JCT-2: God as Three in One

1 John 5:1-12 New International Version (NIV)

5 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept human testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God accepts this testimony. Whoever does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because they have not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Today we continue our sermon series, which I am calling Johnny Cash Theology. The name comes from a conversation I had with my brother a few months ago when we were trying to find something we would both like to listen to on the radio. After going through a few options, we agreed on Johnny Cash, because everyone likes Johnny Cash.

Johnny Cash Theology is my attempt to look at the things that we can all agree on by looking at the things the Church has been saying for the last 2,000 years. Everyone agrees about Johnny Cash, and everyone agrees on these central teachings of the church, the things we might call dogma.

I also introduced you to a graphic when I began this series. This graphic comes from pastor Greg Boyd, who states that we should do theology in concentric circles, like a bullseye. At the center of the target is what is most important to us, that is Jesus. Each circle out gets bigger, includes more topics with more opinions, and is hopefully less important. The next circle out is dogma, the historical teachings of the Church. The next circle is doctrine, the things that divide our denominations from one another. This is where we find things like predestination vs. freewill, and how old a person should be when they are baptized. Finally, the outside circle is labeled “opinion.” This is where we put things that aren’t clearly discussed in the Bible, and we can all have opinions on the matter, but that shouldn’t be something we separate over.

As our guide to Johnny Cash Theology we are referring to the creeds of the early church, particularly the Apostles’ Creed, which was written within the first century of Jesus’s life. Last week we got through the first 12 words of the Apostles’ Creed, just one sentence. This week we are going to cover the entire thing, and then in following weeks we will come back and break these things down further. I want to read the entire creed together this morning, because today’s theme is found throughout this statement of faith. So if you would, please turn to #712 in the Hymnals and read with me:

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

Today we are looking at the Trinity, the Christian teaching that God somehow exists as three persons and one person all at the same time. And because this is Johnny Cash Theology, we aren’t as concerned with how God exists as three-in-one, but that God exists in a triune relationship with god’s self. But, because this is Staunton Mennonite, we also don’t stop with the least common denominator. We are going to spend time digging in to see what beliefs are out there, how people have articulated the Trinity in the past, and I’ll show you why it is impossible to try to define the Trinity without falling into one of the historical heresies.

When we look at the Apostles’ Creed we can see that the phrase “I believe” is stated three times. The format of this creed is trinitarian. One of the main purposes of the Apostles’ Creed is to put forth a statement recognizing all three members of the Trinity as central to the Christian faith. You could argue for the supremacy of God the Father based on the fact that he is mentioned first. Or you could make the opposite argument and state that they saved the best for last, that the Holy Spirit is the most important part of the Godhead. And it is clear that there are more lines dedicated to Jesus than the other members of the Trinity. It wouldn’t be hard to make your argument for the dominance of God the Son.

But if you look at the Apostles’ Creed, there is no argument about the relationships within the Trinity, for which member is the most powerful, or which person came first, or how they came into being. The Apostles’ Creed boils down to a statement that we believe in the three members of the Trinity. Period. Full stop. That’s our Johnny Cash Theology for the day. I believe that God exists as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Have you ever heard people who have been going out for a while say something like, “We need to define the relationship.”? The Apostles’ Creed does just the opposite. There is really no defining of the relationship between the members of the Trinity.

The early church felt that it was necessary to come up with some kind of uniting statement on the three members of the Trinity for one very important and challenging reason: the church didn’t know what to do with Jesus. And as the Bible began to take its current shape, they didn’t know what to do with the increased presence of the Holy Spirit in what we know today as the New Testament. Recall that in the earliest years of Christianity the church was made up mostly of Jewish people who had accepted Jesus as their long-awaited messiah. But Judaism is considered a monotheistic religion. Remember that a part of the Jewish tradition is to repeat the Shema every day, multiple times throughout the day. The Shema says, “Hear, Oh Israel, the Lord is God, the Lord alone.”

And Jesus often made challenging claims, things like, “I and the Father are one,” (John 10:30). And the writings of Paul were saying things like, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,” (Colossians 2:9). Stories from Jesus’s baptism and the Transfiguration included God speaking from heaven, calling Jesus his son, and the Spirit descending upon Jesus like a dove. The prologue to the book of John will tell us that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” (John 1:1). And then later writings, like our scripture for this morning, will try to connect God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in some way. And we cannot forget that in Jesus’s Great Commission, he instructed his disciples, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” (Matthew 28:19).

So what is this growing group of believers from a historically monotheistic religion to do with Jesus?

It has been noted that there are many allusions to the Trinity in what we call the Old Testament, so maybe this wasn’t as foreign as I’m making it sound. I was looking online for some references to the Trinity in the Old Testament, and one website said, “The Trinity is clearly taught in the Old Testament.” To which I responded—while I was all alone in my office—“The Trinity isn’t clearly taught in the New Testament! It is the definition of murky!” But nonetheless, some of the references are interesting.

Many people like to point out the plural language used in Genesis 1. For instance, verse 26a says, “Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness…’” And then in 3:22a, “And the Lord God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.’”

But you may recall a few weeks ago when I looked at the different names used for God, I noted that in Hebrew, there is the generic word “el” that is used for the pantheon of pagan gods. But when the Hebrew people refer to their God, they use the plural, “Elohim.” So I don’t have a problem when people see this as an allusion to the Trinity, but don’t make too much of it. This is the plural of majesty. It is like when the queen of England says, “We are not amused.” This is kind of a case of people finding what they are looking for in the scriptures.

The passage that I find interesting is Genesis 18:1-2, which says, “The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.”

God appears to Abraham as three men. This is what we see depicted in Andrei Rublev’s 15th century painting, often simply called, “Trinity.” Christians like Rublev have understood this visit by three people to be the three members of the Trinity. Do you know who doesn’t believe that? Every Jew and Muslim today. These monotheistic religions think there is a hard line drawn between verse 1 and 2. The Lord appeared to Abraham. Next story, Abraham saw three men standing nearby. And people on both sides of the argument like to point out that in Exodus 33:20, God says to Moses, “You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

But didn’t Abraham…? No!

Surely Abraham didn’t see God directly. God is not a man, nor is God three men. So who is correct? I don’t know, but it is fun to think about. And I do think it is interesting that it was three men who showed up and were guests of Abraham. What I don’t love is when people look for every reference to the number three in the Bible and say that it is clearly a reference to the Trinity. “Look, it talks about three rivers in this part of the Bible. Three, it’s the Trinity!”

No. Don’t over think this. I do think God exists as three beings in one. I don’t think every time the Bible mentions three of something that it is confirmation of the Trinity.

So how do we go about explaining how God exists at three and one? We usually say something that sounds neat, even if it isn’t comprehensible. We say things like “God exists as three distinct persons, yet uniquely united as one.” Or, as the all-knowing Wikipedia says in the opening lines of the entry on Trinity:

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is one God, but three coeternal consubstantial persons or hypostases—the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit—as “one God in three Divine Persons”. The three Persons are distinct, yet are one “substance, essence or nature” (homoousios). In this context, a “nature” is what one is, whereas a “person” is who one is.

Yeah, that was supposed to be helpful.

About the best we can do is offer some kind of metaphor for how God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist as three and one.

The early church leaders gathered for long meetings, such as the Council of Nicea in 325 and the Council of Constantinople in 381, in large part to try to define the relationship of the members of the Trinity. Often, these councils were in response to teachings on the Trinity that they believed to be in error.

Sometimes I half-jokingly say that you cannot try to describe the Trinity without falling into one of these historical Trinitarian heresies. We know these metaphors. The story of the Easter Egg includes a church leader attempting to explain the Trinity by using an egg as a metaphor. The yolk is not the egg, the white and the shell is not the egg. But together, they are and egg, though each is unique in its own way.

That’s called Partialism. It’s a heresy.

Okay, if you don’t like that one, how about water. Water can exist in three common forms: a solid (ice), liquid, and gas (steam). Likewise, God can exist as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

That’s Modalism, or Sabellianism. Modalism was condemned by the Council Constantinople in 381.

How about God is like the sun, and Jesus is like the light, and the Holy Spirit is like the stars?

That’s Arianism, or Subordinationism. This view states that there is one original God who is the source of the other members of the Trinity.

How about the leaves of a three-leaved clover, a shamrock, like St. Patrick used to explain the Trinity when he brought the gospel to Ireland?

That’s partialism again!

There is a really funny video (funny to weirdos like me) on this subject that you can find at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw. I drew a bit from this video because it is spot on! You can’t describe the Trinity in any meaningful way without falling into a traditional heresy. Here’s just a little list of the Trinitarian heresies:

• Modalism/Sabellianism: God exists in different forms at different times.
• Tritheism: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate entities, all made of the same substance.
• Arianism/Subordinationism: traditionally that Jesus, the Word, was the pre-existent deity who created the other members of the Trinity.
• Docetism: Jesus only appeared to be human.
• Ebionitism: Jesus was a charismatic leader, but only human
• Adoptionism: Jesus was born human, but adopted by God the Father at his baptism or resurrection.
• Partialism: each member of the Trinity is a part of God, only together to they constitute God.

When I was studying at Union Presbyterian, I remember taking a class on the theology of Karl Barth. We were looking at Barth’s work on the Trinity, and for some reason I felt it was necessary to share where I came out on the whole matter. I remember my exact words. I said, “I tend to lean Modalism.”

A fun fact is that a few years later I would read those same exact words written by my professor on Facebook when he was asked about the Trinity. He said, “I tend to lean Modalism.”

I close with that story because I have not been able to find a way to articulate a way to look at the Trinity that isn’t a heresy. But we are doing Johnny Cash theology. We can debate all day and night how the members of the Trinity fit together. But Johnny Cash theology isn’t concerned with how the Trinity fits together. Johnny Cash theology simply cares that God exists at three in one.