The 2nd Person of the Godhead
(Part 1)
As I went back and was reading through the first three chapters of this study; I came to the realization that maybe it would be a good idea to address the subject of the Divinity aspect of Jesus's personhood. The "Son" / "2nd Person of the Godhead".
Now this chapter is certainly going to entail some theory based on things found in Scripture and I'm kind of "winging it" here to see if I can delineate a reasonable explanation for things that are hard to understand. Let's start with the basics first though.
In Chapter 2, I talked about "trinities" and how this reality is reflected in creation. God in Scripture is described as triune although "trinity" is not a word that is in Scripture. "Trinity" is a word invented by theologians to label a concept taught in Scripture. I'm not sure who first came up with the word "Trinity" but it is a Scripturally based concept. The closest word used in Scripture is "Godhead". Though in the context used "Godhead" conveys the equality of "Son" to "FATHER".
The 3rd Person of the Trinity; the "Holy Spirit" sometimes is extrapolated as simply "the Spirit God sends". Which is fundamentally true. It's just that I think "Holy Spirit" is easier to grasp in the concept of "something other than a "Person" of God". The Holy Sprit is often thought of like unto "an extension of God" and not a "Person of the Trinity" per se. And for what ever reason; it seems easier to conceptualize that "the Spirit of God" sent forth from God is equal to God. The majority of "conflict of authority" that humans tend to trip over, comes mostly from "FATHER" and "Son" (incarnation) as opposed to "FATHER" and "SON" (also SPIRIT); as God existed before creating anything.
SON vs Son vs son: (2nd Person / Incarnated Christ / Adam)
Now interestingly there wasn't a "positional place marker" of "Son" until the incarnation came into reality. Or at least not in the sense of the 2nd Person of the Trinity being "begotten" by the 1st Person (or the 3rd Person) of the Trinity. The "SON" as well as His incarnation as the "Son" is the same manifest reality as God (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and immortal) as the 1st Person (and the 3rd). Though none of these members of the Trinity are each other. That belief; (that the Persons of the Godhead are interchangeable among each other) is a heresy called Modalism.
I can understand why people would perceive the Modalism heresy to be true; although it's quite clear from what we can read about events unfolding on Earth during the human life of Jesus; that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not the same Person acting in different roles. They are all the same "substance". (What ever "substance" constitutes God.) But they are not the same Person(s); or one Person with divided "persons".
I use the presentation "Father" here as opposed to "FATHER" because of how "FATHER" is represented "Father" on earth as a voice from heaven. We generally think of Son and Holy Spirit as entering the cosmic order, but the FATHER does not; or rather does HE (in the voice from heaven)?
The other anomaly we see in this is in the language in Genesis "let us make man in our image". This is clearly an internal conversation among the Godhead. Also buried in the language of the Hebrew; when Moses was speaking to God; there were two Persons present besides Moses. Is this Father and Son because Spirit is already here? (The Spirit has never left from the inception of life.) Also of a theophonic appearance there are two "angels" that come to Lot; as well as two "angels" at the resurrection. Again, Father and Son? (Of the resurrection; if these angels were theophanies, (which they may not have been) they would have been representative of Father and Spirit.)
So yes, in several accounts we see the presence of three distinct Persons, all in one "place" at the same "time".
God isn't like a glass of water that divided and reunites self into one "cup". That isn't how the Trinity works. The Persons of the Godhead never serve or "take over" the same function as each other. They work in perfect hermeneutic conjunction to accomplish one purpose, one goal, one direction of action; but they all "stay in their own lanes" so to speak. And they do this because they are independent Persons of the One whole.
Now how do we have three independent Persons and still be only "One God"? Here's were we get into ground that's hard for humans to wrap our brains around; because there isn't an earthy analogy that perfectly explains this. There is no perfect earthy analogy and nor can there be; because creation does not possess the attributes of God. In its temporal way, it can only reflect truths about God; and this is because creation is temporal.
For example: the water analogy: Water can be liquid, solid or gas; but it's always H2O. Now that's a good analogy of "one substance having 3 forms"; but the same molecule of H2O can be all three forms in it's existence. (Which is Modalism.) But that single molecule of H2O can't be all three at once either. (Which is closer to the nature of the "substance" of God.) But! H2O is confined by a temporal material existence which is not the reality for God. God transcends material existence and this is why no analogy of Trinity we see in creation, can adequately explain God. (Water does not have the capacity to be omnipresent because it is a molecularly structured created thing.)
On the other side of eternity; will we have a better understanding of this? Undoubtedly "yes"; because our understanding will no longer be subject to the consequences of sin and the fall. But we will never fully comprehend and certainly never experience what it's like to be God. That will never happen. It never can happen, because created entities are just outside of the possibility of that capacity. We will always be confined by some form of "material existence". We can not; thus never will become God or any aspect of God and that is because God transcends material existence!
Which leads me to another thought / question:
Does the now "in the glory of the FATHER" Son posses both attributes of material and immaterial existence at will? (The ability to "materialize" from the omnipresent state in "Heaven".) Or has the incarnation brought about a certain state of permanence of material presence? (Is some form of the material presence of the SON / Son eternally present in the New Jerusalem?)
Theoretically, I would say that the capacity to pass between omnipresent material and present material states would have to be part of God the SON / Son's current reality. That would make sense as Scripture tells us that non-material entities (angels) can appear in material form. They have the ability to pass between multiple realms.
We do know that was not possible while the Son was incarnated on earth. And this had to do with being the last Adam as applied to the purpose of the atonement. Now was "materializing" possible post resurrection? At first glance, it seems possible. There are what appear to be episodes that Jesus "disappeared" from one place and reappears in another; although at closer inspection of that language, what's likely more accurate is that the eyes of the people seeing this "became dim" and Jesus just simply walked away.
The other incidences that raise questions concerning "materializing" comes from the Mount of Transfiguration event. Jesus transfigures; (of what ever that materially constituted I don't know). Clearly the disciples who witnessed this were conscious. This wasn't a vision or a dream. Yet the others who appeared were Moses and Elijah; whom had to have been there in some form of physical bodies. They currently exist (likely in the New Jerusalem) in some form of resurrected bodies. Of which there are also other saints residing there in resurrected bodies. (Matthew 27:52)
Is what ever form Jesus transfigured into; what is / was seen in the New Jerusalem too?
Again, on the surface that seems like a plausible conclusion; but the language of "transfigured" is a different word than what's used in Corinthians for "changed" from corruptible to incorruptible; as applies to the final resurrection. The same word used for "transfigured" is also used in the context of being "transformed" into the image of Christ as a result of redemption. The context in both cases (Romans 12:2, 2 Corinthians 3:18) is sanctification in this life; not bodily changed for the New Heavens and New Earth.
Which contextually this does make sense because Jesus didn't have to "put on incorruption" from his own state of earthy incarnation. Also, we make assumptions about Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration; but nowhere does it say they were transfigured too! Clearly they were physically present; but were they in the form of what will be in the New Heavens and New Earth? Ahead of the glorification of Christ's return to reign? That doesn't seem plausible.
Are the resurrected people in the New Jerusalem reverted back into a state of incorruption similar to Eden; incorruptible, yet not glorified? That too would seem to make sense as related to the statement Jesus makes in Matthew 25:31 about "coming in His glory" and "sitting on the throne of his (His) glory".
Couple that with 1 Corinthians 15:51-52. Yet compare Matthew 25:31 to Mark 8:38 and Luke 9:26. There appears to be a delineation between "come in the glory of the Father" and "come in his (Son's) own glory". Clearly "sit on the thrown of His own glory" is in the context of the recreated heavens and earth. Hebrews 8:1 and Hebrews 12:12 state that Christ is seated at the right hand of the throne of God the Father. This is until He sits on His own throne at the point when the New Heavens and Earth come into existence.
So…. is Jesus in Heaven "passing" between the throne of God the Father in the New Jerusalem while residing in some form of "temporal" material body? Could the SON be on the throne with the FATHER while the Son "in the glory of the Father" resides in the New Jerusalem? (Although we have evidence from Scripture that the throne of God is in the New Jerusalem.) Is the SON / Son of both states simultaneously reflecting the reality of the omnipresence of God?
Is the "temporal" body (from OT theophany, to incarnation, to resurrection, to "in the glory of the Father") still retain a part of this current cosmic order? (I don't know?) That seems possible; seeing how "the souls under the alter" are themselves in a state of incompleteness. And apparently at the point of the recreated cosmos; Christ comes "in His own glory". And the first task He accomplishes in "His own glory" is to come as the Judge.
A couple of other interesting tidbits:
The Father is depicted in Scripture in anthropomorphic presentation as "the Ancient of Days" with white hair seated on a throne. Although Christ is depicted with white hair in Revelation also. But it also stands to reason, that if Christ is yet to sit on His own throne commencing with the recreated cosmos; than any depiction of God sitting on a throne in the current course of cosmic history; would have to be the Father.
It's often explained that when "the work is done" the King sits down. When God's work was done He "rested on the sabbath". Although "the sabbath" as it related to the Son's fulfillment of prophecy, had to do with the Saturday where his body was in the grave; did the FATHER (now presented as the Father) sit down on His throne once creation was done? That seems logical because the concept of throne and reigning over creation would not have existed until the act of creation commenced. Seeing how prior to creation; there's nothing to rule over because nothing existed but God.
Let's stop here for this portion, seeing how there's a lot to think about as it is. Next chapter, we'll pick up this line of connected concepts again starting with ideas related to created spirit entities and rulership of the realms of the cosmos.
