Theologians pinpoint two different types or versions of the Trinity. This becomes useful when biblical passages that seem to contradict the deity of Christ arise. When interpreting the biblical data in accordance with a trinitarian hermeneutic, one can easily make the mistake of confusing nature and function. Do not assume that the only way to know about the natures of the three divine persons is strictly by how they function in the Scriptures. That is, how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit interact with humankind in the Bible is not always an indication of their unique ontological status. The various ways in which the three divine persons relate to each other and the world is called the economic or more appropriately the functional Trinity. The actual nature or ontology of each divine person despite their function in the world is referred to as the ontological Trinity. The economic Trinity correlates to function; the ontological Trinity pertains to who God actually is.
Of course they are not mutually exclusive. The way each Person functions in the world may tell us a great deal about their character and essence, either individually or collectively in referring to the Triune God. Likewise, God’s nature contributes to how He relates to mankind. For instance, God is holy and constant, whence His words to us are trustworthy.
Nevertheless if these two distinct types of the Trinity are not acknowledged, the biblical data will more than likely appear contradictory. This becomes apparent with statements from Jesus Himself like "the Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:28; or Mt 24:36; Jn 5:19,30; 6:38; 8:28; Lk 22:42). All of these passages can be decisively answered with one single distinction, namely, that Jesus was appealing to His role as God incarnate who has come to serve as our Savior. Far from an ad hoc assertion, this is multiply attested to in the Scriptures: “‘For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many’” (Mk 10:45; Mt 20:28; Jn 13:1-17). Supposing that it was Christ’s role to achieve salvation for us by taking on the form of a servant allows us to interpret the difficult passages above as entails by His function whilst maintaining the authenticity of the data pointing to His equality with the Father.
Consider the example of the variations in the Son’s knowledge when compared to the Father’s (Mt 24:36). As God incarnate, Jesus Christ was fully divine and maintained all of the divine attributes; as a human being, Jesus Christ dealt with all the limitations of a finite creature. As such, it would be wrongheaded to infer that Christ is no longer divine or that He does not have equal knowledge as the Father. Consider a reverse example regarding the Father. Since God the Son took on human flesh, must we think of God the Father as less loving or less willing to die for our sins since it was not He who did so? Or put this way: the greatest form of love is sacrifice, and since the Father did not sacrifice or us, should we suppose that His love is inferior to the Son’s—who did sacrifice His life for us? Of course not. This would be a prime example of confusing a distinct role with a distinct nature. Rather, each divine person had a distinct role to play in the creation and salvation of mankind; and these roles oftentimes tell us about the whole of the Godhead, the triune God, each person of the Trinity.
In summary, there is a strong distinction between how the Trinity functions and the actual essence of the Trinity. The role of each divine person tells a great deal about who the triune God is, but do not assume these roles provide the full picture of their unique nature. Be able to distinguish between role and nature, economy and ontology -- which will enable a stronger understanding of what the Scriptures teach.
Comments