Trinity and Incarnation

Magis ChristWiki - Magis Institute

Unit II. H

Are the Trinity and the Incarnation Really Possible?

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

At this point, some readers who have affirmed the conclusions about Jesus’ divinity from the foregoing evidence may be asking “How can Jesus be divine if He is a finite human being?” or “How can the Father and Jesus both be divine without implying that there are two Gods?” It will do well to give a brief philosophical explanation of these two questions; for without them, some readers may be unwilling to proceed any further, preventing them from getting to the main point – that Jesus is “the unconditional love of God with us.” So, is it a contradiction to assert that a finite human being is God (infinite power)? It would be if the early Church had claimed that Jesus’ Incarnation was “divinity becoming human,” or “the divine taking human form,” or “the Infinite taking finite form.” But it did not, because it was very much aware of the contradiction implied by these statements. Hence, the early Church worked to find other forms of expression which avoided these problems in its early Christological hymns.

As the Church developed its doctrine throughout the second through fifth centuries, it worked out a distinction between “person” and “nature.” It subsequently declared that the second Person of the Trinity (the Son) became human (took finite form). However, it was careful to note that the one, divine (infinite) nature did not become human (finite), because that would have been an obvious contradiction. So what is the distinction between “Person” and “nature”? And why is it that “the Person of the Son taking on a finite nature” is not a contradiction?

One Divine Nature

“Nature” within a Platonic context, refers to the form or essence of a thing.  In an Aristotelian context, it refers to the substance (what is not accidental or incidental) or the “to ti ēn einai” (the “what it was to be”).  Perhaps the easiest way of finding the common ground between these two great ancient Greek traditions is to use the word “power” or “act.”   A thing’s nature is the acting power which is most central to its being, and allows it to be compared to other beings (making it intelligible and susceptible to definition).

Thus, the “nature of God” would be equivalent to the “acting power of God.” Now, the one characteristic of the acting power of God is that it is pure; hence, God is pure acting power, or acting power itself; that is, “acting power without qualification or restriction to a particular way of acting.” Inasmuch as it has no particularity (that is, is not restricted to a particular way of acting), it is frequently referred to as unrestricted or infinite power. Philosophers have long recognized that such an ultimate principle has to be absolutely unique (one and only one). Later Christian philosophers demonstrated that there could only be one unrestricted power (that is, one real infinity), because a second infinity would constitute an intrinsic contradiction. A simple rendition of such a proof might go as follows:

(a) Suppose there are two infinities. Then there would have to be some difference between the one and the other; for if there were no difference of any kind between them, they would be the selfsame, and therefore, only one. Now if there were a difference between them, one would have to either have something the other one did not, or be something the other one was not, or be somewhere the other one was not (or have some other difference between them). If there were no such difference, then the two would be the selfsame, and therefore, only one.

(b) Now, the infinity which does not have something that the other one has, or is not something the other one is, or is not somewhere the other one is would have to be finite by its very nature, because it is restricted as to what it has, or is, or where it is located. This means that one of these infinities has to be restricted in order to be different from the other infinity. But if it is restricted or finite, then it would constitute a restricted or finite infinity, which is an intrinsic contradiction (and therefore nonexistent).

(c) Therefore, since any second infinity must be intrinsically contradictory (and therefore nonexistent), there can be only one real infinity (one unrestricted power).

Obviously, this one unrestricted power could not have become incarnate (i.e., taken on a human or finite form), for this would be an intrinsic contradiction as well, namely, a “finite infinity.” So we now must investigate what the Church claimed did become incarnate, namely, the second Person of the Trinity (i.e., the Son).

The Person of the Son

Jesus is declared to be the Son sent by the Father into the world. The Gospel of John gives us an analogy which might be useful in describing “personhood.” The Evangelist calls the Son “the Word” (“ho Logos”) which might be likened to a self-conscious thought about self. Self-consciousness may serve as an adequate analogy for what the Church later termed “Person.”

How might “self-consciousness” be understood? Let us begin with “consciousness.” Consciousness is an act of awareness of, or attention to, a specific content. For example, I am aware of the computer in front of me. Now, when I attend to the computer, everything else within my visual field moves into the background, and my act of consciousness, as it were, moves only the computer (as the only item of interest) into the foreground.

Self-consciousness is awareness of one’s awareness; a consciousness of one’s consciousness, or a grasping of one’s act of grasping. For example, I am not only aware of my computer (consciousness), I am also aware of being aware of my computer (self-consciousness). It is as if I doubled back on myself and caught myself catching the computer, or grasped myself grasping the computer. As a matter of fact, I can even be aware of being aware of my awareness (that is, aware of my self-awareness). Seemingly, I have the power not only to grasp my grasping of the computer, but also to grasp my self grasping myself.

This remarkable power presents all kinds of physical and metaphysical problems because it seems to imply an infinite velocity, that is, that something can be inside itself, and even inside itself inside itself). But my objective here is not to address the specialness of this power of self-awareness or self-consciousness within the world of physical limits, but only to point to the effects of this power, namely, the capacity to create my own inner world or “inner universe.”

This power enables me to consciously divide the world into two parts: “my inner world,” and “the world out there,” which gives rise to two fundamental drives: to bring the outer world under the control or dominion of my inner world (ego-control), or to invest my inner world in the outer world, i.e. to give my inner world over to the good of the outer world (love).

Love requires self-consciousness. Recall for a moment that love, according to Jesus, is “gift of self,” and it is evident that I cannot give myself away unless I have appropriated myself, and I cannot appropriate myself unless I am aware of myself. The same holds true for ego-control. If I wish to dominate another, I must first appropriate the “I” which will do the dominating, and this requires self-awareness. Thus, self-awareness might be viewed as a mixed blessing, for it empowers both love and ego-control, the freedom to give oneself away or to impose oneself on others.

Now, let us return to the matter of the Trinity. As noted earlier, there can be only one infinite divine power (or nature), but Christian revelation holds that there are three Persons in this one nature. If we follow the clue given by John’s Gospel and associate “person” with “self-consciousness,” then we might say that there are three distinct acts of self-consciousness sharing in the one infinite power (nature). This is not contradictory because an unrestricted power can accommodate multiple acts of self-consciousness. We might characterize this as three distinct acts of self-consciousness (Father, Son, and Spirit) making an unrestricted use of the one unrestricted power. The one unrestricted power acts as a single “power source” for the three distinct acts of self-consciousness. There is no need here to postulate three infinite powers (which would be intrinsically contradictory), but only one infinite power of which the three distinct acts of self-consciousness are making an unrestricted use.

What are these three distinct acts of self-consciousness doing (according to Christian revelation)? In addition to making an unrestricted use of the one unrestricted power source, they are in love. The clue to this is found in the Father’s twofold name for the Son, “This is my Son, my beloved one (ho agapētos)…” The reader will notice the familiar root “agape” in “ho agapētos” (“the beloved one”). Inasmuch as the three distinct acts of self-consciousness are capable of making an unrestricted use of the one infinite power source, they are also capable of three distinct unrestricted acts of love.

Interpersonal Love in the Trinity

If the Son’s core identity is “the Beloved One,” then it stands to reason that the Father’s core identity is “the Lover of the Beloved One.” The Father (the first act of self-consciousness) loves the Son (the Beloved One – the second act of self-consciousness) in an unrestricted way, because this is commensurate with His unrestricted use of the one unrestricted power source (nature).

When the Son (the Beloved – the second act of self-consciousness) receives the love of the Father, He is completely aware of the goodness and beauty of the Father’s love, and responds to the Father with all His love (which includes the love arising out of His being beloved by the Father). This might be compared to a child who recognizes the love of his parents, and finds them irresistible in their love, and blurts out, “I love you!” The spontaneous response of the child is transparently authentic. Like the Father, the Son is making an unrestricted use of the one infinite power source; so His act of love is also unrestricted. Thus, the two Persons form a unity of interpersonal love through the one infinite power source (nature). The Father is, as it were, a “giver-receiver,” while the Son is a “receiver-giver.”

But what about the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit (the third distinct act of self-consciousness) is also a beloved, but not simply the beloved of either the Father or the Son. The Spirit is beloved of the union between the Father and the Son.

Can such a union love? Love always acts beyond itself. When love is from an individual, it is termed “gift of self;” but love need not be only an outpouring of self; it can also be an outpouring of an “us” (that is, a union among selves). This may be commonly experienced in a marriage where a couple can give its “us” (its “collective self”) to another person by welcoming that person into the relationship. One can generally tell when a couple has this loving quality as a relational whole because their invitation is so harmonious and welcoming that one does not want to leave. If this loving quality of the “us” is not there, or if there is a problem causing a disruption of the relationship, it is immediately discernable. But when this quality is there, it constitutes a new relationship between the “us” (a unified welcoming and giving relationship) and another beloved. When this other beloved receives the love of the “us,” he returns it (much like a child or a friend) to the union (not merely to the individuals). When a child, for example, reflects love back to the union of both parents, it is qualitatively different than reflecting it back to one parent or another (independently of their relationship). The Holy Spirit, then, is like a “beloved by an ‘us’.” The Spirit is welcomed into the love emanating from the union or relationship between the Father and the Son, and reflects this love back to the union between the Father and the Son.

Therefore, when Christians say that God is love, they do not mean only that the attribute of love belongs to the one infinite nature of God; they mean that there is real interpersonal love (gift of self and gift of “us,” beloved of self and beloved of “us”) taking place through three perfect acts of self-consciousness, making unrestricted use of the one infinite power source (the one infinite, divine nature).

The Incarnation of the Son

As implied above, the Incarnation does not mean that the one infinite nature of God became human (finite), because that would be intrinsically contradictory. Rather, Christian tradition declares that the second Person (self-consciousness) making use of the one infinite nature (power source) entered into a finite human nature. Self-consciousness can act through either an infinite nature or a finite nature, but it will take on the conditions of the power or nature in which it inheres. If self-consciousness inheres (makes use of) a finite power source (nature), then it will be subject to the limitations of that power source. However, if self-consciousness inheres in (makes use of) an unrestricted power source (nature), then there is no limit to the power of its understanding, creativity, freedom, and will.

Therefore, when the Person (self-consciousness) of the Son is making use of the one unrestricted (divine) power source, Its acts of understanding, creativity, and will are similarly unrestricted. When this same self-consciousness makes use of a finite power source (a finite human nature appropriated after the Incarnation), His understanding, creativity, and will are limited by the restrictions inherent in that finite power.

For this reason, Christianity holds that Jesus Christ, after the Incarnation, is one Person (one self-consciousness having one inner domain from which free acts can arise) making use of two natures – one unrestricted and the other restricted. Hence, the one Person of the Son is both true God and true man.

Christianity holds that the second Person (self-consciousness) did not stop using the divine nature (power) when He took on the limitations of human nature, but rather continued operating through His divine nature so that the one self-consciousness had the perspective, understanding, and will of both an infinite and finite nature.

One might ask the question how a single consciousness could have two such different perspectives. One analogy that comes to mind is similar to our dream states, but I hesitate to use it, because it presents so many dis-analogous elements. If one bears in mind that the Incarnation is not anything like a human dream state, but a human dream state illustrates how one’s self-consciousness can have two different perspectives, then perhaps the analogy may render some benefit. When I am dreaming, my self-consciousness (self-awareness) does not exit out of my material body. Rather, while present to my “real world body,” my self-consciousness (“I”) enters into a dream world with states and laws quite different from the “real world.” I might be able to fly, run the 100 yard dash in less than 9 seconds (not likely in my present real world condition), and even quarterback better than Joe Montana. I can feel fear and elation within that world which is not commensurate with anything going on in the “real world.” Nevertheless, the fear seems quite real, even when my self-consciousness experiences it in the dream world.

One might use this inadequate analogy to think of the second Person (self-consciousness) in the Trinity. While still using and present to His infinite power (infinite nature), He enters into His thought of creation, and takes on the particularity of Jesus of Nazareth. The self-consciousness of the Son does not have to stop using His infinite power (infinite nature) in order to enter into the perspective of a finite power (finite nature) any more than my self-consciousness (“I”) has to leave my “real world body” in order to enter into a dream world with altogether different laws and perspectives.

Summary

If the above has not thoroughly confused the reader, he or she may want to recall three essential themes which link Jesus Christ as Emmanuel (God with us) to the God of unconditional Love:

1) The Trinity is the interpersonal love taking place among three Persons (self-consciousnesses) making an unrestricted use of one unrestricted, divine power source (nature). These three Persons relate to each other as follows: the Father loves the Son, while the son receives the love of the Father and returns it to Him. The loving relationship between the Father and the Son constitutes a unity, which unity gives itself to another beloved (the Spirit) who receives the love of the Father and the Son (in their unity), and returns it to them.

2) Emmanuel is not the one infinite nature of God becoming human (finite). Rather, He is the second Person (self-consciousness – the Son – the Beloved) of the Trinity making use of a finite human power (nature).

3) The only suitable reason for the second Person of the Trinity to enter into human nature would be to achieve a face-to-face, peer-to-peer empathy with humanity, resulting in humanity’s complete access to the loving heart of the Son. In other words, the only suitable reason for the second Person becoming incarnate is unconditional Love. Nothing else could explain why the second self-consciousness would subject Himself to finitude, transitoriness, and pain when He could have remained comfortable within the infinite divine nature alone.

Thus it seems that the interpersonal love of the Trinity desires to move out of itself into the domain of creatures through the person of the Beloved, who can make us co-beloveds in His union with the Father and the Spirit, and can give us His Spirit to course through our community and bring that community back to the Father as perfect gift. This is the logic of love, or better, the logic of Unconditional Love.