Three in One summarizes Christian attempts to explain the Trinity through illustrations and images. William David Spencer has done rigorous research to present extensive arguments that explain the Trinity. Spencer says,
“The goal of this book is to help us all use illustrating images correctly and with appropriate qualifications. Through them, we can convey truth about God while attempting to avoid the historical errors that have clouded and misrepresented God’s nature and misled unwary seekers through the centuries.”
Three in One, 14
I received a free copy of this monograph from the publisher, Kregel Publications, in exchange for an honest review.
Synopsis
The first three chapters introduce the book and raise the question of the legitimacy of explaining the Trinity with images and illustrations. While acknowledging the viewpoints that find this approach to be wrong, Spencer argues in Chapter 2 that describing the Trinity with illustrations is both appropriate and helpful as long as the images are qualified to prevent unintended misrepresentation of the Triune God.
Spencer’s greatest argument is Jesus’ use of imagery to teach about God (ch. 3). Spencer cites several scriptural instances of Jesus’ use of imagery: puns (Mark 3:16), personification (Matt 6:34), hyperbole (Mat 5:29–30), and synecdoche (John 11:25). Finally, real-life illustrations from carpentry, fishing, farming, shepherding, etc. are cited.
The next six chapters, the bulk of the monograph, are six categories of images that explain the Trinity: images of light (ch. 4); images of light in Hebrews (ch. 5); images that move and change (ch. 6); non-human images that are static (ch. 7); human images that are static (ch. 8); image of a divine family (ch. 9). Chapter 10 concludes the entire monograph.
In chapter 4, Spencer acknowledges how legitimate illustrations about God from Scripture can be used in a heretical way. He gives two examples in pp. 84–86. Certainly, basic hermeneutics guard against extreme interpretations of metaphors. Spencer is correct in saying that the task of the Christian is to evaluate whether the metaphor was interpreted correctly. Spencer cites how Scripture uses the image of light or of the sun to teach a certain truth about God, yet the image of light does not exhaustively teach everything there is to know about God. He argues that
“it is imperative to review how the Bible itself uses imagery before we start making pronouncements about such imagery being inappropriate.”
Three in One, 98
Chapter 5, then, analyzes the image of light from Hebrews. Interestingly, the same analogy could be interpreted differently. Arius, for example, takes the relationship between radiance and light as a mere reflection to illustrate the Son’s diminished glory in contrast to the Father (114). Yet Athanasius takes the same image to argue the exact opposite: the unvarying likeness of the radiance from the light being one in substance. Athanasius writes,
“For the Saints have not said that the Word was related to God as fire kindled from the heat of the sun, which is commonly put out again, for this is an external work and a creature of its author, but they all preach of Him as Radiance, thereby to signify His being from the substance, proper and indivisible, and His Oneness with the Father.”
Athanasius, Defense of the Nicene Definition, 5.9.23
Images that move and change include differing roles (one person as father, son, and worker as explanation of the Trinity) or water as liquid, gas, solid. While Spencer ends Chapter 6 with the refutation of modalism, he acknowledges that modalism is still a helpful contribution for it illustrates that three can be one substance.
Static illustrations include the egg, the shamrock, tools with three parts (bottle opener), music (harmony, rhythm, melody), trifocal glasses, three-in-one printer, etc. Spencer acknowledges the weaknesses of these analogies, yet he also finds them “helpful to a congregation to glimpse a truth about God” (emphasis mine). For Spencer,
“imagery is limited, but so is discourse when trying to teach truths about God, and the experienced teacher knows that flexibility is important.”
Three in One, 143
Human bodies that are static includes our bodies (one person with three parts), a club or society, a government (executive, legislative, and judicial), an army, business, etc. Finally, chapter 9 surveys the imagery of a divine family and/or a community citing Methodius from the fourth century who compares Adam to the Father, Adam’s son to Christ, and Eve to the Holy Spirit (p. 166). Such exploration leads to questions like: does God have a wife? Or does God have gender? Spencer concludes that
“the benefit of seeing God as a family or as a community is the interconnectedness of love that extends to bless humans.”
Three in One, 198
Analysis
Spencer argues for the legitimacy of the use of imagery in teaching the Trinity. For Spencer, such complex doctrine requires natural illustration to help us understand the Triune Godhead. Spencer’s research is thorough, and the structure of his argument is well-presented.
I began reading this monograph as a critic who denied any value for using images to teach the Trinity. While I remain unconvinced by Spencer’s arguments, reading Spencer made me realize one way the use of imagery in teaching the Trinity may be helpful, but it may not be in the same way intended by Spencer. Before presenting this one way that imagery could be helpful, here are three arguments against the legitimacy of the use of imagery to teach the Trinity:
1. Assumptions about the Trinity and illustrations
One of the problems in Spencer’s overall argument is the assumption that one can equate “understanding God” with “understanding Trinity.” Certainly, both are related, but it is not a 1:1 correspondence. Common illustrations used to teach about God do so accurately within the bounds of the point of the illustration (since all illustrations are limited). Yet, when it comes to the Trinity, no such illustration or metaphor captures the teaching of the Trinity; rather, it depicts a wrong understanding of the Trinity. In other words, the illustrations are not only limited (which is forgivable), but they actually distort the point being illustrated.
To illustrate the Trinity, one must capture the whole concept of (1) one God; (2) three Persons are fully God; (3) and the three Persons who are coequal and distinct. Contrary to Spencer’s conclusion, illustrations are not helpful at all in understanding the Trinity for they will never fully capture the entire teaching of the Trinity.
If they capture only one or two of the three aspects of the Trinity, then they don’t depict the Trinity but a distortion of it. Spencer so readily concedes to say, “at least it teaches a truth that there is one God.” But so does Islam!
2. Arguments from the Misunderstanding of Cults and the Authority of Jesus
Demonstrating that legitimate illustrations about God can and are misunderstood by cults and false religions (like Arius) is not an argument to legitimize illustrations of the Trinity regardless of their potential for misunderstanding. Unlike the misunderstood illustrations, the illustrations about the Trinity are not misunderstood – they themselves illustrate a twisted view of the Trinity. The illustrations themselves are flawed, not the understanding of the interpreter.
The arguments from Jesus’ artistry or the arguments from the use of light to illustrate truths about God are, therefore, irrelevant. Of course, Jesus is an artistic master-illustrator. Does that mean we have to come up with something in nature or creation that illustrates the Trinity in its full teaching when there really is none?
3. Audience Feedback Regarding Helpfulness of the Illustrations
Throughout this monograph, Spencer cites responses from a diverse student body which testify how a certain illustration has helped them understand the Trinity, especially in chapters 6–8. It is naïve, however, to think or assume that certain audiences—especially students from international backgrounds—are helped by inaccurate illustrations. The fact that students find modalism helpful in their understanding of the Trinity based on illustrations like H20 being solid, liquid, and gas only demonstrates that they have not fully understood the Trinity at all! If they truly grasped the concept, they would have pointed out the inadequacy of the illustration rather than claiming that it helped them.
Benefit and Conclusion
What then is the help of these illustrations of the Trinity? One thing that this monograph helped me realize as Spencer kept citing his students’ responses is that these illustrations could be a pedagogical tool to negatively demonstrate what the Trinity is not. In other words, since these illustrations all come short of the entire concept of the Trinity, they are helpful in so far as the teacher demonstrates how the Trinity is unlike any of these images. Once the point of distinction is made, the understanding of the biblical teaching of the Trinity becomes apparent. In this negative way—and only in this way—images and illustrations are helpful in the teaching of the Trinity.
LeeJaredGarcia.Com 