The issue of the Trinity

The first truth that God put into my heart when He made me a “new creation” is that Jesus is God the Son. I may have been told this by others; I may have read it, but until that moment, the idea was not part of my conscious thinking. I knew that God was the Father, and Jesus was the Son, but in that light-filled day, I knew instantly that Jesus is God in the flesh, God who pulled on humanity and made Himself like us, God-visible, and God-subject to hunger and thirst and fatigue, that He might die for our sins.

The trinity is one of the most argued Christian teachings. The critics say it is “opposed to nature, sense, and reason” and they all rise up in rebellion against it. They ask how can three be one or one be three? Yet if the doctrine of the Trinity is not true, then all that Christians believe and hope is gone. I have nothing and Christianity is a lie.

I firmly believe that the trinity is a ‘revealed’ truth, and because of that, no one can adequately explain it to someone who has not had it revealed to them. They will not get it, and the fact is, most Christians cannot explain it anyway. We know it is true, but there are no words that make it reasonable.

Some Bible translators tried. A passage in 1 John 5 shows one effort. Verses 7 and 8 in one modern version says: “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.”

However, in the margin of this Bible a note explains that most of verse 7 was not in the oldest Scripture manuscripts, and some of verse 8. Another modern version says it should read more like this: “For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”

Those who like to criticize the Bible and say that it is full of errors jump on this passage to prove their point. However, I found an explanation that helps me understand what happened when these extra words were added in. This is from a commentary, and I will try to leave out the parts that are not essential (commentaries can be wordy!). It says:

Two or three witnesses were required by law to constitute adequate testimony. The only Greek manuscripts in any form which support the words, “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness in earth,” (the text names three obscure manuscript names). All the old versions omit these words. The oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate omit them too. . . . A scholium quoted in Matthaei, shows that the words did not arise from fraud; for in all Greek manuscripts “there are three that bear record,” the word “three” is masculine . . . because the three things (the Spirit, the water, and the blood) are symbols of the Trinity. Cyprian (AD 196) refers, “Of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is written, ‘And these three are one’ (a unity).”
There must be some mystical truth implied in using “three” (Greek) in the masculine, though the antecedents, “Spirit, water, and blood,” are neuter. That the Trinity was the truth meant is a natural inference. . . . It was therefore first written as a marginal comment to complete the sense of the text, and then, as early at least as the eighth century, was introduced into the text of the Latin Vulgate.
The testimony, however, could only be borne on earth to men, not in heaven. The marginal comment that inserted “in heaven,” was inappropriate. It is on earth that the context evidently requires the witness of the three, the Spirit, the water, and the blood.

This commentary goes on to explain how John never uses “the Father” and “the Word” as correlates and shows other ways to indicate that John intended these verses as a description of a triune God.

Interpretation of any passage should take into account the whole book and other books (if any) written by the same author. John used the reality and the symbols of water and blood in connection with His descriptions of Jesus as God in the flesh. In his mind, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, unite as the threefold witness to verify the divine Messiahship of Jesus Christ.

Like we are prone to do, some who copied the ancient manuscripts thought that an explanation would help, forgetting that this kind of explanation would be easily understood by those who know Jesus, but misinterpreted and considered a textual error by those to whom Jesus has never been revealed.

So what? What does this have to do with me? I’m aware of those who dismiss the Scripture as old fashioned, out-of-date, and non-relevant. I’m wondering if it matters whether or not I can explain it. Will it matter if I tell them that the trinity is everywhere in creation, for instance, God created matter in three forms, such as H2O? It may be water, ice or steam, but it is all the same H2O. Why can’t God be triune and still be one God? Will they get it?

I suspect that the issue is not really that God is One yet three, but more like this: if the God who created the universe decided to become a man and come to earth, and if He willingly died for the sins of all mankind, and if His Spirit keeps nagging at people about their sin and their responsibility to God, which is easier—to listen and say yes to this triune God? Or to insist that the whole thing is impossible?