L.T.

Jeyachandran Reasonable Faith Weekend

April 13-15 2012

Understanding the Trinity

Christianity holds that God is One Divine Being – but He exists in three equally Divine
Persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. How did this ‘complex’ doctrine come about? We
need to consider the following 3 alternatives:

1. Did it come about by theological reflection?

2. Did it come about by philosophical speculation?

3. Or, did it impose itself on the first Christians because of irrefutable historic
encounters?

We conclude the following:

1. The first Christians were Jews and therefore strict monotheists. The Old
Testament was their theological frame of reference. There were difficult passages
- Ps. 45:6,7; 110:1 - which could not be fully understood in the context of the
monotheism of Jewish belief. The OT unequivocally condemned polytheism and
idolatry and did not seem to allow for something is like the doctrine of the
Trinity.

2. Philosophers – Western and Eastern philosophers have struggled to explain the

unity as well as the diversity observable in the world. (In Greek philosophy,
Heraclitus recommended pure diversity; Parmenides, absolute unity; in India,
the corresponding philosophies were espoused by Madhva and Sankara).

3. We shall look at the only remaining alternative – that the doctrine is a

culmination of what happened in three historic encounters of God with his
people over several centuries of human history:

i. Every Jew would have been aware that God had encountered them at
Mount Sinai – he was heard speaking to them in an audible voice
(Exodus 20:18,19).

ii. The first disciples (who were all Jews and Jewesses) encounter
another Person on the dusty streets of Palestine and Jerusalem. If we
had joined them on this journey, we would have noticed several
aspects of this Person Jesus whom we had followed for 31/2 years:

© RZIM (A-P) 2012 1 of 11

L.T. Jeyachandran Reasonable Faith Weekend
April 13-15 2012

About his humanity, there is little doubt – he is tired, hungry, thirsty

and in need of sleep; he shares with us his temptations; he is arrested
and executed on a cross because he is perceived by the religious
leaders of his day to be a troublemaker and a possible rival to their
authority.

But we also observe the fact that Jesus addresses Yahweh as Father –
this actually means that he is equating himself with God (John 5:18)!.

He teaches us to address Yahweh as Father as well, but carefully

excludes himself from praying the prayer that he teaches us
(Matt.6:9a; Lk.11:2a) – he does not seem to be in need of forgiveness of
sins!

At the same time, he exercises the authority to forgive sins (Mk.2:5 ff.).

He makes it clear that his relationship to God, the Father is different

from ours (John 20:17b).

We find Jesus implying, in a number of instances, that the Jewish

Bible – the Old Testament – had predicted his coming rather
accurately.

He speaks authoritatively to a stormy sea and calms it as if he were its

creator (Matt.8:26,27)!

On the third day after his burial, his grave is empty – not really! - his
grave-clothes are found lying undisturbed in the same position as the
body but the body seems to have evaporated without disturbing the
clothes (John 20:5-8)!

When he ascends to heaven (Acts 1:9), he does not disappear in the

three dimensions - ‘a cloud hides him from their sight’!

Conclusion? - This Man Jesus must also be God!

iii. Ten days after the ascension of Jesus, another Person of the Godhead
–the Holy Spirit who fully represents Jesus Christ – confronts the

© RZIM (A-P) 2012 2 of 11

L.T. Jeyachandran Reasonable Faith Weekend
April 13-15 2012

disciples as they wait in the upper room according to the command of

Jesus. As promised by Jesus, this mysterious Person of the Holy Spirit
who was with them will now comes to live in them (John 7:37-39;
14:16,17,23); for the first time in human history, God is experienced
intra-personally - in the person of the believer - through the Person
of the Holy Spirit.

What should the first Christians – all Jews – make of these 3 historical encounters? There
are two alternative possibilities that may have come to their mind:

1. These could be 3 independent ‘Gods’ similar to the ones whom Greeks and
Romans are known to worship;

2. This is one Person playing three different roles.

The early Church rules out these alternatives for the following obvious reasons:

1. The Oneness of God was so fundamental to the Jewish faith and never denied by
Jesus. Besides, a plurality of gods would mean that each of them is finite - these
encounters did not seem to indicate anything of the sort!

2. It was surely not One Person who was playing 3 roles; the disciples heard the
Father speak to the Son; Jesus clearly indicated that he would go to the Father
and send the Spirit. Such language does not even remotely suggest that one and
the same Person is undertaking all 3 roles!

Conclusion? - The eventual articulation and understanding of the Triune Godhead. The
Church wrestles with this mysterious and inescapable reality. The Church thus comes to
recognise that God, as One Being exists in three Divine Persons – Father, Son and Holy
Spirit. This does not mean that God is one in one sense and three in the same sense. That
would have been a direct logical contradiction, thus necessarily false. The Church comes
to recognise that God is Trinity – a word coined to combine the Unity of the Divine
Being with the distinct identities of the Three Persons - that God is One in one sense and
Three in another sense. Specifically, God is One in substance and Three in persons -
colloquially, One What (John 10:30; 17:22) and Three Who’s (e.g., John 16:13). (Again one
must be careful not to give univocal meanings to the terms substance, person, what, and
who.) The Substance or Essence unites the Three; Person is that which distinguishes Them.
Thus the unity of the Trinity does not mean aloneness, nor does the distinction within the

© RZIM (A-P) 2012 3 of 11

L.T. Jeyachandran Reasonable Faith Weekend
April 13-15 2012

Trinity mean dividedness. John as well as other writers of the NT use the masculine gender
(John 16:13) to denote Personality (not sexuality) of the three Persons of the Godhead –
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (The Son, in his Humanity, takes upon himself the
masculine sex as part of his limitations as a human being). John however uses the neuter
gender in John 10:30;17:21,22 to express the oneness of the Essence of the First and
Second Persons of the Trinity through the Third Person of the Trinity.

In what follows, we shall reflect on the implications of these doctrines in 3 areas and
why they are necessary to best explain reality in the following three areas:

1. Ontology – the study of Being.

2. Axiology – the study of Values such as ethics and aesthetics.

3. Epistemology – the study of Knowledge.

The ontological necessity of the Trinity

Ontology is the study of Being. In Romans 1:20, Paul confidently declares that God’s
invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen being
understood from what has been made. In other words, the Being of ultimate reality –
God – can be understood from that of creation. We do not claim that everything about
God can be deduced from a consideration of his creation. But Paul implies that enough
of God can be seen to render humankind without excuse on the day of judgement.

Gen.1 offers the most succinct description of creation. We see a marvellous variety in the
creation account of what has been made. In fact, the diversity of creation extends from
the cosmos of inorganic matter to every detail of organic life – plants, animals, and
human beings. God himself is seen to be separating one reality from another – light from
darkness, waters above the expanse from those below, dry land from the oceans. Please
also note that because God names them as distinct entities, we need to recognise that the
distinctions are not illusory but real. But, we also notice that that there is a unity
underlying this wide diversity. The unity can be seen at several levels – as constituted by
the same physical particles or chemical elements. There is also another kind of unity in
that every item of creation is dependent on another so that they all constitute a whole. In
these days of environmental and ecological awareness, we have come to recognise how
delicately nature is balanced. Unity and diversity in creation reflect the Unity (of
Essence) and Diversity (of Persons) of the Creator! Views of God that deny diversity

© RZIM (A-P) 2012 4 of 11

L.T. Jeyachandran Reasonable Faith Weekend
April 13-15 2012

(Pantheism and Islam) or unity (Atheism and Polytheism) do not have the same
explanatory power as Trinitarian Theism with regard to ontology.

A special instance of Unity in Diversity is the creation of the first man and wife. Gen.1:26
puts it this way – “Let Us make man (singular) in Our image…. and let them (plural)
rule over the fish of the sea….”! While we may try to explain away this grammatical
sleight of hand by saying that the word Man is intended in a generic sense, the context
would not allow it. The man and the woman together would constitute a kind of
oneness (Gen.2:24) that would genuinely reflect the Oneness of the Triune God! Paul
makes it clear that gender distinction is anchored in the distinction between the Father
and the Son (I Cor.11:3). Our teaching in favour of monogamous, heterosexual
relationship should start here – not with punishment for sexual perversions!

The unity of the Essence of the Godhead and the distinction between the Persons of the
Trinity provide the philosophical basis for both transcendence and immanence to exist
together in the Being of God. We can say that God’s transcendence is a reality only
because of the real distinctions within the Persons of the Trinity – the Father is not to be
confused with the Son and so on. Similarly, the immanence of God is reflected in the
interpenetration in the relationship – perichoresis – between the Members of the Trinity
that constitutes Them as One divine Being.

The Second Person of the Trinity is also immanent in creation. He is the One who holds
all things together by his powerful word – Col.1:17; Heb.1:3. The greatest expression of
his immanence is in his incarnation. Unlike incarnation stories in other religions, the
incarnation of Christ is unique because of two reasons:

His incarnation is real and permanent and not illusory. His humanity remains
with him forever – I Cor.15:28; Rev.5:6. He is the divine-human mediator at God’s
right hand - I Tim.2:5; Heb.7:25. In his humanity, he is subject to the Father and so
will be married to the Church – the body of redeemed human beings who are
now participants in the divine nature (II Pet.1:4).

Because God made humans in his image, Jesus could be entirely human without
ceasing to be entirely God. (Imagine a perfect cube in 3 dimensions whose image
in 2 dimensions is a perfect square. Should this cube choose to come into a world
of 2 dimensions as a perfect square, it could justifiably tell other wonky squares
in that world, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the cube”! (Cf. John 14:9).
Please also note that this object would be 100% cube in 3 dimensions and 100%
© RZIM (A-P) 2012 5 of 11
L.T. Jeyachandran Reasonable Faith Weekend
April 13-15 2012

square in 2 dimensions. Thus, humanity and divinity are not two disparate
substances like salt and sugar – the former is a subset of the latter.

The Sovereignty of God as a divine attribute should exercise us at this point. In what
sense is God free in His eternal Being? The general idea of Freedom the secular world
espouses is that one is free to do what one wants! If I want to be truly free in every sense
of that word, I cannot even write this sentence – because I would like to be free from the
rules of grammar and syntax of the English language. That is not freedom, is it? I will be
paralysed in a wordless vacuum. But if I am related to a language through its rules, then
I am free to say and write what I want – in other words, freedom, far from being a stand-
alone quality is actually a relational one!

Christians tend to define freedom as the capacity to make moral choices – choosing good
instead of evil. While this is good in the limited sense of the present fallen existence, it
raises embarrassing questions about God and heaven! Is God free to do evil? In the new
heavens and the new earth where there is no sin to choose against, will we really be
free? The problem arises because of our individualist definition of freedom in the first
place! A man is free to choose one woman out of several to marry, but once they are
married, are they free? Is freedom to be understood only in the sense that they are
faithful to each other by not sleeping with some other partners?! That would be a
patently demeaning idea of freedom! Freedom, in marriage as an example, is the space
that each partner gives to the other whereby the husband is free to be himself and the
wife to be herself. The sexuality by which they become one flesh is also what
distinguishes them from each other and gives them the freedom to be themselves! Each
rediscovers his (her) identity by relating to the other! Thus freedom cannot be
adequately understood except from relationships and that is supremely seen in the
Triune God – the Father and the Son are One through the Spirit but simultaneously,
because of the freedom (space) provided by the Spirit, They are free to be Themselves!
“..where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (II Cor.3:17)! Consequently, in the
Church, the same Spirit who calls and gifts us differently is also the One through whom
we are one body! Freedom and commitment are therefore inseparable!

How shall we respond to the ontological aspect of the Trinity?

PURSUIT OF GOD

The only appropriate response is worship. It arises out of our contemplation of this
awesome Being.

© RZIM (A-P) 2012 6 of 11

L.T. Jeyachandran Reasonable Faith Weekend
April 13-15 2012

How dread are Thine eternal years, O everlasting Lord!

By prostrate spirits day and night incessantly adored!

How wonderful, how beautiful the sight of Thee must be!

Thine endless wisdom, boundless power and awful purity!

Meekness and Majesty, Manhood and Deity

In perfect harmony, the Man who is God!
Lord of eternity, dwells in humanity,
Kneels in humility – and – washes our feet.

Wisdom unsearchable, God the invisible,

Love indestructible in frailty appears.
Lord of infinity, stooping so tenderly,
Lifts our humanity to the heights of His throne!

We treat our freedom with sanctity and reverence in the context of people and things
where God has placed us. Our involvement in the world in evangelism, social action,
home making, politics or business consequently becomes incarnational. We represent
the ontology of the transcendence and immanence of the Triune God by being in the
world and still being not of it! We respect people as those made in the image of God in
all our relationships.

The axiological necessity of the Trinity

Axiology is the study of values. It is derived from the Greek word axios, which can be
translated as worthy. In philosophy, the 2 major divisions of axiology are aesthetics and
ethics. Both these subjects deal with values in two different realms.

We shall briefly touch upon the subject of aesthetics. There can be no beauty without
variety. The English word monotonous makes it clear that absence of variety can result in
boredom and meaninglessness. Meaningful language requires different words to
connote different things. A good painting is a creative combination of colours and
shades. Symphonic music involves an array of instruments combining harmoniously to
produce rapturous melody. However, variety (or diversity) alone does not constitute
aesthetics – it must convey a meaningful message. Otherwise we would only have
would be a noisy babble, a confusing collage, a cacophonous noise! Thus, aesthetics
would require unity in diversity. The Bible in various ways portrays the God of beauty
and a created world of animals, humans and flowers that display the same
characteristics.
© RZIM (A-P) 2012 7 of 11
L.T. Jeyachandran Reasonable Faith Weekend
April 13-15 2012

Ethics would also require a distinction between good and evil. A philosophy or religion
that denies this distinction cannot provide the basis of holy living. In God, the ultimate
perfection of ethics is seen as the quality of love. John 17:24 states that the Father is in an
eternal love-relationship with the Son (through the Holy Spirit – Rom.5:5) from before
the creation of the world. John 3:16 describes God’s love for the world - the love that
overflows from the table of the Trinity, so to speak! Because the world is created and
finite, God’s love could not have begun with the world – that would have rendered God
imperfect before the creation of the world in need of an object to love so that he could
find fulfilment. Within the Trinity, the Father is the eternal Subject who loves, the Son
the Object of that love and the Spirit the Personal Medium through whom that love is
communicated – It is only within the context of Trinitarian religion that there is an
adequate philosophical basis for love and beauty.

In his incarnation, Jesus expressed that quality of love in his blemish less character. He
lived a perfect life in total obedience to the Father, always doing those things that
pleased the Father – John 8:29. He could challenge his detractors to convict him of sin –
John 8:46 – and they could not produce true witnesses who would agree in their
testimony against him – Mark 14:59. He knew no sin – II Cor.5:21 – he did no sin – I Peter
2:22 – in him was no sin – I John 3:5. He was tempted in all points as we are and yet was
without sin – Heb.4:15. His perfection was seen in the robustness of his humanity as he
recoiled from the thought of his suffering – Matt.26:39. Even a few moments before his
death, he experienced real victory over possible thoughts of resentment by his unilateral
forgiveness of the soldiers – Luke 23:34. In his relationship with the Father and with
others, he was truly perfect God become perfect Man!

How shall we respond to the axiological aspect of the Trinity?

PURSUIT OF HOLINESS

When Jesus was asked which the greatest of the commandments was, he responded by
indicating two commandments – not one (Matt.22:37-40)! If we had asked him which of
the two was the greater, he would have probably given us this answer – “Both
commandments are relational. Without obeying the first – loving God – you cannot truly
obey the second – loving your neighbour. But obedience to the first is intimately secret –
between you and God. Obedience to the second is the evidence that you have obeyed
the first”!

© RZIM (A-P) 2012 8 of 11

L.T. Jeyachandran Reasonable Faith Weekend
April 13-15 2012

Our ethical life is always relational – Christianity is not an ascetic faith but is life-
affirming where all relationships are reoriented because of our relationship to Jesus
Christ (Luke 14:25-33). Our pursuit of holiness is relational and not just personal. Even a
watching world will not know of Christianity as a religious faith but rather as a
relational one (John13:34,35)! Christians are therefore expected to steward the world by
bringing out the admirable combination of truth and beauty in all of life.

The epistemological necessity of the Trinity

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. This word can be best understood only in a
relational sense. Knowledge, like love, requires the subject who knows, an object that is
known and a medium through which the perception is made. In the event of a Unitarian
understanding of God, knowledge is not possible as there is no subject-object
relationship. A further danger in the present stage of our civilisation is that knowledge
has been reduced to information – the relational aspect of knowledge is totally missing.
Thus a boy returning from school is less likely to go out and play with his friends – he
would rather sit in front of his computer and play centre forward for Manchester United!

Within the Trinitarian framework of the God of the Bible, knowledge is seen to originate
within the Being of the Trinity - Matt.11:27. This verse is a clear example of how
knowledge is constituted by a relationship. Further knowledge is also related to
communication. It was this relationship between the First and Second Persons of the
Trinity (through the Third Person) that resulted in a wise and benevolent creation –
Gen.1:1-3,26; Prov. 8:22-31; John 1:3. In the relationship between two persons, one cannot
know the other unless the other chooses to reveal himself (herself). But then,
communication itself would be a meaningless babble if there were no object (person) to
which (whom) the communication is made. The first three verses of the Bible constitute
the first piece of communication in recorded revelation! Creation of the human race is
preceded by divine consultation within the Trinity – an indication that this particular
creation would express the capacity to communicate more than any other!

There is a philosophical conundrum that we have to take into account. Example: As I

type out this lecture, I am coming to know this laptop. The laptop is the object of my
knowledge and I am the subject. And the knower always changes as a result of the
knowledge but the object does not change. If God is omniscient, he is the supreme
Subject. How can he be all-knowing and still unchanging? We tend to view the
omniscience of God as a fixed mass of near-infinite knowledge that cannot be dented by
additional information. But this gives rise to a distant deistic god who bears little
© RZIM (A-P) 2012 9 of 11
L.T. Jeyachandran Reasonable Faith Weekend
April 13-15 2012

resemblance to the God of the Bible! We turn to Matt.11:27 again for resolving this
problem. Literally translated from the Greek, the second part of this verse should read,
“No one keeps knowing the Son except the Father and no one keeps knowing the Father
except the Son….” In other words, the infinity of God is dynamic (and not static)
infinity. This may be difficult to conceptualise but a simple illustration would be this –
God who from eternity knew that this lecture would take place is with us listening with
a great deal of interest to what we are discussing (Mal.3:16)! Again, transcendence and
immanence come together in this marvellous God – God can be immanent in hearing
our prayers and transcendently sovereign by factoring in our movements for his
ultimate glory!

In his incarnation, Jesus becomes the wisdom of God for us in terms of our salvation,
sanctification and redemption – I Cor.1:24,30. During his life on earth, we were treated to
a revelation of that wisdom both in the words that he spoke and his acts of love and
power. When sent to arrest him, the temple guard returned without him - for a police
force that failed to carry out an arrest, it was an astonishing excuse – “No one ever spoke
like this Man does!” – John 7:45. No one indeed spoke like Jesus with such divine
authority accompanied by an equally intense human compassion!

How shall we respond to the epistemological aspect of the Trinity?

PURSUIT OF TRUTH

“All truth is God’s truth”, said Francis Schaeffer. It is the Christian’s duty to pursue
truth in God’s Word and God’s world:

The truth of God's word is held by us and exhibited to the outside world, not
only in our belief in the infallibility of the Bible. It has to be seen in our
truthfulness in our dealing with God and with one another. It is easy to defend
the truth in the abstract but it is difficult and contrary to our fallen nature to
defend it in the concrete instances of our daily lives. We learn to encounter God
in the reading of his word and thus to be increasingly conformed to the image of
Christ (II Cor.3:18).

The word of God also provides the basis of our understanding of God's world.
the progress we have made in science, technology, arts, music and governance
would not have been possible without the recognition, in some measure, of the
nature of God and the universe created by him. Rightly does the psalmist say -
"....In your light, we see light." (Psalm 36:9).
© RZIM (A-P) 2012 10 of 11
L.T. Jeyachandran Reasonable Faith Weekend
April 13-15 2012

Our pursuit of truth also means that we are true - transparent - in our behaviour
(I John 3:18). Covering up our sins and weaknesses is the very antithesis of
pursuing truth as a response to who God is. The Church is the only place where
we need to enjoy the security of confessing and forsaking our sins even as Christ
has cleansed us when we are true before him (Prov.28:13; I John 1:9).

The intellectual, the moral and the relational aspects of God as genuinely reflected in the
Church will combine to produce an apologetic that will not be easy to resist.

© RZIM (A-P) 2012 11 of 11