate on God’s love that we see expressed through the Scriptures. For the good news of Christ to overflow out of our hearts it must daily be in our hearts as good news. We don’t want the gospel and a life of love to be forced, we want it to be so natural that it pours out. We don’t just need our actions to change, we need our character to change. We need to be different. We need to care in ways that we don’t care. We want to intentionally share, not mainly because we have to but because we want to.
We must regularly challenge ourselves by the active nature of mission. God did something. He was not passive. He came. He had a plan (since before the foundation of the world) and He executed it. It cost Him but He carried it out. He opened wide His arms and welcomed in the unloving and hateful world as He hung stretched out on the tree.
We too must be active. We too must enter the world in tangible and intentional ways. We must have a plan and execute it; even if it costs us.
We are ambassadors for Christ, God makes His appeal through us. God speaks through us! So we must implore people on behalf of Christ to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20).
Sin is Not Good #7 (but Jesus is)
Sin’s Solution
In the book of Genesis we read of societal progress. There are advances in technology and the arts. Yet, the problem remains: We have sinful hearts. Thus relationships and truly the world remain fractured. Like humpty dumpty; we can’t put it back together again. The answer to my problem, humanities problem, and the world’s problem is external to us.
One would think that
“Auschwitz destroyed… the idea that European civilization at least was a place where nobility, virtue and humanizing reason could flourish and abound… It seems remarkable that the belief in progress still survives and triumphs… People still continue to this day to suppose that the world is basically a good place and that its problems are more or less soluble by technology, education, ‘development’ in the sense of ‘Westernization.’”[i]
However, today’s problems, like that of all history past, is not solved by advances in technology or even any sort of knowledge or morality. It is solved by a Savior. It is Messiah Jesus that will once and for all eradicate sin and suffering (see e.g. Rom. 11:26-27; Heb. 12:23; 1 Jn. 3:2; Rev. 3:12; 21:1-8, 27; 22:3).
When we control the measures to make a utopian society the way we think it should be, it fails. Whether we control “the stirrings” (e.g. The Giver), emotions (e.g. Equilibrium), everything (e.g. The Lego Movie), or the socioeconomic structure (e.g. The Hunger Games) the result is not paradise; it’s a sort of hell, at least for many. We messed up utopia, we can’t with our fallible minds design a new one. Only our Lord can. He has the only infallible and incorruptible mind. He perfectly balances justice and grace. And He alone can make us and all things new.
So the recent movie and classic The Giver does more than entertain. It teaches us a profound truth, one we would do well to remember: There is no utopian society outside of Christ. We can’t fix it. There have been many botched attempts throughout history. They lay died with their victims.
“Everything is awesome. Everything is cool when you’re part of a team…” As catchy as The Lego Movie song is, it is not exactly right. Everything is not awesome, not yet. However, it will be. But not from our own doing (Notice I am not saying we shouldn’t work for social justice. We should! Yet, it will not bring the ultimate and forever peace that we long for.).
Heaven comes down (Rev. 21:2). We don’t, nor can we, build it here. I am with you and Miss America in saying I desire world peace, yet it won’t ultimately come until our Lord does. When our Lord comes He will wipe away all evil, pain, and tears, not some charismatic leader or government (Rev. 21:1ff). Jesus will make all things new. Jesus will bring utopia.
Maranatha! Come Lord Jesus, come!
Sin is not good. But Jesus is. He will bring the shalom we all desire. Live for Him.
___________________________
[i] N.T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God, 22-23.
The Church is a Place for Outcasts
The church is a gathering of the redeemed. We are made holy. We were not innately holy. The church is a place where those who know they are sick come to the Great Physician (cf. Lk. 5:31). The church is a monopoly of outcasts. It is filled with struggling ex-thieves, ex-drunkards, ex-adulterers, and ex-revilers (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9-11).
The church is (or should be!) a welcoming place for all because we have all been welcomed at Jesus’ own expense. Colossians radically says that in the church “there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all” (Col. 3:11). Who am I, who are you, to say or act any differently?!
True that it may be, the fact that the church is a place for outcasts is not easy. It brings with it, as you can imagine and know, a whole host of problems. So, what can sustain us through the difficulties? Where do we see the type of compassion we need to welcome the outcasts—the people that are not like us and do not think and smell like us—into the church?
What example do we have of compassion? What biblical model can we think of? None other than Jesus Himself! Jesus had abundant riches in heaven yet He left heaven for us and became poor that through His poverty we might become rich (2 Cor. 8:9). In Philippians, we are told to look not only to our own interests, but also the interests of others (2:4). Why should we do this? Because Jesus, who is God, humbled Himself and took the form of a servant to die for us (vv. 6-8). Our attitude should be the same as Christ Jesus’ (v. 5).
We know from the Gospels that Jesus had compassion on people.[i] He was even criticized by the religious leaders of the day because of the type of people that He reached out to and helped (cf. Matt. 9:9-13; 11:19; 21:31-32; Mk. 2:15-17; Lk. 3:12-14; 5:29-32; 7:36-50; 15; 19:1-10 for example). He ate with tax collectors even though they would cheat and steal from people (Matthew, who wrote the Gospel of Matthew, was previously a tax collector [Matt. 9:9-13]!). He talked to Gentiles who were basically unacceptable foreigners to many people. Jesus ministered to prostitutes and the friends that were closest to Him were not the religious elite but humble smelly fishermen. If we are to minister compassionately, we must imitate Jesus.
He reached out and literally touched lepers (Matt. 8:2-4; Mark 1:40-44; Lk. 5:12-16). Lepers were people with a severe skin disease. They had to call out “unclean, unclean” when they saw people (cf. Lev. 13:45-46), and Jesus touched them! When Jesus walked up to, let alone talked to and touched, the leper, His followers, to say nothing of the religious leaders, would have been shocked, scandalized.[ii] Yet, what is Jesus’ response? Did He turn away? Did He tell the leper to stay back? No. Jesus was filled with compassion (Mark 1:41).[iii] He cared for the outcast. He loved the unlovely even when it was the unpopular thing. Loathsome leprosy is not beyond Jesus’ loving touch.
Think of the biggest outcasts in today’s society—whether to you its addicts, illegal immigrants, poor people, unattractive people, those who have AIDS, so-called “white trash,” or whoever you think of—they are not outcasts to Jesus. He loves them. He reaches for them. No one is past His reach. No one is too sick for Him.
The most significant lesson from the cleansing of the leper story is that even outsiders can experience God’s healing grace. The church is called by this example to reach out to those on the fringes of society. Leprosy in its time was seen as reflecting the presence of sin, so reaching out to sinners is pictured here… Jesus came to save people from sin, any sin, no matter how serious. So the ministry of compassion he reveals here should be matched by the church’s efforts with those that most of society have given up on.[iv]
It is the very essence of Christianity to touch the untouchable, to love the unlovable, to forgive the unforgivable. Jesus did and so must we.
So, are you reaching? If we define lepers as those who are isolated, unwanted, the outcasts of society then who are the “lepers” who live around you today? Who are the “lepers” in your sphere of influence?
As we seek to minister compassionately, we must remember the gospel. We must understand that “none is righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10 and see following), and this includes you, me, and the addict. All have sinned and are declared righteous by God’s grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:23). In fact, the Bible says we were all once vile sinners, a.k.a. addicts, but we have been washed, made holy, and declared righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9-11).
The ground is level at the foot of the cross. We may not have the same addiction, i.e. sin problem, but we all have the sin problem. No, all sin does not look the same and does not have the same consequences (cf. 1 Cor. 6:18; Prov. 5:7-14) but it is all sin against a holy God. May we realize that we ourselves are sinners, even “the chief of sinners,” and say with Paul, “by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10). May we not be like the prideful Pharisee that puts himself over others (Lk. 18:11 cf. 13-14).
The loving and reaching grace of our humble and exalted Lord should create new Kingdom communities that transform. Even now the Lord is recreating (of course, there is an “already/not yet” aspect to it).[v]
It is my prayer that we, as the church, would be more and more laid low by the profound reaching grace of God. God pulled us out of the slew of our sin. He pulled us out of death. We were helpless, lifeless. He saved us. May we understand and be humbled by Jesus’ saving work on our behalf and may we reach out as He did; in selfless humble love. We are not better or more righteous than others. We are saved. Saved by grace. We are outcasts that have been gathered for the wedding feast. We have even been given wedding garments. On our own, all of us, would be cast out on our own. Yet, through Christ we are all welcomed.
When we understand this, when the humbling grace of God courses through the veins of the church, it has a healthy symbiotic effect. It creates welcoming and upbuilding communities.
________________________________________________
[i] Eric L. Johnson has similarly pointed out that “scriptural teaching leads us to infer that God is especially committed to those who have psychological damage and desirous of improving their well-being (Mt 9:11-13; 11:19; 18:6; Lk 6:20; 1 Cor 1:26-28; 2 Cor 4:7; Jas 2:5)” (Foundations of Soul Care, 473).
[ii] “Jesus’ gesture made clear that he was not concerned with others’ taboos and dramatically demonstrated that God’s love extends to even the most outcast of society” (Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew in The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (Nashville: Boardman Press, 1992), 139).
[iii] B.B. Warfield points out that compassion is the attribute that is most often used to describe Jesus in the Gospels (The Person and Work of Christ [Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950], 96-97).
[iv] Darrell L. Bock, Luke in The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 165.
[v] “Shame… fosters an avoidance of self-examination and the assumption of responsibility, fear of others and of ‘being exposed,’ defensiveness and aggressive anger; it keeps people from reaching out to others… The revelation of God’s grace and mercy, his love for sinners and the broken and hurting, can therefore be profoundly encouraging and hope-giving. Direct experiences of God’s grace in the gospel can lead to reconfiguration of one’s self-representations, and one’s view of others and the world, and can facilitate a growing honesty and openness with God, oneself, and others, and so can help Christians become more willing to take risks with others” (Eric L. Johnson, “How God is Good for the Soul” in SBJT 7/4 [Winter 2003]: 33). He goes on, “People who are especially burdened by their guilt and shame can become especially transformed by God’s mercy, grace, and forgiveness. In fact, the greater the sense of shame, the greater can be the eventual sense of gratitude and affection to God” (Luke 7:47)” (Ibid.).
The Shape and Reshaping of Paul’s Understanding of the Messiah (and it’s significance)
First, it is important that we spend some time looking at Phariseism because whatever is said about it will affect what we say about Paul.[1] We can see from the NT witness as well as other texts that Pharisees held considerable influence.[2] Inevitably, Paul was shaped greatly by his Pharisaic training.[3]
Before Paul’s conversion (when he was still known as Saul) he thought of Jesus in light of Deuteronomy 13:1-5. He thought that Jesus was a deceiver that was leading people astray (cf. Jn. 7:12, 32, 47; 9:22; 16:2). Jesus claimed to be something He was not thus He deserved to be killed. Paul thought that anyone that followed after Him likewise “shall be put to death” (Deut. 13:5). Jesus’ followers were in Paul’s mind saying, “Let us go after other gods” (v. 2). He took it upon himself to “purge the evil from [the] midst” (v. 5) of God’s people. Paul was convinced that he “ought to do many things in opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 26:9) even though it was against his teachers’ advice (5:33ff).
He likely thought that Jesus was a false prophet or dreamer like Theudas (Acts 5:36), the Egyptian (Ant. 20.169-172; J.W. 2.261-263; Acts 21:38),[4] or Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37). When Paul saw Stephen preaching about Jesus “he realized that the new movement was dangerous as well as blasphemously ridiculous.”[5] Paul, in persecuting “the Way” (Acts 16:17; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22;), saw himself as “offering service to God” (Jn. 16:2).
Surely a crucified man could not be the Messiah (Deut. 21:22-23 cf. Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:24).[6] Plus, the expectation was a king in the vein of David. A Yehoshu’a that defeats Israel’s enemies not a Yehoshu’a that will be defeated by dying upon a tree. In Paul’s day “Messianic expectation married social discontent. The result was the offspring of anticipation and action.”[7] Not surprisingly many lacked the interpretive key to understand that the Davidic King would also be the Suffering Servant. That key would not come until the Christ Himself revealed it on the Emmaus road (Luke 24). It was not until after Paul received this interpretive key that he knew that Jesus was the true and better Prophet than Moses (Deut. 18:15-22). Jesus had proved Himself by raising from the dead (v. 22). Paul knew that if he did not obey the LORD it would be required of him (v. 19).
Before Paul understood the Kingdom of God was at hand he sought to bring it in with his own hands. He hunted the Crucified One’s followers like animals (Acts 8:1 note διωγμὸς; 22:4 says “to the death;” v. 19 says he even “beat” people), though he likely thought of them as lower than animals. He did all he could to bring havoc on the church (8:2) despite Gamaliel’s advice against such action (Acts 5:34-39; cf. Aboth 4.11). In this Paul acted more in the Shammaites vein than that which he was reared under Gamaliel in the Hillel brand of Pharisaism.[8]
Pharisaism was very influenced by Nehemiah and the reforms that were sought in that book (cf. esp. chs. Neh. 8-13). For instance, Sabbath keeping was very important for Pharisees, and Nehemiah says that wrath was coming upon Israel because they were profaning the Sabbath (Neh. 13:18) and in general the Law that God had given His people. Thus “the Way’s” (cf. Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22 for “the Way”) emphasis on “the Lord’s Day” (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Rev. 1:10) as opposed to the Sabbath would have also been abhorrent to Pharisaism (Matt. 12:2; Lk. 14:3; Jn. 5:10 cf. Neh. 9:14; 10:31; 13:15-22). It appears that the Pharisees wanted to put into practice the principles laid out especially in Ezra-Nehemiah to bring about a lasting kingdom. The Pharisees like those in Ezra-Nehemiah realized that what had happened to them was a result of their evil deeds and great guilt (Ezra 9:13; Neh. 9:26-27 cf. Deut. 28:15-68; 29:16-28; 31:16-21, 27, 29), and so they covenanted and obligated themselves (cf. Ezra 10:3; Neh. 9:38; 10:29, 32, 35) so that they would stop repeating the cycle of entropy that they were so accustomed to (cf. Neh. 9).[9] They needed the circumcision of the heart, the giving of the Holy Spirit, that only Jesus could bring, though they did not know it (cf. Is. 32:14-16; 44:3; Ezek. 36:26:27; 11:19-20; Jer. 31:33; Joel 2:28; Matt. 3:11; Acts 2:17; Gal. 3:14).
A crucified man from Nazareth did not at first fit Paul’s description of the Messiah,[10] let alone his understanding of monotheism. Paul would have related to Peter when he said, “Far be it from me Lord” that you should suffer (Matt. 16:22 cf. 2 Sam. 7:13, 16; 1 Chron. 17:14; 22:10; Ps. 89:4, 29, 36-37 110:4; Is. 9:7; Ezek. 37:25). Paul with Peter and many others were looking for the One that would deliverer them from oppression, not be delivered into oppression (see again the confusion of the time in John 12:32-34 cf. 3:14; 8:28). Even Simeon saw “the consolation of Israel” and it was revealed to him by the Spirit that Jesus was the Christ (Luke 2:25-26), yet he would not have thought that “salvation” (v. 30) and glory to Israel (v. 32) would have came through the Messiah being cut off.
Thus, in light of Paul’s background, it is very significant that Paul’s vision of the Christ was so radically reshaped. A huge paradigm shift had taken place in his life and view of everything. Paul went from persecuting the people of the “the way,” those who follow Jesus, to following alongside them and eventually leading the charge, yet he had to truly “count the cost.” Paul honestly suffered the loss of all things, and counted them a worthless trash, in order that he may gain Christ.
Paul, in space in time, was transformed by his risen Lord and King. He went from persecutor to persecuted. He went from confining those who confessed Jesus as Lord to preaching nothing but Christ and Him crucified. Once Paul was convinced, he reasoned with others that “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3-4[11]). So “Jesus Christ’s resurrection,” for Paul, “represents the hinge of history.”[12] In Jewish thought resurrection is the precursor of the age to come. “Hence, Jesus’ resurrection signaled that the new age has come. God’s saving promises are being realized.”[13]
Significance Paul saw the risen Lord Jesus. Paul, a persecutor of the Church, ended up leading various churches. Paul, who would have known if the whole thing was a hoax, died for His Lord Jesus.
The resurrection happened.
It changed everything for Paul.
Has it changed everything for you?
______________________________________________
[1]N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God vol. 1 in Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 181.
[2]Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 181.
[3]cf. Ibid., 182. Later Wright says that the Pharisee’s “goals were the honour of Israel’s god, the following of his covenant charter, and the pursuit of the full promised redemption of Israel” (Ibid., 189). We see from the NT that this begins to come to fruition in Jesus’ inauguration of the Kingdom of God yet there is a “not yet” aspect to the Kingdom.
[4]See Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 202.
[5]F.F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame vol. 1 in The Advance of Christianity Through the Centuries F.F. Bruce gen. ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), 83. See Don N. Howell Jr., “Mission in Paul’s Epistles: Genesis, Pattern, and Dynamics” 63-91 in Mission in the New Testament: An Evangelical Approach William J. Larkin, Joel F. Williams eds. (New York: Orbis Books, 1999), 68. Also, N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 327-28.
[6]cf. Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s in Christ: A Pauline Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2001), 75. Truly, “a crucified Messiah was a contradiction in terms for the Jews” (Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008], 292). Paul himself was among the rulers that “did not recognize him,” the Messiah, nor what the prophets said regarding Him (Acts 13:27). Yet he later was enlightened to the fact that the Scriptures were fulfilled (v. 27b) when Jesus was condemned, i.e. “cursed,” on a tree (v. 29 see also vv. 30-39). Also, Loren T. Stuckenbruck after examining the relevant apocalyptic and early Judaism literature says, “messianic speculation varied from author to author and even within the documents themselves” (“Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism” 112 in The Messiah in the Old and New Testament (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007), 90-13.
[7]David P Seemuth, “Mission in the Early Church” in Mission in the New Testament, 51.
[8]See John B. Polhill, Paul and His Letters (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1999), 30.
[9]Moses knows that Israel is going to turn away from LORD (Deut. 28:15-68; 29:16-28; 31:16-21, 27, 29), and says that the ultimate curse will be exile however after exile will come covenant renewal and the perfect keeping of the Torah (30:1-10) (Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 261). “Covenantal ideas were therefore fundamental to the different movements and currents of thought within second-temple Judaism” (Ibid.). “It was the covenant that drove some to ‘zeal’ for Torah, others to military action, others to monastic-style piety” (Ibid., 262).
[10]Martin Hengel says, “A crucified messiah, son of God or God must have seemed a contradiction in terms to anyone, Jew, Greek, Roman or barbarian, asked to believe such a claim, and it will certainly have been thought offensive and foolish” (Crucifixion John Bowden trans. [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977], 10) as Paul himself later would say (1 Cor. 1:18, 23). See also Ibid., 61-62, and esp. 89. Justin Martyr Apology I ch. 13. Also the Alexamenos graffito shows how foolish many thought it was to worship one that had been crucified. The graffiti depicts a Christian worshiping an image of a man on a cross with a donkey head.
[11] Acts 9:22; 13:16ff; 16:13; 17:3, 17; 18:4-5, 19; 19:8ff; 24:25; 26:6, 22-26; 28:23, 31 cf. 18:28; from the beginning of the church preaching and teaching was integral 2:42. Hengel rightly says Paul considered the “Jewish-Messianic message and its concomitant scriptural evidence… quite important from the very beginning” (Marten Hengel, “Paul in Arabia” Bulletin for Biblical Research 12.1 [2002], 59). Also, in Luke’s “orderly account” that he wrote to Theophilus so that he may have “certainty” (Luke 1:3), he said that Jesus “presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs” (Acts 1:3). I. Howard Marshall sees the spread of the message of Jesus the Christ as the main story-line that the book of Acts is concerned with (Acts, 26).
[12] Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 292 see also 853.
[13] Ibid.
The Tri-unity of God
Introduction
What does the word “Trinity” mean? And do we even see the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament? Or did it just burst upon the scene with the arrival of Jesus? We will see the answers to these questions, and many more below, but first, why is understanding the doctrine of the Trinity important?
It is important because a biblical understanding of the Trinity keeps us from all sorts of unhealthy, unsound, and damaging teaching. It helps us be able to dialogue with Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, and Mormons; all of which have divergent views on the doctrine of God.[1]
Further, as we study the doctrine of the Trinity we realize the fact that God is triune has huge implications. We can know God because He has revealed Himself to us. We do not merely know that He’s out there, He’s came here. Jesus exegetes God to us. God has tabernacled among us in Jesus. In Jesus, we see the exact image of God (homoousios). Through the Spirit, we know God because the Spirit gives us His word. However, that is not it. The Spirit of God draws us to Himself. And, wonder of wonder, the Spirit dwells in us! The triune nature of God is very important because it is through the (economic) work of the Trinity that we come to know God.
The triune nature of God is essential to our faith and our salvation. Without the unified work of the three Persons in the one God we would be forever damned. We need a perfect wrath absorbing sacrifice. We need “the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God” (Heb. 9:14).
The triune nature of God shows that He is relational, loving, self-giving, and personal. God is not just some distant cosmic force. He has personhood. He has existed in all eternity past in loving relationship, odd to say, with Himself. God actually and amazingly calls us to join in that relationship with Him. He recreates us in His image and welcomes us as His sons and daughters. God welcomes us through communion, and all it represents, to have communion with Himself. God sent His Son, poured out His blood, and His Spirit, in order to welcome us to the feast where we, the Church, shall be His bride. We shall be in a consummated covenant relationship with the King where the story will have an eternal happily-ever-after.
The Trinity also gives fabric and fiber to our human relationships. We have structure and not chaos when we model the Trinity in loving relationship (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 4:4-7).
The Trinity?
The word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible but teaching on the Trinity is. In fact, we see it in the very beginning of the Bible (Gen. 1:1-3; cf. Jn. 1:1-14). “The doctrine of the Trinity teaches both God’s Threeness and his oneness. The adjective triune refers to God as both thee (tri) and one (une).”[2] John Frame says,
“God is one, but somehow also three. This fact is difficult to understand, but it is quite unavoidable in Scripture and central to the gospel. The doctrine of the Trinity attempts to account for this fact and to exclude heresies that have arisen on the subject. Its basic assertion are these: (1) God is one. (2) God is three. (3) The three persons are each fully God. (4) Each of these three persons is distinct from the others. (5) The three persons are related to one another eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”[3]
God is One
Monotheists believe that there is only one God and Christians agree. There is only one God. But the One God is three Persons in one God.
We see that God is one through various passages. The Shema, the Jewish and Christian confession from Deuteronomy 6:4-5 says, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” There are also many other passages that we could look at (e.g. Deut. 4:32-35, 39; 32:39; 1 Kings 8:60; Is. 40:18ff; 44:6-8; 45:5-6, 21-22; 46:9; Mk. 12:29; Jn. 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19).
Christians affirm that there is only one God and that God alone must be worshiped (cf. Matt. 6:24; Mk. 12:29; 1 Cor. 10:19-20). Christians affirm the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Christians affirm this because it is the teaching of the New Testament but, as we will see, it is also in the Old Testament, though perhaps veiled.
So, let’s look at God’s Three in One nature in the Old Testament.
The Trinity in the Old Testament?
Imagine you walk into your house at night, the lights are off and it’s very dark. Is their furniture in your house? Is their fixtures? Pictures on the wall? A TV?
How do you know? You know because you’ve have seen your house in the light. However, if I came into your house in the dark I would have no idea what, where, or if there was anything in your house. Why? Because I have not seen it in the light.
But just because I do not understand the contents of the room does not change the fact that there are things in the room. Correct?
That is the way it is with the Trinity. The prophets, priests, and kings did not see the doctrine of the Trinity with the same light with which New Testament and post-New Testament believers see it. They longed to see it as we do (Matt. 13:17) but they didn’t. However, that does not mean that it was not there. It was there all along.
So, where is the Trinity in the Old Testament?
Plurals
Sometimes in the OT the LORD’s name is in the plural form. So in Genesis 1:26 the LORD says, “Let us make man in our image” (cf. 3:22; 11:7; Is. 6:8). Also “’Elohim usually takes a singular verb, but it takes plural verbs in Genesis 20:13; 35:7; Exodus; Nehemiah 9:18; and Isaiah 16:6.”[4] Of course, as John Frame points out:
“We should not try to derive any precise doctrinal content from these grammatical peculiarities. In every language, plural forms sometimes denote singular realities (like pants in English). I do think it significant, however, that the writers and characters of the Old Testament, emphatic monotheists that they were, do not object to these plural forms or try to avoid them, even though the language offered them alternatives.”[5]
Divine Persons
In the OT there entities that are identified with the LORD. First, the Spirit comes to mind. We see the Spirit in various places in the OT. The Spirit was hovering over the waters at the beginning of creation (Gen. 1:2 cf. Job 26:13). God uses His Spirit to accomplish His purpose (Ps. 33:6). The Spirit enters the prophets and they speak God’s word (e.g. 2 Sam. 23:2; Ezek. 2:2).
Second, we see the angel of the Lord in the OT. There are many legions of angels and they are obviously not all divine (cf. Rev. 19:10; 22:9). Yet, it seems the angel of the Lord is. For example, in Genesis 22:11-12 the angel of the LORD says that “you have not withheld from Me [i.e. God] your son.” The angel in Genesis 31:11-13 identifies Himself as “the God of Bethel.” Further, “In 32:30, Jacob says of the man (called an ‘angel’ in Hosea 12:4) who wrestled with him that ‘saw God face to face, and my life was spared.’”[6] (cf. Gen. 16:13; Ex. 3:2-6; 23:20-22; Num. 22:35 (with v. 38); Judg. 2:1-2; 6:11 (with v. 14).
Third, we see that the promised Messiah is also said to be divine in some passages. From Isaiah we see that the Servant of the Lord is the one that will atone for people’s sin (Is. 52:13-53:12). Yet, Isaiah also teaches us that only God brings salvation (cf. Is. 43:3, 11; 45:15, 21; 49:26; 59:15-20; 60:16; 63:8). The crucifixion, the form of execution that Jesus endured, “more than any other, had associations with the idea of human sacrifice.”[7] Jesus’ followers came to see parallels between His death and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Truly Paul echoes Isaiah 53 (cf. esp. v. 11) in 1 Corinthians 5:21 (see also Matt. 8:17; Luke 22:37; Acts 8:32-33; Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 2:22, 24-25).
So Richard Bauckman has shown that there was room for Jesus in the Divine identity.[8] So, for instance, Isaiah 9:6-7 says: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.” Also see Daniel 7:13-14 (cf. Davidic promises in 2 Sam. 7; 1 Chron. 17).
Psalm 110:1 shows us that “the Old Testament looks forward to a deliverer who is distinct from Yahweh, yet also bear the title of Lord.”[9] Paul, for example, would have looked at Psalm 110:1, one of the most quoted Scriptures in the NT (Matt. 22:44; Mk. 12:36; Lk. 20:42-43; Acts 2:34-35; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:20), and seen that verse 5 says that Adonai (אֲדֹנָ֥י), which was reserved only for deity in the OT, is in fact the Messiah.
Jeremiah 23:5-6 is a very important text for us as well: “’Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness.’”
Our last passage we’ll look at is Isaiah 33:6: “Come near me and listen to this: ‘From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there.’ And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit.” John Frame points out that “the speaker is Yahweh, as the preceding context indicates. But the verse says that Yahweh has been sent by someone else, called ‘the Sovereign LORD,” together with another called ‘his Spirit. From a New Testament vantage point, we can see this as a Trinitarian passage. Interestingly, the following verse adds, ‘This is what the LORD says—your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel”[10] (cf. Ps. 45:6-7; Is. 48:16).
The Trinity in the New Testament?
It is important for us to notice that the “doctrine of the Trinity does not appear in the New Testament in the making, but as already made.”[11] The doctrine of the Trinity is more explicit in the NT then in the OT and it seems to of been more accepted then justification by faith apart from works of the Law. In Paul’s writing for instance he argues against both legalism and license but interestingly no NT writing argues for the Trinity; rather, they suppose a Trinitarian understanding of God. Let’s look at a few texts.
There are a few texts that are explicitly Trinitarian and there are others that are more implicit. We will just look at a sampling of passages.
The classic Trinitarian text comes from Matthew 28:19. We are told to baptize “in the name [singular] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The baptism of Jesus is also a very important and popular text: “when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.’” Here we see God the Father (the first Person of the Trinity) speak to the Son (the second Person of the Trinity) and the Spirit descending (the third Person of the Trinity).
Jesus is God
We see the Trinity very clearly in the High Priestly Prayer of John 17. We see the Trinity in the birth narratives. “Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35) and thus comes to be ‘God with us’ (Matt. 1:23), ‘the Son of God’ (Luke 1:35).”[12] We see that the Spirit of the LORD was upon the Messiah to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor (cf. Is. 61:1-2; Luke 4:18-19). We see the Trinity in Peter’s sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:33, 38-39). We see the Trinity explicitly in Paul’s closing in the Corinthians: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:14).
We could also look at the use of the word Lord (kyrios) for Jesus when it communicates that He is LORD (e.g. Matt. 21:16/Ps. 8:2; 1 Cor. 1:31/Jer. 9:24). We could look at the Gospel of John’s “I AM” statements (cf. Ex.3:14/Jn. 4:24 “I am [ego eimi], who speaks to you”). See especially John 8:56-58.
The fact that Jesus is God was not only realized very early by the Early Church but articulated very early. So Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50-117) said in his Letter to the Ephesians, “Our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit” (18.2 cf. 19.3; Letter to the Romans, 3.3; Letter to Polycarp, 3.2). Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69-155) said may “the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth…, and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead (Philippians, 12.2). Justin Martyr (100-165) said “Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God” (Dialogue with Trypho, 128) and he said that he would “prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts” (Dialogue with Trypho, 36).
So to conclude our brief survey:
“The most concise, and arguably most fundamental summary of Old Testament teaching is ‘Yahweh is Lord.’ But the New Testament, over and over again, represents Jesus as Lord in the same way that the Old Testament represents Yahweh as Lord. The most fundamental summary of New Testament teaching is, ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’ (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11)” (DG, 650).
The Spirit is God
It says in Acts 5:3-4 “Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit…you have not lied to men but to God.’” Thus, we see that the Holy Spirit is God the third person of the Trinity. Also we see that the Holy Spirit is not some impersonal force but is rightly understood as the third person of the Trinity. The Spirit has personhood, the Spirit can be lied to; one cannot lie to impersonal objects or forces. We also see the Spirit’s personhood in that He teaches (Jn. 14:26), can be blasphemed (Matt. 12:31-32), comforts (Acts 9:31), speaks (Acts 28:25), can be grieved (Eph. 4:30), can be resisted (Acts 7:51), and helps us in our weakness (Rom. 8:26).
Further, as we have briefly seen, Jesus was conceived by (Matt. 1:18, 20; Lk. 1:35), empowered by (e.g. Is. 11:1-2; Acts 10:38), and resurrected by (e.g. Rom. 1:4) the power of the Spirit. The Spirit is also a creating Spirit. In the beginning we see “the Spirit hovering over the waters.” So we see God the Father creates (e.g. Gen. 1:1), the Son creates (e.g. Jn. 1:1-3), and the eternal Spirit also creates (Gen. 1:2; Heb. 9:14). The Spirit also re-creates and brings new life (Jn. 6:63). Regarding the deity of the Holy Spirit we could look at many other texts (cf. Is. 61:1; 63:10; Mt. 12:28; 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:11; Matt. 28:19; Lk. 11:13; Jn. 14:26; 15:26; Rom. 8:26-27; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:1-2).
So we see that Scripture teaches us that there are three persons—Father (e.g. Gen. 1:1), Son (e.g. Col. 1:17; Heb. 2:3), and Holy Spirit (e.g. Heb. 9:14)—in the one God (e.g. Deut. 6:4). So Ephesians 4:4-6 says, “There is one body and one Spirit – just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call – One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”
Is the Trinity a Logical Contradiction?
When understood aright, the tri-unity of God really becomes an apologetic point. Because apart from divine foreclosure, how would Jews claim God is triune, three in one? Yet, from the beginning Christians were teaching this. Of course, we’ve seen that the tri-unity of God is in the Old Testament, though in veiled form.
So the Trinity, far from defeating Christianity, is actually an argument in its favor. Something hugely significant had to happen for Jews to start expounding their Monotheism in a Trinitarian way (this is to say nothing of the Sabbath, etc.). Christ clearly showed Himself to be God and promised His followers that they would receive power from on high, the Spirit that had already empowered the prophets of old.
The Trinity isn’t a contradiction or illogical, though it is without precedent. We can talk about three leaf clovers, the three forms of water, and the three-headed dog, Cerberus, which guards hades gate but all these analogues fall short.[13] However, just because something is unprecedented or we don’t understand it doesn’t at all mean something isn’t so. Black holes, for instance, are certainly a mystery but that doesn’t invalidate them.
Light is a helpful example for us. Significantly light has paradoxically been explained by scientists and theorists alike as both a wave and a particle (wave-particle duality). It is not claimed that this is completely understood but it is nevertheless believed. Thus Albert Einstein said, “It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.” So scientists believe and claim things that they don’t fully understand, things that are shrouded in mystery, regarding the natural universe (resonance structures); so who are we to deny mystery when it comes to the supernatural God?!
The person going to a new land for the first time expects to see new things yet they don’t know what and they don’t expect they’ll understand it all. Who are we to look at God any differently? Is it not the height of folly and arrogance to think this way? We realize that there are unprecedented and unclear things that we will see when visiting a new land and culture yet we think we can know what to expect and determine with God? Who are we to say that God cannot be three in one? Are we in the place to judge God? Surely we are not! We can’t or shouldn’t even judge cultures we don’t understand.
A. W. Tozer has said, “Some persons who reject all they cannot explain have denied that God is a Trinity. Subjecting the Most High to their cold, level-eyed scrutiny, they conclude that it is impossible… These forget that their whole life is enshrouded in mystery.”[14] So Albert Einstein has reportedly said:
“We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand those laws.”[15]
We only see dimly. Who are we to say that it is illogical for God to be three in one? Further, it should not surprise us that God would be past finding out (cf. Deut. 29:29; Job 9:10; 36:26; Is. 55:9; Rom. 11:33; 1 Cor. 13:9). He is God. He has created the vast universe that we cannot begin to fathom.
Paul Copan, Professor of Philosophy at Palm Beach Atlantic University, has pointed out that
“while God is one, three self-distinctions exist within the Godhead… Three and one aren’t in contradiction here; to be in conflict, the same category or relationship must be involved. But threeness pertains to persons; oneness pertains to God’s nature or essence. There isn’t one divine nature and three divine natures; there aren’t three persons and one person in the Godhead.”[16]
So, “There’s simply no logical contradiction when Christians say, ‘Three persons, one divine nature.’”[17] The Holy Trinity is indeed a mystery but not an incoherent one.”[18]
In a similar way, the theologian Bruce A. Ware has said,
“God is one in essence or nature, but God is three in person. There is no logical contradiction here even if the concept is beyond our complete comprehension. If God were one in essence and three in essence, or if he were one in person and three in person, then we would have a straightforward contradiction. The so-called doctrine of the Trinity, then, would be total nonsense. But this is not the case. Rather, God’s ‘oneness’ and ‘threeness’ are in different respects or senses. He is one in essence, so the essence of God is possessed fully by each member of Trinity. But he is three in person, so the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, although the Father possesses the identically same nature as does the Son and the Holy Spirit.”[19]
The Essence and Roles of the Persons of the Trinity[20]
Within the Trinity, there may be different functions or tasks of each person in the Godhead but they are in no way out of unison. The word Trinity itself means tri-unity; three in unity. The ontological, essence, or being of the Trinity is the same within all three persons, all are fully God. However, Jesus submits Himself to the Father and the Spirit to both the Father and the Son. They in a way function like a great orchestra playing a wonderful musical piece. They all play the right part at the right time and do it in complete harmony for the betterment of the song. The great song that is sung is of God’s glory in the work of redemption.
Ephesians 1:3 says, “Blessed be the God and Father [first person of the Trinity] of our Lord Jesus Christ [second person of the Trinity]” and later in verse 13 it says that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit [third person of the Trinity]. Here we see some of the functions of the Trinity. We are brought to God so that we can behold His glory through Jesus the Son (Heb 10:19) and then the Spirit is given to us as a guarantee of our inheritance. So within the Trinity there is ontological equality but economic subordination.
“From eternity, the triune God has existed. Indeed, the self-sufficient Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit have existed in their free, mutual selfgiving and self-receiving love. Relationship or communion is intrinsic to this “household” (or economy) of divine persons who, though distinct from one another, are inseparably united in other-oriented love. This divine inter- (and inner-) connection of mutuality, openness, and reciprocity has no individualistic competition among the family members but only joy, self-giving love, and transparency. Rather than being some isolated self or solitary ego, God is supremely relational in His self-giving, other-oriented nature. Within God is intimate union as well as distinction, an unbreakable communion of persons. The persons of the Godhead can be distinguished but not separated. God is both community and unity.”[21]
Truly, “The beauty of harmony is a beauty of diversity without discord, of distinctiveness without disarray, of complexity without cacophony.”[22]
So the essence of each person of the Trinity is that they are each fully and eternally God. Yet, they have different functions or roles within the history of redemption. Each person—Father, Son, and Spirit—are all fully God yet they are not the same person. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and so forth. To state it differently: The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God; and yet there is only one God.[23]
Why is Understanding the Trinity Important?
In the introduction I hinted at some of the reasons understanding the Trinity is important. I will give a few more here. First, as I pointed out before, I think the doctrine of the Trinity actually adds to the validity of the Christian faith because the teaching is so unprecedented. The doctrine of the Trinity though true and biblical is not unequivocal. Why would Jesus’ first follows have said He was God and said the Spirit that indwelt them was God unless something very significant happened that would allow them to say such things? It seems then, that though the Trinity is indeed a mystery it is not illogical (as discussed above) and actually helps to validate the unprecedented nature of what happened with Jesus and His first followers.
Second, when we understand that each person of the Trinity is equally, fully, and eternally divine then we will wonder at the work and roles of each person of the Trinity and the perspective roles given to husbands and wives, for example, will be understood and carried out as they should be. The various parts of the body of the church will also be able to function and operate as they are called to without feeling either prideful or belittled. Subordination is not inferiority, it is Godlike.[24] When we understand that the authority-submission structure pictures the Trinity—who is equal ontologically in essence but distinct in roles, then we see that when we chafe at the role of authority and submission within our lives, whether at church or home, at heart, we chafe at the very nature of God Himself.[25]
Third, when we understand the Trinity we will be amazed and humbled by passages like Philippians 2:5-11 and by the fact that the Holy Spirit lives within us (1 Cor. 3:16). When we understand the fellowship within the Trinity it will be a stimulus for fellowship within our church and community. In fact, as Bruce Ware has said, “God intends that his very nature—yes, his triune and eternal nature—be expressed in our human relationships.”[26]
Fourth, we see communities and societies have a deep need for true fellowship all over the globe. This is because we were created in the image of the triune relational God. So Paul Copan says, “Because a relational God exists and chooses to create humans in His image, relationality is central to our identity as humans.”[27] We are the way we are because we are made in the image of the triune relational God. We also see that our relational desires can be meant in God, He existed in mutual loving existence for all eternity past.
Bruce Ware gives Ten Reason to Focus on the Wonder of the Trinity:[28]
- The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the most important distinguishing doctrines of the Christian faith and therefore is deserving of our careful study, passionate embrace, and thoughtful application.
- The doctrine of the Trinity is both central and necessary for the Christian faith to be what it is. Remove the Trinity, and the whole Christian faith disintegrates.
- Worship of the true living God consciously acknowledges the relationship and roles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
- The Christian’s life of prayer must rightly acknowledge the roles of Father, Son, and Spirit as we pray to Father through the Son, in the power of the Spirit.
- The Christian’s growth in Christlikeness or sanctification is rightly understood and enriched when seen as the work of the triune God.
- The triune relationships of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cause us to marvel at the unity of the triune God.
- The triune relationships of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cause us to marvel at the diversity within the triune God.
- The triune relationships of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cause us to wonder at the social relationality of the triune God.
- The triune relationships of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cause us to marvel at the authority-submission structure that exists eternally in the three Persons in the Godhead, each of whom is equally and fully God.
- The doctrine of the Trinity—one God existing in three Persons in the ways we have described—provides one of the most important and neglected patterns for how human life and human relationships are to be conducted.
Further, Bruce Ware says:
“To illustrate the significance of the Trinity of our faith, consider just briefly the relation of the doctrine of the Trinity to the Christian understanding of salvation. In order for us sinners to be saved, one must see God at one and the same time as the one judging our sin (the Father), the one making payment of infinite value for our sin (the divine Son), and the one empowering and directing the incarnate—human—Son so that he lives and obeys the Father, going to the cross as a substitute for us (the Holy Spirit). The Christian God, to be savior, must then be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That is, our salvation comes as the Father judges our sin in his Son, who became incarnate and lived his life in the power of the Spirit as the perfect and sinless God-man, and accomplished his perfect obedience to the Father through the power of the Spirit. Disregard the Trinity and you necessarily undermine salvation.”[29]
Conclusion
The doctrine of the Trinity is important for various reasons. It is important because God is the Lord of all and we are told to know, love, and worship Him. It is important that we know what He is like as far as we are able. When we understand the Trinity, we will wonder at the fact that Jesus reached out to the leper. He, He that eternally was, is, and will be, spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well (this was unprecedented even for a Rabbi in that time as the text shows). We will tremble to think that we are Temples of God, the Spirit dwells in us.
We should wonder at the glorious Trinity, not stand in judgment. Who are we to say that God cannot be three persons in one God? We must throw our hand over our mouth. We must understand that we cannot understand the incomprehensible.
When thinking of the Trinity far from being puffed up in pride we should explode in benediction: “Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.”
Endnotes
[1] There are a few common divergent views in regard to the Trinity: First, Trithesim is a heretical view of God. Trithesits do not believe in the triune God who is three persons in one God; instead they believe in three different Gods; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Second, Modalism or Sabellianism. Modalists believe that God is not triune but rather that God has come in three different modes or manifestations as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So for the modalists there are not three divine persons but only one divine person. Third, Arianism is a heretical view that holds that Jesus was fully human but not fully God. Rather, they believe Jesus was the highest of all created beings.
[2] John Frame, The Doctrine of God¸ 622.
[3] Frame, DG, 621-22.
[4] Frame, DG, 632.
[5] Frame, DG, 632.
[6] Frame, DG, 634.
[7]Martin Hengel, Crucifixion, 87.
[8]See esp. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008), 19.
[9] Frame, DG, 652.
[10] Frame, DG, 637.
[11] B.B. Warfield, “The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity,” 143 as quoted in DG, 639.
[12] Frame, DG, 639.
[13] “It may be remarked in reference to them all that they are of little value. They do not serve to make the inconceivable intelligible. The most they can do, is to show that in other spheres and in relation to other subjects, we find a somewhat analogous triplicity in unity. In most cases, however, these illustrations proceed on the assumption that there are mysteries in the Godhead which have no counterpart in the constitution of our nature, or in anything around us in the present state of our existence” (Charles Hodge, Sysetmatic Theology, vol. 1, 478).
[14] A. W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, 23.
[15] From an interview with Albert Einstein published in G.S. Viereck, Glimpses of the Great, (New York: Macauley, 1930).
[16] Paul Copan, “Is the Trinity a Logical Blunder? God as Three in One,” 211 in Contending with Christianitys Critics.
[17] Ibid., 213.
[18] Ibid., 215. “Christians have long pondered the mystery of the Trinity, and we’re not here trying to demystify the God whose nature and purposes can’t be reduced to tidy formulas or manageable boxes. We should celebrate the unfathomable God, who’s under no obligation to human demands to clarify everything about Himself (Deut 29:29). And why think our puny minds could grasp these “secret things” (NASB) anyway? Paul reminds us that we know partially and lack the clarity about God’s nature and ways (1 Cor 13:9; cf. Isa 55:9). “The great things of the gospel” (as theologian Jonathan Edwards put it) are astonishing, but mystery or partial knowledge doesn’t imply contradiction.” (Ibid., 210).
[19] Bruce Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 41.
[20] In some discussions this would be classified as a discussion on the Economic Trinity and Ontological/Immanent Trinity. The economic Trinity has to do with the manifestations of the persons of the Trinity in their unique roles in dealing with creation and particularly in redemption. The ontological/immanent Trinity has to do with the essence of and interworking of the triune God without reference to God’s dealing with creation. So, as we have seen, discussions of the economic Trinity have to do with the different roles of the persons in the Godhead. Whereas, discussions of the ontology of the Trinity have to do with the fact that each person of the Godhead is ontologically equal and divine and relates to the others in mutual love.
[21] Paul Copan, “Is the Trinity a Logical Blunder? God as Three and One,” 209.
[22] Bruce Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance, 135.
[23] So Paul Copan says, “God is one immaterial soul (substance) with three distinct centers of consciousness, rationality, will, and agency (persons) who are deeply and necessarily interconnected, and they share the same unique divine nature” (“Is the Trinity a Logical Blunder? God as Three and One,” 209 in Contending with Christianitys Critics Answering New Atheists and Other Objectors).
[24] Ware quotes P.T. Foryth in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance, 81.
[25] Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 73.
[26] Ibid., 132.
[27] Copan, “Is the Trinity a Logical Blunder? God as Three and One,” 209.
[28] Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 15-22.
[29] Ibid., 17.
How is our burden light?
“My yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:30)
“I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing” (Jn. 15:5)
“His commandments are not burdensome” (1 Jn. 5:3)
I don’t want to, as the Pharisees, lay on burdens too hard to bear; especially since I can’t carry them myself. I want us to see that Christ carried our burdens! Christ says His burden is light. John said that Jesus’ “commandments are not burdensome.” Yet, how is this true in light of the all-encompassing call to which He calls us? Does He not tell us to take up our cross and follow Him? How is an instrument of torture light or easy?
Jesus is the image of the glory of God, the exact imprint of His nature; our call to imitate Him is no easy calling. We are to conform our life to His life, and death. So how then could Jesus say, “My yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:30)? It is because it is in Him that we have fulfilled His commandments and it is through Him that we’re empowered to fulfill His commandments. Our burden is light because Christ took our burden. Our burden is light because through Christ we have the Spirit who helps us. In Jesus, we find “rest for our souls” (v. 29)!
We will with Christian of Pilgrim’s Progress, find our yoke easy and our burden light when at the sight of the cross our burden falls off. When we realize that our true burden, namely sin, has been carried for us by none other than Jesus, the Son of God, we will cry out “His commandments our not burdensome!” They are but an overflow of joy. The grace of the call of Christ bursts all bonds of the burden of the Christian life. We do have burdens, you could say, but we carry them now with joy.[1] We carry them knowing Christ carried our sin on the cross!
While we must be faithful to carry our cross, we do so in light of the fact that Jesus died on the cross for us and bore the wrath of God in our place. We carry our cross, yet not to death but to victory! The cross for the Christian is not a sign of death but of victory. We run the race set before us, yes with a limp at times, but the pain flees, as with any runner, as we gaze upon the prize. Life, and even death, has purpose in and for Christ. Yes, there are many commands in Scripture, but they are blessings. They encourage us on towards joyous Christ-like conformity. It is only when we are in Christ that these commands can begin to be truly obeyed.
Many in the Old Testament saw God’s Law as burdensome. How then did David love and delight in God’s Law? It was because God gave David that delight. In the same way when we are in Christ the Spirit comes to reside in us and changes us. We begin to love the things that God loves. His commands become not merely demands but delights to our soul.
We could talk long about the ills of contemporary Christianity, but what is the prescribed cure? Christ is! It is through Christ that we are once-and-for-all holy in our standing before God and it is through Christ that we become holy, i.e. live holy lives. Christ is the cure. Though, that does not mean that the remedy is simplistic. The prescription for the cure has been wrought in Christ, but ultimate healing won’t come this side of Eden.
We have right standing before God in Christ. No, this does not change the fact that we must still conform ourselves (that is, by God’s empowering) to match our position. But we are right before God!
No, you and I do not rightly evangelize but praise God Jesus did, and now, in Him, it is as if we do evangelize rightly. Are we willing to suffer? Christ did suffer for us! Do you spend your time wisely? Jesus always did what pleased the Father! No, brother and sister we don’t measure up. But Christ does! And in Christ we do! In our call to imitate Christ, we are just to imitate our actual standing before God; we are to, paradoxically, be where we already are.
David Platt has rightly said,
“You will never be radical enough. No matter what you do—even if you sell all your possessions and move to the most dangerous country in the world for the sake of ministry—you cannot do enough to be accepted before God. And the beauty of the gospel is that you don’t have to. God so loved you that, despite your hopeless state of sin, he sent his Son—God in the flesh—to live the life you could not live. Jesus alone has kept the commands of God. He alone has been faithful enough, generous enough, and compassionate enough. Indeed, he alone has been radical enough.”[2]
Interestingly, the way of Christ is at the same time impossible (more than just hard) and tremendously easy. We cannot carry the burden, we cannot bear the cross yet that is why the way of Christ is easy. Because we can do nothing. It is all done in Him. Jesus said, “apart from me you can do nothing.” Thus, the call of Christ is paradoxically impossible and easy.
Our burden is light because Christ carried our burden. He carried our cross. As we see from Isaiah 53, Christ has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.
“He was wounded
for our transgression;
He was crushed
for our iniquities;
upon Him was the chastisement
that brought us peace,
and with His stripes
we are healed.”
Verse 11 of this chapter says that the Righteous One, Jesus Christ, will make many to be accounted righteous. We are not innately righteous. We have sinned, we do not rightly live for the Lord, yet we are accounted righteous in Christ. We have fulfilled all righteousness, but not in ourselves, but in Christ!
[1] Paul said he had many difficulties, many burdens, on top of all that he had anxiety for all the churches (2 Cor. 11:28 cf. vv.23-28) yet he also said, “We do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day” (4:16). “For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too” (2 Cor. 1:5). In fact, Paul was burdened to death. He said at one point, “We were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself.” (2 Cor. 1:8). We learn from 2 Corinthians 1:9-10 that at times we have burdens to teach us to rely on Christ, we learn to give Him our burden and find hope in Him. We carry burdens, but it is different now, we have Christ’s comfort abundantly now!
[2] David Platt, Radical Together, 27.
in X 
