The Holy Trinity and Human Relationships

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Gen 1:26, 27

            According to the great Reformer John Calvin, in order to know ourselves we must first know God.[i] Knowledge of God and knowledge of ourselves are closely related. If we are to understand who we are as human beings created in the “image of God,”[ii] we must first understand who God is. 

God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit

Like Judaism and Islam, the Christian faith declares that God is “one” (Deut 6:4).[iii] In the Old Testament, “blessing” was announced in the Name of the “Lord” (Num 6:22-27). Unlike the other great “monotheistic” religions, however, Christianity declares that God is not alone, isolated in solitary “one-ness.” Christians believe that God has revealed himself in salvation history as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.[iv] In the New Testament, “blessing” or “benediction” is spoken in reference to the love of the Father, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit (2Cor 13:14).[v] In view of the three-fold pattern of God’s self-revelation as recorded in the New Testament, the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity teaches that God eternally exists as “One Being” (i.e., “nature,” “essence”) in “Three equal divine Persons.”[vi] 

According to the New Testament, God is “love” (1John 4:8, 16). Love is not a characteristic or “attribute” that we ascribe to God. Rather, God is love; God’s very “being” or “nature” is love. Love is a term of relationship, for love requires another. According to theologian Daniel Migliore, “otherness” is the presupposition of love; it is the essential ingredient in love. [vii] In the Holy Trinity, the Father loves the Son from all eternity; the Son loves the Father from all eternity; the Holy Spirit is the “bond” of love between the Father and the Son.[viii] Because the Holy Trinity is a fellowship or communion of divine love, the “Persons” of the Holy Trinity are not separate, autonomous “selves” or “individuals”; rather, “otherness” is essential to the triune being of God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit have their identities in relationship to one another, a relationship whose essential nature is love.[ix] According to Migliore: 

The trinitarian persons are precisely not self-enclosed subjects who define themselves in separation from and opposition to others. Rather, in God “persons” are relational realities and are defined by intersubjectivity, shared consciousness, faithful relationships, and the mutual giving and receiving of love.[x]

In contrast to Judaism and Islam, the Christian God has his “being” (“nature,” “essence”) in relationship.[xi] The Name of God as revealed in the New Testament explicitly denotes relationship (cf. Matt 28:19; 2Cor 13:14). There can be no Father without the Son; there can be no Son without the Father. In sending his “only begotten Son”[xii] into the world, God reveals himself as the God whose “being” is constituted by relationship.

In the Old Testament God reveals himself as the God who freely and sovereignly chooses to enter into relationship with human beings. In the Old Testament, God enters into a unilateral covenant with ancient Israel, proclaiming, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex 20:2, 3). God is the “covenantal” God. God’s desire to enter relationship, even partnership, with human beings is an expression of God’s own eternal, inner life―a life that is constituted by fellowship and communion among the three Persons of the Holy Trinity.[xiii]

In summary, the doctrine of the Trinity states that the One God of the Christian faith eternally exists as three divine Persons in a communion or relationship of love. According to Migliore, the communion of the Holy Trinity includes “differentiation” (i.e., “diversity”) and “relationship.” In the communion of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, there is “difference without division, self-giving without self-loss, and eternal life in ceaseless harmony and peace.”[xiv] According to African theologian, Charles Nyamiti, God is essentially “communicative”; God is a communion of “unbounded sharing … in perfect harmony and absolute oneness among the divine Persons.”[xv] The relationship among the Persons of the Trinity is marked by equality of personhood, interdependence (not independence), cooperation (not competition), unity of purpose, and mutual self-giving and receiving. Moreover, the relationship among the divine Persons is so close and intimate that they are said to “mutually indwell” one another.[xvi] The Father, Son and Spirit “encircle” one another in a divine “dance” of love. They “make room” for each other in mutual hospitality.[xvii] 

In the Image of God

The Christian belief that God is a communion or fellowship of equal Persons who co-exist in a relationship of love bears directly upon the biblical teaching that human beings are created “in the image of God.” Because God has his “being-in-relationship,” he has created human beings to have their “being” in relationship. The primary relationship for which human beings are created is their “vertical” relationship with God. Out of the over-flow of trinitarian love, God created human beings to share in the divine “life” by participating in the mutual love, communion and fellowship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.[xviii]

The secondary relationship for which human beings are created is their relationship with neighbour.[xix] God did not create humans as solitary “individuals” but as “male and female,” in such a way that they need each other to be human. In the beginning God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (Gen 2:18). In the biblical tradition, it is not man (Adam) alone who reflects the image of God, but “man and woman” together who constitute the image of God. “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them (Gen 1:27 italics added). After God made a “helper” suitable for man, the Bible tells us: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). As a “creaturely reflection” of the equality, unity and diversity of the Holy Trinity, man and woman united in the covenant of marriage reflect the “image of God.” The horizontal man-woman relation within the covenant of marriage, grounded in the vertical relation with God, is a reflection of God and represents a “created” correspondence to the “uncreated,” eternal relations within the Holy Trinity.^[xx] Hence, man is constituted a “relational” being not only through his “vertical” relationship with his Creator, but also through his “horizontal” relation within his created existence as man and woman.

Wider Implications

Because we are created in the image of God, we can learn much about God’s design for human relations by reflecting upon the intradivine relations among the Persons of the Trinity. The equality, interdependence, cooperation, sharing and mutual self-giving and receiving among the Persons of the Trinity provide a model for human relationships, whether marriage and family, or community, clan, tribe or nation.[xxi] As Migliore notes, the “experiences of friendship, caring family relationships, and the inclusive community of free and equal persons [provide] hints or intimations of the eternal life of God and of the reign of God that Jesus proclaimed.”[xxii]

Because the God in whose image we are created is a fellowship or communion of love, Christians in particular are summoned to embody a new community in which there is a fair sharing of the earth’s resources, and where relationships of power and domination are replaced by relationships of honour and mutual respect among equals.[xxiii] Understanding the Holy Trinity as a community of love among equals “lays the foundation for a society of brothers and sisters, of equals, in which dialogue and consensus are the basic constituents of living together in both the world and the Church.”[xxiv] The doctrine of the Holy Trinity, in which God is understood to be a communion of interpersonal love constituted by relations of equality, cooperation, and mutual self-giving and receiving, provides the ground for a Christian view of life and social ethics.[xxv]

Because God’s life is in “community,” human life created in the image of God is intended to be lived in community.[xxvi] The Christian hope for peace, justice and freedom among peoples of diverse cultures, ethnicities and races is in keeping with the “logic” of the doctrine of the Trinity, with its assertion of community, equality, freedom and harmony among the Persons of the Godhead. The Christian confession of God as Holy Trinity supports the values of sharing, mutual giving and receiving, cooperation, unity, and peace in the midst of diversity and difference. Thus, the Christian confession of the Holy Trinity challenges the inequality of “totalitarianism,” where individual freedom and rights are suppressed, as well as “individualism,” where the self-interest of the individual undermines the interests of the wider community.[xxvii] To be sure, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity undermines all forms of social inequality, whether elitism, racism, sexism, classism or tribalism.[xxviii]

Unity and Diversity

The doctrine of the Trinity asserts that the God of the Christian faith is “One Being” in “Three Persons”―Father, Son and Holy Spirit―each equally and fully God. That is, the Persons of the Trinity share a common “Being” or “nature,” while, at the same time, they are distinct or “diverse” in Personhood. Thus, in the Holy Trinity there is both unity (one-ness) and diversity (three-ness).

The unity-in-diversity of the Holy Trinity has numerous implications for human relationships. As noted above, within the covenant of marriage, “man and woman” together embody a unity-in-diversity that reflects the image of God. Likewise, the Church embodies the unity-in-diversity of the Holy Trinity. The universal Church is a corporate “body” composed of many “parts” or members of diverse ethnicities, cultures, nationalities and races, united under a single head, Jesus Christ, and equipped for service through the diversity of spiritual gifts lavishly given by the Holy Spirit (1Cor 12:4-31; cf. Rom 12:3-8). This multi-ethnic, multi-cultural diversity is expressed in a variety of worship styles, musical forms and other liturgical practices. Therefore, ethnic, tribal and cultural differences in worship styles and practices should be encouraged and celebrated throughout the Church, not only as a participation in the freedom of the gospel, but also as an expression of the unity and diversity of the Holy Trinity.[xxix]

Conclusion

The implications for human relationships in light of humanity’s creation in the image of the Triune God have yet to be fully realised. This is the task of the contemporary and future Church. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Trinity provides a theological ground to support a view of human beings as “persons-in-relation.” As beings created in the image of the God who eternally has his “Being-in-relationship,” to be fully and truly human is to live and move and have our being in relationships. When God is rightly understood to be a tri-Personal communion of love, the doctrine of the Trinity undermines both the radical individualism of Western culture and the loss of individuality that is the goal of eastern religions.[xxx] As disciples of Jesus Christ and diverse members of his Body, the Church is called upon to embody and enact the values that derive from a trinitarian view of God. These values include mutual sharing, giving and receiving, cooperation, equality, interdependence, mutual respect and honour, unity of purpose and the pursuit of peace and harmony among the diverse peoples of the world.

******
If you have found this blog helpful, please consider making a small online donation to AsiAfrica Ministries, Inc. We serve impoverished pastors, evangelists, missionaries and their families in east Africa and south Asia. Go to http://www.AsiAfricaMinistries.org

---

[i] John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion. I.1.1.

[ii] Latin: imago dei

[iii] NIV footnote: The Lord our God is one Lord; or The Lord is our God, the Lord is one; or The Lord is our God, the Lord alone.

[iv] The New Testament bears ample witness to the three-fold pattern of God’s self-revelation in human history as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

[v] Fiddes, P.S. 2000. Participating in God: A Pastoral Doctrine of the Trinity. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, p. 5).

[vi] In the Holy Trinity is both unity (“One-ness”) and diversity (‘Three-ness”). In regard to unity, we say that God is “one in Being.” In regard to diversity, we say that Father, Son and Spirit are distinct, unique persons, who together constitute the “Being” of God. Thus, God is “Three-in-One” or “One-in-three.”

[vii] Cf. Migliore, D.L. 2004. Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology. 2^nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, p. 77). “Otherness” is the presupposition of love; it is the essential ingredient in love. Because love requires another, God cannot eternally exist in isolation and aloneness; thus, God cannot be one Person. In order to be eternally love, God must eternally exist in fellowship or communion of divine Persons. God does not “become” love when he creates human beings; God is “love” from all eternity.

[viii] The description of the Holy Spirit as the “bond of love” is useful so long as it is not allowed to de-personalize the Spirit. The Spirit is not an impersonal “force” or “power”; rather, the Holy Spirit is a fully divine Person, equal with the Father and Son. The Holy Spirit is fully God, the third Person of the Trinity.

[ix] Note that “Father” and “Son” are terms of relationship.

[x]  Migliore, p. 77.

[xi] The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in relationship to one another constitute the “being” of God without remainder.

[xii] Cf. John 3:16 (KJV)

[xiii] Cf. Migliore, 79.

[xiv] Ibid, p. 87.

[xv] Nyamiti, C. 1978. African Tradition and the Christian God. (Eldoret, Kenya: Gaba Publications, p. 64). In Kärkkäinen, V. 2007. The Trinity: Global Perspectives. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, p.363.)

[xvi] The theological term for the “mutual indwelling” of the Persons of the Trinity is perichoresis (Greek) or coinherence (Latin). The doctrine of the “mutual indwelling” of the Persons of the Holy Trinity guards against the heresy of “tri-theism,” that is, a doctrine of three “gods.” The Holy Trinity is not three “gods”; rather, the Holy Trinity is “one God” in “three Persons,” who mutually “indwell” one another in loving communion.

[xvii] Migliore, 79.

[xviii] Jesus said: “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10).

[xix] This view is supported by Christ’s great commandment to love God and neighbour (Matt 22:37-40).

[xx] Torrance, T.F. 1988. The Goodness and Dignity of Man in the Christian Tradition. Modern Theology, 4(4):311-2. As Torrance notes, because man and woman together constitute the image of God, it is understandable that an essential place should be given to marriage and the becoming “one flesh” in the structure of humanity.

[xxi] For a few scriptural examples of the mutual sharing of knowledge, power, authority and judgment, as well as the mutual giving and receiving of the Triune God: cf. Matt 11:27; John 5:20, 22; 10:29; 12:49; 13:3; 14:26; 15:10; 16:15

[xxii] Migliore, p. 79.

[xxiii] Ibid, p. 80. We must add that a trinitarian view of community implies both equality of benefit and equality of responsibility. Community means not only the equal and fair distribution of benefits, but also the equal and fair distribution of the duties and responsibilities that support and maintain the community. Community in the image of God requires mutual giving and receiving.

[xxiv] Boff, L. 1988. Trinity and Society. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, pp. 118-20). In Migliore, p. 80.

[xxv]        It would be naïve, however, to think that the doctrine of the Trinity can be applied indiscriminately to all human relationships. For example, we cannot dogmatically assert that Marxism is superior to capitalism (or vice versa) solely by an appeal to the doctrine of the Trinity. Marxism supports equality, uniformity and sameness among the masses at the cost of individuality, while capitalism may support individual (private) gain at the expense of the greater community. Neither system adequately reflects the mutual giving and receiving, reciprocity, cooperation, interdependence and unity of purpose of the Holy Trinity. Moreover, even the “values” that derive from a trinitarian framework cannot be applied indiscriminately. For example, when confronted by evil, cooperation must give way to resistance.

            In contrast to worldly political systems and governments, Christian community is realised and enabled by the Holy Spirit. Apart from the communion-creating power of the Spirit differences within a social group, including the Church, easily give way to fragmentation rather than diversity in unity.

[xxvi] Cf. Migliore, p. 80. The importance of community, clan and tribe in African and Asian cultures clearly reflects the “communal” aspect of humanity’s creation in the “image of God.”

[xxvii] In human political systems, a balance between the needs of the “one” and the needs of the “many” is hard to maintain. Cf. Fiddes, p. 19.

[xxviii] Migliore, p. 80.

[xxix] Any attempt to impose a particular liturgical style or form of worship upon the diversity of congregations and parishes of the worldwide Church reduces the trinitarian principle of unity-in-diversity to bland conformity.

[xxx] For example, in Zen Buddhism the religious practitioner seeks “nirvana,” a word which means “blown-out.” The state of nirvana is that of a candle flame that has just been “blown out.” In contrast to this total loss of individual identity, the God of the Christian faith remembers his people by name. He declares: “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (Ex 3:6).

T.F. Torrance: The Goodness and Dignity of Man, pt. 3

Summary and Critique

As Calvin famously argues at the beginning of his Institutes, in order to know ourselves, we must first know God. In arguing that the imago dei (“image of God”) is a “created correspondence” to the “uncreated relations” in the Holy Trinity, Torrance illumines our understanding of ourselves. Since the One God of the Christian faith is Father, Son and Holy Spirit―three distinct “persons-in-relation”―then to be a human being created in the image of God is to be a “person-in-relation.” Contrary to the Western spirit of individualism and self-reliance, to be a human person is to exist in nexuses of relations that are integral to our identities.[1] Our primary “being-constituting”[2] relation is our vertical relationship with God, realised and actualised in the spirit-Spirit relationship made possible by the vicarious humanity of Jesus, in and through whom the Holy Spirit has become “accustomed” to dwelling in humanity (Irenaeus). Our secondary “being-constituting” relation is our horizontal relation with neighbour. Hence, marriage, family, tribe, church and society form an ever-widening network of relationships that are constitutive aspects of our identities as persons. As the poet said, “No man is an island.” To be a “person” created in the image of God is to live and move and have our being in relationships. [3]

Torrance’s argument that the God-human relationship is the primary “being-constituting” relation in which humanity exists has important implications for the doctrine of sin. Given that the imago dei is constituted in relationship, “sin” cannot be construed merely in terms of the violation of a moral code. Rather, sin must be viewed primarily in terms of the breach of our vertical relationship with God[4] and secondarily in terms of a breach of our horizontal relationship with other. This view is supported by Christ’s great commandment to love God and neighbour (Matt 22:37-40). Hence, rather than view sin in “legal” terms, it must be viewed as “alienation” and “estrangement” from God and neighbour.[5]

            Finally, Torrance’s argument for the goodness and dignity of man is a welcome relief to the Augustinian-Calvinist emphasis on “total depravity.” Torrance’s develops his anthropology not from Adam but from the Second Adam; that is, he locates the goodness and dignity of man in the humanity of Jesus Christ. Torrance emphasises the biblical teaching that man is created “good”[6] and, given the price paid for his redemption, is of infinite worth in the sight of God. For Torrance, sin is not intrinsic to our nature; it is, rather, a “contradiction” of our good creation, whose origin is inexplicable.[7] In keeping with the Reformed tradition, Torrance upholds the importance of grace, articulated in terms of God’s steadfast refusal to let man go, regardless of the depth of the contradiction into which he has fallen.

---

[1] This is not to suggest that our individual identities and unique personalities are unimportant. In contrast to eastern religions, where individual identity is ultimately dissolved into union with the cosmic “One,” a trinitarian view of relationship acknowledges both the importance of the individual and the nexuses of relations in which he or she exists. Father, Son and Spirit are distinct (not identical) persons “in relationship.”

[2] Torrance refers to these “being-constituting” relations as “onto-relations.”

[3] While the “social” or “interpersonal” Being of the Holy Trinity may have innumerable implications for human relationships, care must be taken in making comparisons between the intradivine relations of the Trinity and human relationships. For example, the “mutual indwelling” of the Father, Son and Spirit has no analogue in human relations. God is God and we are not. Cf. Tanner, K. 2001. Jesus, Humanity and the Trinity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, pp. 82-3.

[4] Cf. Psalm 51:4: “Against You and You only have I sinned.”

[5] A corollary to this view of sin is an emphasis on atonement as reconciliation rather than penal substitution.

[6] Cf. Gen 1:31.

[7] Karl Barth described sin as an “impossible possibility.”

T.F. Torrance: The Goodness and Dignity of Man, pt. 2

The Christian Tradition

The decisive factor and controlling centre of the Christian tradition is Jesus Christ. In his incarnate constitution as God and humanity joined in reconciling union, “the ground and goal of the Covenant and of the whole creation have been embodied within actual human existence.” Thus, the real truth of human nature is to be found in Jesus Christ and in him alone. In Jesus, God’s affirmation of man as “good” is fully realized. Torrance writes:

Jesus Christ is the Word by whom, for whom, and in whom we have been created in the image of God, so that in his Incarnation as Immanuel, God with us and for us and in us, he is the secret of our creation and redemption―in him we may now penetrate through all the distortion, depravity and degradation of humanity to the true nature of man hidden beneath it all.[1]

At the cross, the truth of man’s sin and guilt is exposed and judged; at the same time, God’s infinite love for man is revealed, so that the true worth of humanity is disclosed as the object of God’s sacrificial love. In the humanity of the incarnate Son of God, we find the truth that for man to live in union with God is to become fully and perfectly human. Thus, the evil and wickedness of man has nothing to do with his creaturely nature as such, but rather is a “perversion” and “corruption” of his nature as a result of rebellion against the creative source of his being.[2]
              Torrance’s particular concern is to show what the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, along with God’s forgiveness of human sin, have to tell us about the real goodness and dignity of man.

(1). For Torrance, the cross is a window into the heart of God. Jesus Christ is God incarnate, God himself come to be one of us and make our lost cause his own. Against a neo-Platonic dualism that asserts that Christ suffered in his humanity but not in his divinity,[3] we must think of God as directly present in the suffering of Christ on the cross. We must look beyond the passion of Jesus all the way to the passion of the Father, who suffered alongside his Son. [4] As Torrance argues, “The self-abnegating Love of God the Father is surely the supreme truth that lies behind everything else in the Gospel, and gives it its decisive meaning and redemptive power.” Because God forgives our sin at infinite cost to himself in the sacrifice of his Son, the cross proves that God loves us more than he loves himself. The infinite price God has freely chosen to pay in order to share his life with humanity attests to the immeasurable worth and infinite value that God puts upon man. Hence, we are unable to set any limits on the worth of our fellow human beings.

(2). Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word of God, has become Man. In the incarnation, the creative ground and source of our human being has entered the actualities of human existence. By taking upon himself our fallen Adamic flesh, he has healed the dehumanising breach between God and humanity, for he is the perfect man in whom there is no ontological split between what he ought to be and what he is. If to be truly human is to live in fellowship with God, then Jesus, the obedient Son who lives in perfect filial relation with the Father, is the one human being who truly reflects the image and likeness of God. Moreover, because the fully divine Son of God has assumed our actual fallen human nature in the incarnation, notes Torrance, “it is in the human being and nature of Jesus that the true nature and dignity of man are ultimately disclosed and established.” Because he is the Creator Word in whom God and humanity are indivisibly united in his incarnate Person, “the humanity of every man, whether he knows it or not, whether he believes it or not, is ontologically bound up with the humanity of Jesus.” This is precisely how God makes good his original claim at creation that man is made “good,” notes Torrance, for Jesus himself is “the true secret of the nature of every human being.” Because he is both the image and the Reality of God, who has taken our fallen humanity to himself, it is by reference to Jesus that we must now think of man as created “in the image of God.” Even though it may be hidden or distorted by sin, the image of God in man nevertheless remains, sealed in place by virtue of our ontological bond with Jesus Christ. Even if we cannot see it, Jesus acknowledges it in teaching that in our relations with our fellow human beings, we have ultimately to do with him and, therefore, with God.[5]

Jesus Christ is “humanising Man” and “personalising Person.” He alone is fully and properly Man, “for in him the creative Source of human being and the perfect actualisation of human being are one.” He is the “fount” from which all that is truly human is derived. We, on the other hand, are “humanised” men and women, for we are not human by virtue of an innate “essence of humanity,” but only in virtue of what we receive from his humanity. Therefore, for us to be truly human is to be “in Christ.”

Likewise, Jesus Christ is “person” in the fullest sense, for, in him, the creative source of personal being and the one perfect human person are united. We, on the other hand, are “personalised persons,” for the source of our personhood lies not in ourselves but in union with Jesus Christ, through whom, by the power of the Holy Spirit, we participate in the communion of personal being of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, for us to be truly personal is to be “in Christ.”[6]

The humanising and personalising character of the incarnation must be understood in relation to the infinite self-abnegating love of God embodied in Jesus Christ, “who did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). In giving up his Son at infinite cost to himself, the Father has proven that he loves us unconditionally, without reserve, more than he loves himself. As Torrance argues, “That is the essential nature of his Divine Love which bears upon us in Jesus with all the compelling claims of God upon us and with the undiluted imperative that we love God …  [with all our heart, soul, mind] … and our neighbour as ourselves.” This is such a new kind of law, Torrance contends, that a new word, agape, had to be coined for it in the New Testament. As we reach out to the “objective other” in agape, we pass beyond ourselves to that place where the humanising and personalising power of Jesus Christ may be actualised in our daily lives. It is here, argues Torrance, that the real goodness and dignity of man is made manifest: in “loving others objectively for their sake, and being accounted as the object of such selfless love for our sake.”[7] 

The Communion of the Holy Spirit 

As already noted, the biblical tradition eschews a Platonic dualism in favour of a unitary anthropology, where man is body of his mind and mind of his body. Hence, the “spirit” in man, by which he is related to God, is not a “third” thing but rather a “dynamic correlate” to the Holy Spirit, by whose power man is sustained in his distinctive existence in relation to other human beings. While transcendent and wholly Other, the Holy Spirit is free to be present to man, in order to make him open to God and bring him into fellowship with his Creator. While man has no inherent “continuity” with God,[8] he does have a relationship with God that is unceasingly sustained by the Holy Spirit, who acts both from the side of God and from the side of man, undergirding and upholding him in reciprocal relation to God. Thus, man is not to be understood from a centre in himself, but from above and beyond himself in his transcendent relation to God, as well as within the nexus of his interrelations with neighbour.

In order to further develop his argument for the goodness and dignity of man, Torrance turns to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the trinitarian concept of “person.”  The doctrine of the Trinity asserts that God is three distinct “Persons,” who eternally coexist in a communion or fellowship of love. In the Triune Godhead, notes Torrance, the relations of love between Father, Son and Spirit are “personal relations subsisting in One Being.” That is, “the relations of Love between the Persons of the Holy Trinity belong essentially to what the Divine Persons are.” Noting that the trinitarian concept of “Persons” in the Godhead gave rise to the Western concept of “person,” Torrance argues that God created human beings to reflect on a creaturely level the inter-personal relations of God himself. As the interrelations between the divine Persons are essential to their distinct identities as Father, Son and Spirit, so also on the human level the relations between persons belong to what persons really are. In other words, to be a human “person” is not to be an isolated “individual” but is to be a “person-in-relation,” for relationship is integral to what a person is.

The trinitarian concept of “person” illumines our understanding of the humanising and personalising impact of Jesus on human nature. As the love that God is belongs to the inner personal relations of the Trinity, “love” belongs to the “essential equation of the personal” at the human level. Yet, this is love in a “profound ontological sense” that derives from the Holy Spirit―the love between persons that belongs to what personal beings actually are. According to Torrance, the Spirit dwells in our hearts and floods them with the love that God is; thus, as he is the “bond of Oneness” in the Trinity, he “may” also be the bond of unity, love and intensely personal relations among us.[9] “It is thus that in our frail contingent human nature,” argues Torrance, “we may even be ‘partakers of the Divine Nature’ as through the Communion of the Holy Spirit we are allowed to share in the very Love that God himself is.”

The intimate indwelling of the Holy Spirit is made possible only through Jesus Christ, the one Mediator between God and man. [10] In assuming our sinful human flesh, Jesus made himself one with us, taking our lost and damned condition to himself in atoning exchange, so that we might be restored to communion with the Father. By making himself the “dwelling place” of the Spirit, mediating within our fallen human existence the divine presence and power of God, Jesus has healed the “ontological tension” that sin has created between God and fallen humanity. The New Testament refers to this “new spiritual and ontological condition” as being “in Christ,” or “in the Spirit.” While this is true “in a distinctive and intimate way only of those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Saviour,” notes Torrance, it has a wider application. As all humans are ontologically dependent upon Jesus Christ, so also all humans―regardless of whether they know it or believe it―are ontologically dependent upon the immanent presence of the Holy Spirit, who has been poured out on all flesh (cf. Acts 2:17). Torrance continues:

While we cannot understand all that this being-constituting relation of the Spirit of God to man involves for one who is “without Christ,” it certainly means for a man “in Christ” that his human nature as body of his mind and mind of his body is affirmed with a spiritual wholeness and a new ontological interrelation with others that transcends his original creation, for now he exists not just alongside of the Creator, but in such a way that his human being is anchored in the very Being of God.  

Torrance sums up his argument for the goodness and dignity of man by restating the pivotal importance of the incarnation, where the eternal purpose of God is gathered up in Jesus Christ. In the incarnation, notes Torrance, “our human nature has been taken up in Jesus to the top and summit of being, and that with him and in him man has been located in the very centre of all things!” In lieu of a dualism between the physical and spiritual realms, the incarnation shows that, despite the contradiction introduced by sin and evil, God and man are forever one in Jesus Christ and, through the cross, all things in heaven and earth are reconciled to God (2Cor 5:19). In the incarnation, creation and redemption are perfectly integrated; the original relation between the covenant and the creation has been reaffirmed by God, so that the entire universe is redeemed, sanctified and renewed in Jesus Christ. Man’s role is to serve the purpose of God’s love in the ongoing actualisation of redemption, sanctification and renewal in the universe, as a kind of “midwife” to creation, assisting nature out of its divinely given abundance to ever bring forth new forms of life and richer patterns of order. Torrance concludes:

Indeed as the covenant partner of Jesus Christ man may be regarded as the priest of creation, through whose service as a man of faith and a man of science the marvellous rationality, symmetry, harmony and beauty of God’s creation are being brought to light and given expression in such a way that the whole universe is found to be a glorious hymn to the Creator.

---

[1] Note that Torrance distinguishes between “depravity” and the “true nature” of man.

[2] For Torrance, sin and evil are “perversions” of our nature. Contrast this with the NIV translation of Romans 7:18, 25, as “sinful nature,” a translation that is subject to criticism.

[3] This particularly dualism, all too common in the Patristic era, was based on the radical separation of the divine and material in Platonic thought.

[4] Torrance does not fall into the heresy of patripassianism by asserting that the Father was crucified; rather, he refutes both a dualism between the divine and human natures of Jesus, as well as between the Father and the Son.

[5] Cf. Acts 9:4: “Saul, Saul; Why are you persecuting Me?”

[6] Torrance quotes John 1:16: “And from his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace.”

[7] According to Torrance, this is why John focuses so much attention in his Epistles on the “new” commandment, where we are to love others with the very love with which we ourselves are loved by God in his self-giving at the cross.

[8] Contra gnostic emanationism and “New Age” pantheism.

[9] Torrance’s description of the Spirit as the “bond of Oneness” in the Trinity is similar to Augustine’s description of the Spirit as the “bond of love” between the Father and the Son. Augustine’s description is useful so long as it is not taken to depersonalize the Spirit.

[10] In regard to the Spirit’s relation to man, Torrance notes that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, and that he is mediated to humanity through the person and work of the incarnate Son. The Holy Spirit is the personal presence of God to man, actualising knowledge of God within him and creating in him the capacity to respond to God’s Word. Coming from the inner communion of love in the heart of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit brings man’s human relations to their true end through his “inter-personal” mode of presence to man, effecting a communion of love between God and humanity.

 

T.F. Torrance: The Goodness and Dignity of Man, pt. 1

            The following is a detailed summary and critique of: Torrance, T.F. 1988. The Goodness and Dignity of Man in the Christian Tradition. Modern Theology, 4(4):309­-322.

The goodness and dignity of man must be viewed in relation to Jesus Christ. According to Torrance, “Christian judgments about man are properly formed in the light of the humanity of Christ and in accordance with his redemptive purpose in the regeneration of mankind.”

In order to set the background for a Christocentric anthropology, Torrance outlines several basic tenets of the Judeo-Christian view of humanity.  

The Biblical Tradition 

(1). Man is created by God and affirmed by him as “good.” As a created being, man has a “contingent” relation with God, for man has his “sustaining ground and sufficient reason” in God. At the same time, man is a unique reality utterly different from God with an integrity and independence of his own. God called man into relationship with himself through his Word in such a way that “the Word of God is made to echo in the innermost being of man.” According to Torrance, “[T]he distinctly contingent nature of human being is grounded in the direct address of God to man which has the effect of sealing and destining him for communion with God.”

(2). In contrast to a Platonic mind-body dualism, Torrance follows biblical anthropology in describing man as a “unitary whole,” that is, “body of his mind and mind of his body.” Because man lives and moves and has his being in God (cf. Acts 17:28), he is made to live in relationship with God through the “immanent presence and power” of the Holy Spirit. The activity of the Spirit in creation is the freedom of God to be present to the creature, notes Torrance, “sustaining it in its creaturely being and realising the relation of the creature to himself, so that the creature may reach its true end beyond itself in God.” Not only does God uphold man from “below” in his contingent existence, but through his Spirit, God is present to man in such a way as to sustain him in his “contingent openness to God and the address of his Word.” The Bible uses the word “spirit” to describe man’s relationship to God as constituted by the Holy Spirit. The “spirit” in man is not to be understood as a gnostic “spark” of divinity, but rather as the “creaturely pole of the spirit-Spirit relation.” As Torrance notes, “It is creative Spirit at God’s end and creaturely spirit at man’s end.” In light of the “spirit-Spirit relation,” notes Torrance, man must regarded as an “essentially relational being,” who is what he is as man through “subsisting” in the “being-constituting” God-human relation. If God were to withdraw his Spirit, notes Torrance, man would vanish into nothingness.[1]

Man is a creature who lives on the boundary between two worlds: the physical and spiritual, the visible and invisible, or what scripture refers to as the earthly and heavenly. As a unitary being, mind of his body and body of his mind, uniquely related to God through the presence of the Spirit, man spans both worlds. “He is thus the one constituent of the universe,” notes Torrance, “through whom the creation discloses its astonishing order and harmony and comes to expression in such a way as to praise and glorify God the Father Almighty.”

3). Human beings are created by God not as solitary individuals but as “male and female,” in such a way that they need each other to be human. In the biblical tradition, it is not man alone but “man and woman” who constitute in their union the basic unit of humanity. Thus, “co-humanity” belongs to the essential fabric of human existence. Marriage takes an essential place in the structure of humanity, for the becoming “one flesh” of the man-woman relation “generates a dynamic ontological relationship within human existence.” Hence, man is constituted a “relational” being not only through his “vertical” relationship with his Creator, but also through his “horizontal” relation within his created existence as man and woman. Through procreation, the “intra-human relation” within marriage weaves the intrinsic social fabric of humanity around the family.

(4). It is in respect of the “intra-relational” structure of man as “man and woman” that he is created in the “image and likeness” of God (cf. Gen 1:26). The “basic inter-human relation” is made to reflect in its creaturely difference both a transcendent relation within God and the basic covenant partnership between God and humanity. As Torrance notes, it is not man or woman “individually” who reflects the image of God, but “man” as “man and woman” in their reciprocal and complimentary relationship with one another, a relationship that is a “unique analogical relation to God.”[2] The horizontal man-woman relation (within the covenant of marriage), grounded in the vertical relation with God, is “a contingent reflection of God and represents a created correspondence to uncreated relations within God himself.” Unique among all created beings, singled out in “created correspondence” with God, man is the “crown of creation,” who has been granted a covenant partnership with God wherein he is to exercise “dominion” (not unrestricted lordship) over his fellow creatures.
             (5). The enigma of man, however, is that he is “fallen” from the state in which God created him and exists in “contradiction” to the purpose for which he is destined. Far from being abandoned, however, God continues to claim man and accept as his “good” handiwork. According to Torrance, “The human nature created by God as such is not evil but essentially good in its determination for fellowship with God, and perfectly adapted for the fulfilment of his will and purpose in the creation (italics added).” Torrance continues:

Although the contradiction into which man has lapsed is judged by God, the very fact that God set his “No” against it means that God will not allow man to escape from the primary “Yes” of God in his creative affirmation of him as good, and so man must always be regarded in the light of God’s promise that he will make good his claim. 

The “inexplicable emergence of evil” into the God-man relationship, notes Torrance, creates a breach not only between man and God but also between man and woman, man and nature and within man, so that man is alienated from himself. Because human beings are no longer the beings they ought to be, whether in relation to God or to one another, they are trapped in an ontological split in the fabric of their being. Deeply “curved in upon themselves” in the depths of their being, no matter how much they exercise free will, they are unable to escape from their self-will, so that, try as they may to be what they ought to be, they remain aware that they ought to be other than they are. As Torrance argues, “They cannot overcome the disruption in their constitutive relations with God or fellow human beings which inexorably imposes that obligation upon them for it belongs to the ontological structure of what they now are.”[3]
              6). Out of the breach that evil has created in our vertical-horizontal relations arises “conscience,” the “inner warning that is soundlessly voiced within us ... when we come into conflict with God and with one another.” While conscience has its primary reference to man’s vertical relation with God, through which his being is constituted, it has a secondary reference to his horizontal relations in which he exists with others. As part of the “ineradicable makeup” of man, conscience functions at the intersection of man’s vertical-horizontal relations, where the claims of God written on his heart meet with the claims of neighbour upon him. Because of his broken relationship with his Creator, however, conscience functions as a “sounding board” through which man hears the voice of God only as a refracted “echo,” distorted and unclear. Thus, conscience tells us nothing “positive’ about God but, at best, signals when we are in the wrong with God and other. Moreover, conscience may become twisted, so that its signals are co-opted by evil for the purpose of greater evil.
              (7). Man’s entire being partakes of the inner contradiction into which he has fallen, so that sin and guilt are rooted in the ontological depths of his existence. Yet God continues to claim man as his own and affirm him as good, despite the contradiction in which he is trapped. God’s steadfastness toward disobedient man is expressed in the “covenant of grace.” While the righteous God judges man’s sin and guilt, God’s refuses to let man go but, rather, “redeems him from the evil that menaces his reality and integrity as a child of God.” Far from being condemnatory, God’s holiness is “supremely self-imparting and redemptive,” for God’s holiness is the “purity of his everlasting Love with which he has bound man to himself and will not let him go.”[4]

As Torrance notes, God’s relation with Old Testament Israel, “in the redeeming and renewing force of his steadfast Love,” is the paradigm for his relations with all humanity. Torrance writes:

The astonishing revelation of God in the Biblical Tradition is that God does not wish to exist alone, and has freely brought into being alongside of himself and yet in utter distinction from himself another upon whom he may pour out his love, with whom he may share his divine Life in covenant-partnership. That is the relationship in terms of which the ultimate secret of human nature is to be sought, and with reference to which therefore the essential goodness and dignity of man are to be understood.[5]

Hence, human history must be viewed within the framework of God’s determination of man for fellowship with himself and God’s positive affirmation of human existence, despite the contradiction of evil entrenched within it. While the biblical tradition will not allow us to overlook human evil, neither will it allow us to forget that, in making man for himself, God approves of what he has made and affirms its goodness. Even in the face of everything that contradicts it, man’s creation “in the image of God” is the “divinely given law and truth” of his being. In view of man’s destiny to live in a covenant partnership with God that transcends the brokenness of his actual existence, Torrance writes:

What greater dignity could man have than to be the covenant partner of God, the being of whom God is for ever mindful, the one to whom he addresses his Word and whom he enlightens as no other creature, and indeed the one with whom God wishes to share his own life and love and glory?

---

[1] For Torrance, man is constituted a relational being primarily by the “vertical” spirit-Spirit relation and secondarily by the “horizontal” man-neighbour relation (cf. below). In describing the spirit-Spirit relation as a “being-constituting” relation (i.e., “onto-relation”), Torrance implies that the God-human relation is an integral, essential aspect of what it means to be human.

[2] The One God of the Christian faith is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three divine Persons, eternally and equally co-existing in a communion of love. As a creaturely reflection of the equality, unity and diversity of the Holy Trinity, “man and woman” united in the covenant of marriage reflect the image of God.

[3] Torrance appears to describe “original sin” in terms of a breach of relationship between God and man and man and neighbour. This would follow from his assertion that “relationship” constitutes the imago dei.

[4] Torrance sets holiness in relation to divine love rather than divine law. Holiness and love are not competing attributes in God; rather, holiness is the “purity” of divine love. Moreover, Torrance does not say that man is evil; rather, he asserts that man is “menaced” by evil.

[5] Italics added. Man’s goodness and dignity derive from his relationship with God, as covenant partner and recipient of divine love.

Kataphysical inquiry, onto-relationality and elemental forms in T.F. Torrance’s doctrine of the mediation of Jesus Christ

Greetings Everyone,

Click link below to read an academic article of I have written on Torrance’s theology. The article has just been published in In die Skriflig/In Luce Verbi, an accredited journal that serves as the official journal of the Reformed Theological Society (Gereformeerde Teologiese Vereniging). This theological journal aims to further Reformational Theology on a scientific basis, thus serving the Church and the kingdom of God.

http://www.indieskriflig.org.za/index.php/skriflig/article/view/100

Coming soon: Torrance: The Goodness and Dignity of Man