The term ‘trinity’ is widely used to describe God’s manifestation in three forms. However, like any other human word, it is inherently limited. Words cannot fully encapsulate the breadth of God’s nature; they serve instead as approximations to aid our understanding within the constraints of human reasoning, logic, and analysis. Current debates, such as whether Jesus could exist as the Son without having a “beginning,” venture into the realm of description where human associations with the concept of “beginning” lose their meaning. These associations are grounded in our experience of events marked by a start, signifying both the process of time and the initiation of subsequent events within a specific temporal framework.
Critics who regard the term “trinity” as misleading often focus on the relationships and distinctions between God’s manifestations. For instance, describing God as a “single” entity emphasizes the attributes associated with divinity as an indivisible essence. This notion of singularity contrasts sharply with the framework of polytheism, where multiple gods coexist as distinct entities. Monotheism, derived from the Greek “mono” (meaning “single”), is the belief in one God, while polytheism, rooted in the Greek “πολύ” (meaning “many”), describes the existence of multiple gods. The latter perspective is exemplified in Greek mythology, where numerous gods coexist, sometimes in harmony and at other times in conflict. Similar patterns can be observed in Mesopotamian civilizations, where polytheistic worship formed an integral part of religious life.
The concept of a triune God poses significant challenges when compared to polytheistic frameworks. While polytheism often depicts gods as independent entities operating within distinct spheres, the Christian understanding of a singular God revealed in three forms defies human logic. This tension arises because it challenges the fundamental dichotomy between unity and multiplicity, suggesting that the divine nature cannot be fully apprehended within human categories of thought.
Understanding God through the framework of distinct “forms” that affirm His nature echoes the struggles faced by Jesus’s contemporaries when grappling with His claims of unity with the Father. Just as they struggled to reconcile Jesus’s human origins with His divine identity, modern debates about the Trinity encounter similar difficulties in addressing the ontological complexities of God’s nature. The challenge lies not in defining God’s “origins” but in understanding His activity and the purpose of His manifestations. Jesus’s claim of unity with the Father frustrated religious leaders, whose expectations of the Messiah were rooted in a rigid set of categories that failed to align with the realities of His earthly ministry.
The religious leaders’ rejection of Jesus as the Messiah reflects their inability to reconcile their expectations with the fulfillment of scriptural prophecy. They anticipated a Messiah who would emerge in a vacuum, detached from earthly origins, despite prophetic assurances to the contrary. Instead, the Messiah’s identity was intrinsically linked to His mission of salvation—a role that could not be fulfilled by any ordinary human. The leaders’ resistance to this understanding highlights a fundamental tension between their interpretations of unity and God’s broader plan of redemption.
Jesus’s warnings to religious teachers reveal the culmination of this tension. He consistently pointed to the scriptures, emphasizing their sufficiency while refusing to provide additional signs to meet human expectations. This apparent withholding underscores a divine intention: to foster faith through the experience of ambiguity rather than eliminating doubt through explicit proof. The religious leaders’ demand for clarity reflects a broader human tendency to seek definitive answers, often at the expense of engaging with the deeper spiritual realities conveyed in scripture.
A parallel can be drawn between Jesus’s contemporaries’ struggle to accept His messianic role and modern debates surrounding the Trinity. Both scenarios highlight the limitations of human logic in comprehending divine realities. God’s triune nature and His methods of intervention in human history cannot be fully understood apart from their purpose: to accomplish redemption and restoration. Without this guiding principle, scriptural interpretations risk becoming fragmented and detached from the overarching narrative of God’s work in the world.
At the time of Jesus, many anticipated a Messiah who would deliver them from Roman oppression, reflecting a conflation of spiritual hopes with temporal needs. This expectation was not arbitrary but rooted in a comprehensive belief system shaped by scripture and cultural pressures. The Jewish community sought liberation from suffering and domination, viewing the Messiah as a political and social deliverer. Yet Jesus defied these expectations, focusing instead on addressing humanity’s deeper spiritual needs.
This disconnect between expectations and reality underscores the selective interpretation of scripture by religious leaders. They approached the texts with thoroughness yet failed to consider the broader context of God’s salvific plan. Jesus’s frustration with their partial understanding reveals the danger of reducing divine actions to human categories. His ministry demonstrated that God’s methods transcend human logic, operating instead within a divine framework designed to meet humanity’s ultimate needs.
In conclusion, the challenges faced by Jesus’s contemporaries in recognizing His messianic identity mirror the difficulties of comprehending the Trinity today. Both require an approach that moves beyond human reasoning to embrace the purposes underlying God’s actions. The scriptures offer a cohesive narrative that, when studied with faith and humility, reveals the divine plan for humanity. Understanding this plan requires engaging with the mystery of God’s nature, not as a problem to be solved but as a truth to be experienced through faith and relationship.
Ontology and Epistemology
In exploring the parallelism between these themes, this article suggests that understanding the properties of both ‘unity’ and ‘separation’ between God the Father and Jesus as the Son requires examining both ontological and epistemological dimensions. Ontology, the study of the essence of being, investigates the inherent characteristics that define an entity’s nature and composition. It addresses the foundational question of what something “is” and the significance ascribed to its existence. In contrast, epistemology focuses on how knowledge and information about entities are acquired and understood.
The complexities of these disciplines are evident in the frequent tensions surrounding Jesus’s proclamation of being “one” with the Father. Physically and conceptually, this unity appears paradoxical: how can Jesus be simultaneously one with the Father and a distinct, separate entity? This question exemplifies the ontological challenge of defining Jesus’s essence and the epistemological challenge of understanding His relationship with the Father.
Accepting that God is manifested in three distinct forms—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—demands a nuanced examination of Jesus’s relationship with the Father and within the Father. This includes considering Jesus’s existence as an entity before His incarnation, His union with humanity during His earthly life, and His separation from humanity after His resurrection, when He transcended the constraints of time and space. Investigating Jesus’s pre-incarnate existence would require probing the nature of His being—a task ultimately constrained by human cognition and limited by our inability to fully comprehend divine essence.
Jesus’s responses to questions about His identity further illustrate this complexity. His proclamations often appear self-contradictory, affirming His unity with the Father while existing as a distinct person. Yet, these affirmations are not merely rhetorical; they challenge listeners to move beyond conventional logic to grapple with the mystery of divine ontology. His method of engagement, though perplexing, reveals the profound depth of His identity and invites a deeper exploration of the relationship between being and knowing in the divine realm.
Mark 12:24
In recounting a vivid episode of religious debate, the evangelist invites readers to develop their own perspective on the interaction between Jesus and the religious leaders. While the description is concise, it captures the tension brewing between the parties. The brevity of the narrative reflects the evangelist’s focus—not on providing a comprehensive historical record but on fulfilling the purpose outlined in John 1:1: sharing the “good news.” This selectivity in themes underscores a deliberate effort to inspire reflection on God’s character and His mode of engaging with humanity. The gaps in the narrative challenge readers to use their imagination, connecting the past events to contemporary significance.
The Resurrection Debate: Context and Conflict
In this particular passage, the possibility of resurrection takes center stage, forming a point of contention between Jesus and the Sadducees. The Sadducees, grounded in a strict rationalist interpretation of the Torah, dismissed the resurrection as implausible. For them, the idea defied natural law and human logic; life, they believed, could not emerge from nonexistence. Jesus, however, challenges their framework—not just their disbelief in resurrection, but their entire interpretive approach to understanding God.
Jesus introduces a radically different perspective of God as the “living God,” one whose power transcends the constraints of natural law. His critique of the Sadducees goes beyond the specifics of resurrection; it extends to their limited epistemology and ontology, which fail to account for God’s boundless capacity. The Sadducees’ reliance on human logic effectively confined God to the realm of the explainable, ignoring His capacity to operate beyond physical and intellectual boundaries.
Seeing and Understanding: A Theological Challenge
Jesus’s response to the Sadducees is layered with theological depth. Using the term “εἰδότες” (to see or perceive), He emphasizes that their inability to “see” stems from their narrow interpretative lens. His challenge is twofold: they neither “know the Scriptures” nor “know the power of God” (Mark 12:24). Here, “seeing” transcends mere physical or intellectual comprehension; it implies an openness to divine revelation and imagination.
The Sadducees’ failure to see reflects their limited engagement with Scripture, which they approached solely through the lens of human reason. For Jesus, this misstep reduces God to a being who exists only within human lifespans, undermining His nature as the eternal and living God. By invoking the patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—Jesus illustrates that God’s relationship with humanity is not confined to temporal existence but anchored in an eternal covenant.
Faith Beyond Reason: The Living God
Jesus’s declaration that God is “not the God of the dead, but of the living” underscores a profound theological truth. If God’s relationship with humans were limited to their physical lives, He would not embody the essence of a living God. Instead, God’s nature surpasses the boundaries of time and space, demonstrating His power over life and death. In challenging the Sadducees, Jesus calls for a faith that accepts the mystery of God’s power, which cannot be fully captured by language or reason.
The evangelist’s presentation of this dialogue invites readers to reconsider their understanding of faith and divine power. By posing the question: “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?” (Mark 12:24), Jesus confronts the Sadducees with their interpretive shortcomings. This rhetorical strategy not only exposes their error but also encourages the audience to expand their understanding of God.
Imagination and Revelation: Expanding the Horizon of Faith
The passage challenges readers to exercise an imagination that aligns with faith in the living God. The Sadducees’ error lay in their refusal to allow for the possibility of divine action beyond human comprehension. Jesus’s critique—culminating in the phrase “πολὺ πλανᾶσθε” (you are greatly mistaken)—is not merely corrective but transformative. It calls for an openness to the boundless nature of God’s power, a power that exceeds the limitations imposed by human logic.
The evangelist concludes the narrative with an implicit invitation: to embrace the Scriptures and the power of God with a vision that transcends rational boundaries. The “living God” calls believers to an experiential faith that recognizes His eternal presence and limitless capabilities, challenging them to move beyond reason into the realm of divine mystery.
The Debate Over Jesus’s Identity as the Son of God
The identity of Jesus as the “Son of God” was a contentious topic among the religious leaders of His day. They resisted the notion of any association between Jesus and divine sonship, mirroring broader debates about the triune nature of God. These discussions wrestled with stringent conditions for understanding how Jesus could simultaneously embody divine and human origins.
The Tension Between Divine and Earthly Origins
For contemporary audiences, Jesus’s miraculous works and teachings provided direct evidence of His divine authority. However, His earthly origins were a stumbling block. The very concept of “sonship” implied a divine source, contradicting the conventional understanding of human parenthood. For skeptics, Jesus’s birth through a human mother seemed to disqualify Him from claims of divinity. This tension revealed a deeper struggle: reconciling His divine purpose with His earthly lineage.
This article suggests that the resolution of Jesus’s identity lies not in the mechanics of His origin but in His purpose and ministry. While His divine origin is significant for understanding His role, God’s primary concern is not to satisfy human curiosity about Jesus’s metaphysical nature. Instead, Jesus’s identity as the Christ is affirmed through His life, teachings, and personal engagement with humanity. It is through these elements that people come to recognize Him as the Son of God.
Jesus Teaching in the Temple Courts: A Study in Interpretation
The passage situates Jesus in the temple courts, engaging in active teaching. Here, He references Psalm 110:1:
“The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.’”
This verse, while familiar to Jesus’s contemporaries, was open to interpretive ambiguity. It lacked explicit reference to time, place, or the Messiah’s identity, leaving room for various readings. Jesus’s citation of this psalm challenges prevailing assumptions about the Messiah’s lineage and identity.
The Teachers of the Law and Davidic Expectations
Religious leaders traditionally understood the Messiah as a descendant of David, fulfilling the promise of kingship and salvation. However, Jesus highlights an interpretive tension in the text. David refers to two figures as “Lord”—an apparent contradiction. Who is the first Lord, and how does the second Lord relate to Him? While teachers of the Law bypassed this complexity, they failed to consider its implications for Jesus’s identity as the Messiah.
By pointing to this interpretive oversight, Jesus critiques the leaders’ selective hermeneutics. Their interpretation accommodates David’s kingship but neglects the greater reality of God’s sovereignty and the Messiah’s divine role. This narrow view prevented them from recognizing Jesus as the fulfillment of the psalm’s messianic promise.
Reconciling the “Lord” and the “Other Lord”
The phrase “The Lord said to my Lord” introduces a relational dynamic that seems self-contradictory. How can the Lord simultaneously be both the speaker and the one addressed? This ambiguity challenges human logic, yet it points to a profound theological truth: the coexistence and cooperation of distinct persons within the divine order.
The psalm’s primary focus is not to establish the ontological makeup of the two Lords but to highlight their functional relationship. The first Lord delegates authority to the second, who is tasked with subduing enemies. This act of submission underscores the Messiah’s role as a servant of God’s will, emphasizing function over origin. The psalmist refrains from elaborating on the metaphysical nature of the two Lords, prioritizing their mission over their constitution.
The Implications of Service and Divine Authority
The psalm reveals the Messiah’s mission to establish God’s dominion through service and submission. This framework shifts the debate from questions of origin to questions of purpose. Jesus’s identity as both Lord and Son of God is affirmed through His alignment with God’s will, fulfilling the psalm’s vision of divine victory over all opposition.
By highlighting this interpretation, Jesus reframes the discussion about His identity. The religious leaders’ failure to recognize Him as the Messiah stems from their preoccupation with earthly categories of kingship and lineage. In contrast, Jesus’s teaching invites His audience to consider a broader, more divine understanding of His role.
35 While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, “Why do the teachers of the law say that the Messiah is the son of David? 36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:
“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’[h]
In considering how the teachers consider the alternative versions of interpretation it is captivating that a direct warning is given to ‘watch out’ (βλέπετε). This word designates a moment of care and consideration about the community of people that seek to negate any form of understanding about God not because of the absence of scriptures but rather because of their personal experience in not exercising those conscious-associated attributes that remain essential for gaining understanding. For example, in asking his audiences to consider the intentions of the teachers, Jesus recognizes that a motivation for understanding is guided by political interests rather than genuine interest. Such prerequisite remains important for understanding and interpreting the constitution of God’s manifestations considering what he seeks to achieve. Any consideration for explaining the very essence of God remains a subsequent interpretation that does not recognize the limitations of understanding. Hence, the exercise of faith for what is ‘given’ loses its value because it is limited by considerations that are guided by a curiosity for logic itself rather than for the wide actions generated by God.
The debate over Jesus’s identity as the Son of God is not merely about His origins but about His mission. Psalm 110:1 challenges readers to move beyond rigid interpretations of lineage and kingship to embrace the functional reality of Jesus’s role as Messiah. By focusing on service and divine authority, Jesus demonstrates that His identity as Lord and Son of God transcends earthly categories.
For contemporary readers, this passage serves as a call to expand our understanding of divine purpose. The relational dynamic between the two Lords invites us to see God’s work in terms of collaboration, submission, and victory. In doing so, we come closer to understanding Jesus not only as the Son of God but as the one who fulfills God’s redemptive plan for humanity.
Fatherhood-Sonship Relationship
God’s Fatherhood and the Baptism of Jesus
The event of Jesus’s baptism, as recorded in the Gospels, offers a striking portrayal of God’s fatherhood. Here, the heavens open, and a voice declares:
“This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
This divine affirmation occurs at the very outset of Jesus’s public ministry, before He has performed miracles, preached sermons, or faced the trials of His mission. From a human perspective, such a proclamation might seem premature; how can satisfaction be expressed before the work is completed? Yet, this divine approval transcends human logic.
God’s statement reveals a relationship of pre-established intimacy and delight. Unlike the earthly father who might wait for his son to prove his worth or return after a period of estrangement, God declares His pleasure in the Son from the beginning. This demonstrates that divine sonship is not contingent upon actions or achievements but is rooted in an eternal relationship that precedes time and space.
The Interplay of Reason and Faith
The baptismal proclamation challenges human understanding. Within the boundaries of reason, satisfaction is typically tied to outcomes, evaluations, and results. However, God’s affirmation of Jesus defies these expectations, inviting believers to grapple with the mystery of divine approval. This dynamic highlights a critical tension:
- Human reason seeks to analyze and categorize divine actions.
- Faith, however, embraces the inexplicable, trusting in the character and promises of God.
The father-son relationship between God and Jesus exemplifies this tension. It is not a relationship defined by transactional merit but by intrinsic identity. The Son is beloved not because of what He does but because of who He is. This reality invites believers to expand their understanding of God, moving beyond human constraints and into the realm of faith.
Faith as a Response to Divine Complexity
The interplay of divine approval and human reason underscores the necessity of faith. Faith is not a dismissal of logic but an acknowledgment of its limits in the face of the divine. By trusting in what cannot be fully comprehended, faith bridges the gap between human understanding and the mysteries of God.
The baptismal event, then, is more than a proclamation; it is an invitation. It calls believers to trust in the character of the Father and the identity of the Son, even when their relationship transcends earthly categories of logic and reason. In doing so, faith becomes the means through which one encounters the fullness of God’s fatherhood and sonship.
Conclusion: Trusting the Divine Relationship
The fatherhood-sonship relationship between God and Jesus offers profound insights into the nature of divine love and approval. It challenges believers to reconsider their frameworks of understanding, moving from a transactional view of relationship to one rooted in identity and faith.
At Jesus’s baptism, God’s affirmation is not a conclusion but a starting point—a declaration of a relationship that is eternal, unearned, and deeply satisfying. For believers, this serves as a reminder that the limitations of human reason must yield to the expansiveness of faith. In trusting the divine relationship, they are invited to participate in the mystery and joy of being known and loved by the eternal Father.
Logic, Faith and Explanation
Dunn (1997:12) discusses in valuable length the working of deciphering the concept of ‘experience’ when applied to Jesus’s own life as well as in the teaching efforts to ‘others’ about who is God. “Jesus’ personal experience, if accessible at all, is accessible only as conceptualized experience. Nevertheless, the distinction between teaching about God and experience of God remains viable and valid.” In an effort to establish the workings of the human experience Dunn (1997) is confronted with the reality of the biblical incidents recorded as well as the internation of the people that needed to decipher and make sense of their relevance for their own lives. In establishing that an understanding of the word ‘experience’ remains viable it is also important to establish its modes of interpretation.
This article suggests that the exercise of logic on key biblical themes, like the one visited in this article, demonstrates that the workings of explanation demand some underpinnings about the purpose that lies behind the human desire for understanding. Put differently, what purpose does understanding serve in proxies of human experience about the subject that demands such understanding in the first place?
According to Dunn (1997) the confines of a person’s experience are guided by two types of significances: First, the significance as situated in the actual occurrence of the events. Secondly, in the significance as an interactive task generated by people and ascribed onto them. They challenge the current worldview of their audience so that people need to re-consider the relationship of prior affirmations. For example, the reality of Jesus’s manifestation as a Messiah’ begins as a theme that is conveyed in many areas of interpretation with the integrity of such identity remaining at stake. An experience of Jesus’s earthly ministry becomes the main ‘hub’ where the peoples’ experiences emerge and from which the sequence of events is recorded in some orderly fashion. Dunn (1997:13) suggests that “Theology must always attempt to clarify afresh the relation between the gospel of Jesus and the gospel about Jesus – that is widely recognized.”
Why is this distinction thought to be necessary?
It is necessary because the audiences who constitute the final recipients of the biblical events form an understanding of their perceived significance in relation to their own experiences. In the Gospel of Mark, we find that Jesus continues to engage with a series of proclamations about the ‘kingdom’ furthering the ministry started by John the Baptist. Jesus’s preaching of the ‘good news’ constitutes an event that integrates periods of prophecy-fulfilment as well as the fulfilment in the workings of the peoples’ individual human experiences with God.
As the gospel about Jesus is subjected to interpretative constraints it is apparent that the limitations of human reasoning need to achieve their own organizing order for how they can explain that which is outside their own conferment of terms. For example, the reality of the absurdity of Jesus’s resurrection remains logic-defeating when it is accounted for the power of natural laws that define the cycles of ‘life’ and ‘death’. The experience of resurrection generates confrontation for ‘how’, ‘when’ and ‘why’ it happened that cannot be understood in strict alignment with the laws that negate any possibility of life coming out of ‘death’.
In realizing the limitations of approximation for seeking to offer adequate levels of analysis Paul the Apostle writes in 1 Corinthians 2:4 concerning the exacerbated reactions received when communicating the ‘good news’. In introducing his intentions for ‘coming’ to them Paul addresses the transparency of intellectual intentions as non-conforming. Paul’s reference to the ‘superior’ ‘words’ or ‘wisdom’ addresses the field of knowledge from which subsequent interpretations can be derived about God’s identity. In establishing the tension between ‘wisdom’ and the ‘mystery’ of God, Paul identifies with the limitations of human understanding before the rules that operate outside the confines of logic. Κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ἦλθον οὐ καθ’ ὑπεροχὴν λόγου ἢ σοφίας καταγγέλλων ὑμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ.
However, such tension generates a novel alternative for how the new set of attributes presented before its audience can be understood as a separate experience in its own right. For example, in establishing that Jesus was ‘crucified’ Paul compares his own views and even judgement about the integrity of the event. An understanding of Jesus remains an event that runs in parallel for its significance as a historical event with alternative interpretations about the truthfulness of its occurrence. A personal exposition of the significance of Jesus within the confines of Paul’s personal experience generates a basis for a reconsideration of life itself. Such reconsideration cannot become viable with some form of internalizing the complexities of divine engagement with the physical and limited senses. Hence, Jesus’s crucifixion is not presented in a way of becoming a set of public news. It is not a public spectacle that can be entertained because of its riches of visual representation through the pains of one’s experience of suffering.