Did Jesus Have Siblings?

Question: Did Jesus have siblings?
ANSWER:  Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all record that Jesus had siblings.  Obviously because of the virgin birth, they would be half siblings, fathered by Joseph and not a special act of the Holy Spirit.  But all the gospels speak of Jesus having siblings:

 Mk 3:31-32 Jesus' mother and brothers arrived at the house where he was teaching. They stood outside and sent word for him to come out and talk with them. There was a crowd around Jesus, and someone said, "Your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside, asking for you." NLT 

See also Matt 12:46-47; Lk 8:19-20; Jn 2:12.

I shouldn’t give too simple an answer here, however, because there has been much controversy over this very question.  Some have wondered if these siblings mentioned are “half” or “step”.  The Catholic church has maintained for some time that Mary had no other children besides Jesus - that in fact she was a "perpetual virgin" and therefore, never had sexual intercourse ever, not before or after Jesus' birth.

If Jesus was the Son of God, without sin, the church came to ask, how could he have been born of a sinful woman?  So the church gradually (over many years) starting to think that Mary never sinned - that in fact she was born without a sin nature as a special act of grace.  This is called the "immaculate conception" - contrary to popular Protestant misunderstanding, it refers to Mary's conception, not Jesus'.

Then what do Catholics make of the clear passages cited above that tell us Jesus had siblings?  They usually call these his step-siblings by Joseph's marriage prior to Mary.  However, there is no biblical evidence of such a marriage or that these were step-siblings.  Also arguing in the opposite direction is the fact that each time they are mentioned they are always hanging around with Mary and she seems to be in agreement with them to rein in Jesus early in his ministry (Mark 3:21).  This lends to the more natural assumption that they were HER children and not Joseph's by a prior marriage.

The problems if we accept Mary’s perpetual virginity are manifold:  

• One, it doesn't reflect the biblical text which never mentions Joseph's alleged first marriage but does explicitly mention Jesus brothers and sisters.
• Two, the idea has served historically to denigrate human sexuality.  IE, why does Mary's specialness (or sinless nature, if true) require that she never had sex?  Is married sex sinful?  
• Three, it’s a needless theological contrivance since the logical problem of how a sinful woman could give birth to a sinless Son was already solved in the Virgin Birth - that was the TRUE immaculate conception!   We have loads of biblical support for that miracle, but no historical support whatsoever for the Immaculate Conception so called.

So that's a longer answer revealing the long controversy that lies behind your question which you may or may not be aware of.  However, at the end of the day your question does have a simple answer - the Biblical data says repeatedly, yes!

HOW CAN JESUS BE BOTH FULLY GOD AND FULLY HUMAN AT THE SAME TIME?

This is a great question!  In fact it’s the second major question about Jesus that preoccupied the best minds in the church in the early centuries of Christendom. 

The first major question about Jesus was how he could be God and address God as Father at the same time.  What did these biblical statements infer about the nature of God?  The Church eventually settled on a Trinitarian formula – that God was one in being, three in person, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It is sometimes asserted that because this first question wasn’t fully settled until the 4th century that this means the Church essentially picked this view of a fully deified Son out of thin air, and foisted this late developing view onto history.  “Da Vinci Code” anyone?  

But history shows that Christ’s divinity was never in doubt by the Church because, despite its disparate views on Christ, all sides were deriving their view fundamentally from the 4 gospels and the letters of Paul – all first century documents.  The 2nd century Gnostics were not really serious players in the debate, but even they never doubted that Jesus was divine.

The questions were about exactly HOW the Father shared his divinity with the Son – was the Son a mode of God, or the highest created thing in which God’s nature was fully reflected, or fully God?  This unanimity on the main point is due to the fact that the debates were anchored, not in the whims of church leaders, but the New Testament documents themselves.

Like scientists who disagreed about which theory captures the data best but agree on the data itself, the early church mostly agreed that those earliest documents were their trusted data field.  So in the end, each view they rejected lost out because there was scriptural data it could not fully incorporate.  The view that “won” – the Trinity – was the view that captured ALL the data.

So once the Church articulated the Trinitarian nature of God, they then turned to your question:  Since the Bible is clear that Jesus is fully God, and equally clear that he lived as a normal human man, how do you fuse those two natures?  After they answered how God could be three and one, they asked, how can a person be both truly a human being and truly God?

For starters, it was taken for granted that the reason for the Incarnation was that God had to assume human nature in order to save it.  He could not put right what was wrong in us, if he did not take on a complete human nature to redeem it.

So the first way that Christians put these two natures together was to say Jesus was like us, with a body, a mind and a spirit, but that the Second Person of the Trinity displaced the human spirit of Jesus the man.  But the Church  soon realized that if Jesus did not have a human spirit, then he wasn’t TRULY a human.  That meant God could not redeem and save the human spirit.  So this view was eventually rejected.

Another view, Nestorianism, came to the fore.  This agreed there had to be a full human and divine nature in Christ, but saw them as two persons fused in Jesus.  But this too was condemned because it imagined two actual persons within Jesus nature. Scripture did not show a Christ who had two personalities, talking to each other, one possessing the other etc.  Jesus is clearly one person.

So after the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the Church established two bumpers to define a biblical position.  They developed a motto, “Never confusing the natures, never dividing the person.”  They formed a Creed as follows:

We confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man … one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the difference of the natures being by no means taken away because of the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person …not divided or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ.

4th Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon
451 A.D.

So, condemning the view of God displacing a human nature, the Church also condemned the 2-persons-in-one view.  That left their Creed, two complete natures, one person.  

Now, they left it open as to the HOW, yet the basic idea was clear.  If you cut through all the debate, the overly-careful redundancy of the Creed, the fancy words, like “consubstantial” and “subsistence” etc., the Church finally landed in a very simple place:

They acknowledged the biblical minimums without committing to confusing speculation.  Those minimums boil down to this:  A man came who was really and wholly a human man and yet he claimed to be God, having all the prerogatives and qualities of God.  Yet this man never showed signs of being possessed, internally conflicted or schizophrenic – a cohesive, complete, undivided, singular person.

 

So he was two and yet he was one.

Now, as to the “how” question, more modern debate has centered on Philippians 2 for help on that.  Paul there states:

Phil 2:7: Instead He emptied Himself by assuming the form of a slave, taking on the likeness of men.

The key Greek word is “kenosis” – to empty.  This suggests that in order for a full divine nature to fuse with a human nature in one person, the Son was emptied of some divine privileges in the Incarnation.  And this perhaps comes as close as we can get to answering the “HOW” question regarding the seeming impossibility of an infinite God merging with finite humanity.

However, even here we must be very careful how much we lean on that one word “emptying” – since if Jesus was emptied of any core aspect of deity or any essential divine attributes, he ceased to be God.  God cannot be less than God and still be God.

So we should say that by becoming human, the Son emptied himself of some divine privileges, yet he did this willfully and only temporarily WITHOUT losing divine attributes.  To go back to what was established at Chalcedon, we can say that what is true of one nature was not always true of the other, yet whatever was true of one nature had to be true for Jesus, the one Person.

And that best makes sense of everything Jesus said and did.  For example, when Jesus claimed the Father was greater than he (John 14:28), that was certainly true of his human nature, but it was not true of his divine nature.  Yet the one Person Jesus experienced the Father’s greatness and lived in submission to it.  This is part of the Kenosis.

Another example: when Jesus claimed that he didn’t know the hour of his return (Matt 24:36), that was true in his human nature.  But his divine nature was omniscient (John 21:17).  So he was emptied and therefore didn't consciously have access to all knowledge during his life on earth.  Also when Jesus died, he could die because he had a human nature, but his divine nature could not die.  So the “emptying” of Phil 2 gives us the reason that some aspects of His divine nature were ‘hidden’ to him or left “unconscious”.

And yet – and here is the beautiful mystery – because Jesus is one Person his divine nature which cannot die, tasted death, so that he experienced through his human nature everything we as humans do.  Why?  For this purpose:

Heb 2:14-15: Because God's children are human beings—made of flesh and blood—the Son also became flesh and blood. For only as a human being could he die, and only by dying could he break the power of the devil, who had the power of death. 15 Only in this way could he set free all who have lived their lives as slaves to the fear of dying.

Does Colossians 1:15 Mean Jesus Was a Created Being?

Question: Colossians 1:15 says: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." Is this saying that Jesus is a created entity? To be firstborn indicates that someone or something bore it, that the thing doing the bearing existed prior to the thing being born. Is it possible that Jesus and the Holy Spirit, while being fully God as well, we`re created by God initially?

Answer: Good question! I think, however, that to be created by God, means that Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) could not be fully God.  So what should we make of this term, firstborn?  Well, it is somewhat confusing and this is one of two key passages most often used by Jehovah's Witnesses to try and disprove that Jesus was in fact, fully God.  The JW's know that if Jesus was a created being, he CANNOT be God, so they teach that "firstborn" must mean "first created thing."

They presume that Jesus is the archangel Michael; a great being, but not God. To press their point, they actually add to the text of the Bible in this passage. In their special translation (the New World Translation) they actually add the word "other" 6 times in this passage, in order to emphasize that Jesus was just one of many created things:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him." NWT

Now, their logic is correct, (if firstborn means first-created then Jesus cannot be God) but their understanding of that word "firstborn" is not correct and thus their diminishing of Christ from full Godhood is heretical, for three reasons:

First, their taking the liberty of adding the word "other" shows an inherent weakness in their interpretation. They have to tamper with the text to avoid the clear meaning of the ENTIRE passage in context: if ALL things were created through Jesus, (as the text actually says) then clearly Jesus was not one of the created things!

Second, while that Greek word "firstborn" contains the word 'born' inside it, we would be mistaken to infer that it must imply Christ had a beginning, like a 'first born' human child.  In New Testament Greek, the word was often understood to indicate preeminence of rank, not chronological origin.  

Some scholars see in the word an allusion to the ancient custom whereby the firstborn son in a family was accorded the rights and privileges the other children didn't have. Thus the firstborn was uniquely the Father's heir and representative. The emphasis then has nothing to do with a 'beginning' for the son, but rather is about rank, responsibility, rights and reflection of the Father. As further evidence that Paul means to communicate the supremacy of Christ and not the "origin" of Christ with this word, he goes to great lengths after verse 15 to emphasize that Jesus was responsible for the creation of EVERYTHING: invisible and visible, all spiritual powers, all worlds, all seen things in the universe we live in. He "existed before everything began and in him all creation holds together" (17). This is not a created being - clearly - since he is RESPONSIBLE for creation!  

He cannot be responsible for all Creation and also be a part of it, just as God cannot be Creator of the Universe and also a part of it.  This also echoes a psalm of David: “I will also make him My firstborn, greatest of the kings of the earth” (Ps 89:27). And elsewhere, Israel is called God’s “firstborn” (Ex 4:22) - clearly not “first in a series”, rather preeminent.

Third, this entire passage is Paul's treatise on the supremacy and sufficiency of Christ. He is specifically comparing the greatness of Christ against the greatness of angels which the Colossian teachers falsely taught the Church to venerate (2:18). And this underlines just how egregious it is for the JW's to call Jesus an angel, when the whole flow of this chapter AND Hebrews 1 is designed to tell Christians that Jesus is NO angel, and no mere human nor merely another one of many exalted powerful creatures. Rather, he is "the image of the invisible God," (Col 1:15), and, "the Son is exact representation of His being" (Heb 1:3).  As if to put the matter beyond all doubt, Paul loses all restraint and says one chapter later, "For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body" (Col. 2:9)

In fact, Paul's use of "firstborn" in one sense matches Jesus own statement about himself in John 3:16 where is described as "begotten".  Again we might think begotten implies a time when Jesus was created, but in fact the real distinction is between something BEGOTTEN versus something MADE.  A man begets what is like himself, a son, but he makes was is unlike himself, a house or a painting.

That's why of all the analogies to apply to Jesus's relationship to God, the one he gave himself, "Son" is still the best.  Jesus is of the same stuff as the Father, begotten, not made.  It's true that while equal with the Father, Jesus's sonship says that he proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Spirit being the "Spirit of Jesus" and the "Spirit of God" must proceed from the Father and Son.  They are separate persons as the New Testament shows, but that doesn't mean they were created.

So ANOTHER biblical metaphor will help understand how Jesus could be begotten but not made. The Bible says Jesus is "the Word", the Father then must be the Thought or Mind.  One proceeds from the other, but from all eternity, if you have one, you have the other.  As CS Lewis said, "Jesus is what the Father has to say, but there was never a time he wasn't saying it."

Why does this matter?  Well, the sufficiency of the Redemption hangs on the truth of Jesus identity.  If Jesus was a created being, he cannot carry sin, for any finite being cannot be the infinite satisfaction for God's just demands offended in creation's fall (Innocent lambs weren't good enough to cover sin - Heb 9:23 - why would angels be?).

Also, any intermediary substitute who is NOT God cannot resolve a broken relationship with God.  We say Jesus is a substitutionary sacrifice, and so he was, a substitute for US.  But he was not a substitute for God!  If he is some created thing, he cannot represent God's interest in the cosmic conflict with fallen man, just as you can't send an employee to offer vicarious forgiveness to your daughter when she messes up.  You have to go in yourself.

If the fullness of the Godhead rests in Christ (Col. 2:9), then and only then can it be true that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself." (2 Cor 5:19)

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

QUESTION: I'm continually amused by people who build their life on a person we don't even know existed. And please don't cite the Bible as evidence, it's a story written by insiders long after the fact, without anything we could consider fact. The whole thing is biased, and suspect as history. You'd think if Jesus was everything it claims I'd love to see at least SOME reference to him elsewhere, but there's not.  The best we can say is that Jesus is a person alleged to have existed.

 RESPONSE: I`m pleased by your commendable openness to correction from real, empirical evidence.  In fact there is evidence for the existence of Jesus outside the Bible and of a quantity and type that make this case something of a slam dunk.  Given your openness (and assuming you will verify what I`m saying represents the real state of the evidence) I look forward to changing your mind on Jesus!

For starters, I don`t think it`s fair of you to make sweeping invalidation of the whole New Testament as an historical source simply because it`s biased, or polemical or that contains the supernatural.  "Mein Kampf" is biased and erroneous in places, but it is not for that reason completely void of historical facts.  The great majority of history as we know it was written without much consideration for "objectivity" - that includes a ton of stuff that you would consider historically true, such as "Gaulic Wars" by Julius Caesar.

So the Gospels can`t, in one fell swoop, be invalidated as historical sources simply because they are "sermons". They are... but Luke/Acts for example, contains tons of verifiable, falsifiable historical information that any real historian would pay attention to, no matter what Luke`s agenda is. Yes, he writes of many account that you might consider untrue because they are miraculous, but no scholar thinks Luke is writing mythology. He lodges his story in time and space with incredible precision, naming names, citing places and events that can be verified.

To rule this out as a valid historical source simply because there`s an account of some non-physical phenomena in it, not very scholarly. By this criteria you would rule out much of recorded history. Verifiable and falsifiable content in the Gospels include the names of Roman rulers, Herod, Pilate, Philip; geographical facts about towns and places, religious facts about 1st century Judaism, facts about structures in and around Jerusalem that have been confirmed by archaeology - Herod`s Temple, the 5 sided portico at the pool of Siloam, the pool of Bethesda, the sheep gate, the Hulda gates, Caesarea, the existence of Nazareth etc, etc.

These are unquestioned facts.

But, we don`t have to only rely on the Gospels alone to confirm the mere existence of Jesus. Here`s a list of sources:

The Gospel of Q: We don't have an existing fragment of Q but many believe this collection of sayings, teachings, and stories about Jesus was transmitted orally and was first written down by Jesus` followers long before 50 - they form the base material for the Synopics (Matthew, Mark, Luke).

Epistles from the New Testament: Liberal theologians believe that some of these were written as late as 150 CE, but ALL scholars believe that Paul authored Galatians, 1&2 Corinthians, Romans and 1&2 Thessalonians prior to his death in the mid 60`s.  This is another source.

The challenge here is to have a more scholarly view of the Bible. That is, you ought not to see the Bible as ONE SOURCE for the existence of Jesus (that can be all swept aside in one move) but as at least 5 to 8 sources which all have to be independently evaluated.

Paul is an independent witness from the Gospels and Paul is even earlier than the Gospels. That Paul was a man writing in the middle of the first century is considered unquestioned fact by every reputable scholar.  He confirms the physical existence of a man named Jesus repeatedly, writing during a time that witnesses could verify his claims - certainly the most basic claim that Jesus actually LIVED would have been beyond dispute. Paul also mentioned that a fellow Christian, James, the brother of Jesus, headed up the Jerusalem Church. Paul alone is a strong indicator that a man named Jesus had lived in the early 1st century.

The Gnostics: This early Christian movement (strong from 100-200 CE) was composed of Gnostic Christians, Jewish Christians, and Pauline Christians. They had non Orthodox views, but they believed that a man "Jesus" was imbued with the "Christ" essence in the 1st century.

Flavius Josephus: He was a Jewish historian who was born in 37 CE. He wrote a book, Antiquities of the Jews circa 93 CE. He described Jesus` as a wise man who was crucified by Pilate:  "About this time arose Jesus, a wise man, [if indeed it be lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful deeds, and a teacher of men who gladly receive the truth.] He drew to himself many [both of the Jews and of the Gentiles. He was the Christ]; and when Pilate, on the indictment of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not cease to do so, [for he appeared to them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things about him.] And even to this day the race of Christians, who are named from him, has not died out." The passages in parenthesis may be the result of a later Christian forger who appended the text to confirm the Bible`s story. But even if you take those out, Josephus, a trusted historian, unquestionably claims that Jesus existed. Other Roman historians:

TACITUS: who lived from 55 to 120 CE and wrote a book Annals, circa 112 CE) "But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration. Hence, to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome..." 

 SUETONIUS: He was the author of The Lives of the Caesars circa 120 CE.  He wrote: "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome." This passage is sometimes said to refer to someone other than Christ (since the name is misspelled) but in fact this confirms exactly what Luke said - that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome around that time. 

 SUETONIUS: "Punishment [by Nero] was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." 

 PLINY: In questioning Christians brought to trial he discovered (120 CE?)... "They affirmed, however, the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor to deny a trust when they should be called on to deliver it up..." 

 LUCIAN: Greek writer and satirist (150? CE): "...the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world...Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws." 

 Jewish literature: The Talmud (from 2nd Century CE) states that Jesus lived. They confirm his miraculous deeds and attribute them to demons.

In the book, "Case for Christ" Dr Edwin Yamauchi summarizes what we can know about Christ even if there were NO New Testament:

1. Jesus was a Jewish Teacher
2. Many people believed he performed healings and exorcisms
3. some people believed he was the Messiah
4. he was rejected by the Jewish leaders
5. he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius
6. despite his shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread in Rome by A.D. 64, and
7. all kinds of people from the cities and countryside - men and women, slave and free - worshiped him as God.

I think you`ll find it`s a minority opinion among scholarship (believing and non-believing) that Jesus didn't even exist. The question that is truly controversial is, given that Jesus did exist, who was he really, what did he teach and what did he say he came to do? I hope you`ll now consider those important questions.

Did Jesus Really Tell Us We Had to Hate Our Parents? (Luke 14:25-33)

QUESTION:  Hey Rick!  Picked up the book by Francis Chan, Multiply. He mentioned a verse that has always been a hard one and I was hoping you might help! Luke 14:25-33.  It just seems to really contradict a lot of scripture and even commandments (honor your parents). It just seems so OFF so maybe there is something I'm not getting.

RESPONSE: While it maybe seems “off”, this passage is certainly not abnormal in the N.T. or the teachings of Jesus… but it feels somehow different from “salvation by grace” right?  Let me quote it here for those unfamiliar with it:

Luke 14:26-33 "If you want to be my disciple, you must hate everyone else by comparison—your father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even your own life. Otherwise, you cannot be my disciple. 27 And if you do not carry your own cross and follow me, you cannot be my disciple. 

28 "But don't begin until you count the cost. For who would begin construction of a building without first calculating the cost to see if there is enough money to finish it? 29 Otherwise, you might complete only the foundation before running out of money, and then everyone would laugh at you. 30 They would say, 'There's the person who started that building and couldn't afford to finish it!'

31 "Or what king would go to war against another king without first sitting down with his counselors to discuss whether his army of 10,000 could defeat the 20,000 soldiers marching against him? 32 And if he can't, he will send a delegation to discuss terms of peace while the enemy is still far away. 33 So you cannot become my disciple without giving up everything you own." NLT

While a little strange sounding to our grace-trained ears, this teaching fits perfectly with Pauline doctrine.  It shows that while the Bible is completely unanimous that salvation cannot be earned, it is also completely unanimous that salvation is CONNECTED to obedience in important ways.

In Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, if you look at the beatitudes, you can see this clearly.  It begins with the blessing on the poor in heart, and the blessing on the mournful.  These are people who come to God with NOTHING but their shame and sin, and they mourn over it.  This means Jesus is clearly teaching that one does not come to the Kingdom unless they first confess, and repent and have faith in God’s mercy and goodness – only these are promised heaven and earth.  (This agrees with Paul who teaches, Romans 3:28-29, “For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.” HBV.  So we don’t earn it.)

However, if we come to Jesus with this kind of brokenhearted humility, we will also HUNGER for righteousness.  Therefore, the grace that calls us in, also calls us to a passion for more of the God who saved us and gives us mercy.

That is why Jesus says in Luke 14, that when you come to him, you A) revoke all other primary loves and consider them as hatred compared to your love for Christ, and B) you count the cost of followership, BEFORE you enter the kingdom, and everything is submitted to his leadership, all relationships and money etc. 

Jesus never divorced salvation and discipleship. Unfortunately, we have in the church too often.  If we understand both Jesus and Paul correctly, we will refuse to do this.  Those who come to Jesus humble, confessing AND repentant do not carry on in an ongoing pattern of sin.  They cannot, for God’s seed is now in them (1 John 3:10).  Do Christians still sin?  Sure.  Do they only slowly change over time?  Yes.  Do they sometimes go backward in devotion?  Yes.  But while we are saved by grace and not works, God’s grace …works!  That is, it works to effect the changes in us that the LAW never could.  It makes us new kinds of people, IF we come repentant, and let the gospel do its work.

So much of the problem of "backsliding believers" and "carnal Christians" and "nominal Christians" would be solved if we taught the invitation to the kingdom exactly the way Jesus did.  Like this:  come one and all and take your place with the prostitutes and tax collectors who are poor in spirit, they have nothing to bring God, no pretense that they could earn anything from him.  (This matches the Pauline message, you are saved by Grace not works, Eph 2:8,9). 

But, come like they came: so desperate that they are willing to lay down ALL for the treasure of God’s forgiving love.  (Recall the treasure-hidden-in-the field parable?)  They don’t come proud, demanding forgiveness, yet wanting to keep walking in the way that first made them bankrupt before God!  That makes no sense (again, Paul in Romans 6:1,2).  No, they come counting the cost, gladly making all their affections take a back seat to the Jesus who saves them from sin.  ALL my other relationships are second place.  ALL my priorities are rearranged by my love for him who had mercy on me.

So that explains that tricky part about “hating your parents”.  That is not contradicting the 5th commandment… remember Jesus used hyperbole a lot.  (Example: the “cut off your hand” thing!)  So “hate” is not saying you dishonor your parents, it’s saying “you must be willing to put your devotion to them below devotion to Me.” Compared to that, love for them will look like hate.

Remember too, in the Ancient Near East, it would be unheard of if a man belonged to a religion let’s say, and his whole family didn’t also.  So strong were the ties of family in their honor bound culture, that you followed the patriarch no matter what; blood ties ruled everything, family first uber alles.  So speaking into that cultural expectation, Jesus is introducing a different sort sequence. 

Of course, in our day this is commonly understood.  A teen let’s say, will have some epiphany where they leave their mom’s “ways” and strike out on their own, at the risk of offending them.  This is almost expected in our context, Hollywood has kicked out a gaggle of movies with this premise!  But that very idea, so noble in our day, would have been considered the height of insubordination and offensiveness in Jesus’ culture.  So it was JESUS who first gave us this idea that there’s a higher loyalty than mom or dad… of course for him it wasn’t a permission to be rebellious and go smoke pot, it was his permission to be rebellious and go follow Messiah – himself!

IS JESUS BEING CRUEL WHEN HE CALLS A WOMAN A 'DOG' IN Mark 7:24?

So the obvious problem in this passage is how dismissive (even cruel!) Jesus seems to be of this poor woman and her plea for help.  Two points can be made to help us understand what Jesus was saying to her.

1.  There is at root in Jesus response a consistent New Testament principle about the flow of salvation from Jew first, to Gentile second.  Because of God’s promises to Abraham, salvation is “from” the Jews (as Jesus himself said, John 4:22) and so it must always start with the Jews before it goes anywhere else.  

Jesus ministry reflects this.  Given that the Christian church took on such an international flavor so early, we are surprised that Jesus doesn't have much interaction with Gentiles. Yes, he famously talked with a Samaritan woman, and praised a Roman centurion, but if God wants to enfold all people, why not go all out and travel to Rome?  Instead, Jesus has a calling to Israel, and it's very intentional.  

Now, when he does work with Gentiles, he is amazingly gracious, foreshadowing that the gospel will go to them – eventually - but that’s NOT his focus.  So when he says in Mark 7:27 that the "children" must eat all they want first he is meaning the children of Israel.  And “eating” here must refer to their chance to get in on God’s healing grace that’s being revealed in Messiah.  In Matthew 15 the parallel account shows Jesus saying he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel - he has missional specificity and he doesn't apologize for it. Again, going 'first' to Jews does not mean that salvation will not ever be offered to Gentiles – it will be!  Intentionally, specifically and prolifically!  This was anticipated and even commanded by Jesus himself – just not “first”.

Well, even if we can see a divinely ordered sequence to Christ's mission, we still have to deal with his calling a Gentile a “Dog”.  It's a horrible slur to us, and frankly it was also in their context.  Gentiles were called 'dogs' by Jews because they were considered unclean, and without God's law, sort of bestial.

Despite that common usage, I think Jesus may be using the term more as illustration here than slur.  We can infer this because the image he presents is of a feast on the table, and dogs around tables looking for scraps to come their way (a common occurrence in my household!).  This is a metaphor for the sequence of gospel mission.  

But given that, the woman's retort is remarkably insightful and full of faith. Without missing a beat, she accepts Jesus illustration and turns into an affirmation of her belief that God loves so lavishly, his gifts are so vast that they spill over far beyond his chosen people.  Jesus loves this response, and grants her request.  

So why does he hesitate?  Not because he doesn’t want to, but because his FIRST mission field is not the Gentiles, which he makes clear many times (in the parallel passage, Matt 15:24, and in his instructions to his disciples in Matthew 10:5,6).  Paul also notes a divine order in dispensing the goods:  Jew first, Gentile second (Rom 1:16 “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile”.) 

Now, why this order?  Probably because of promises to Abraham, the blessing flows from him to his children, which become a great nation and finally to ALL nations of the earth.  Paul will say the Jewish rejection of this blessing will lead directly to the overflow of “crumbs” to the Gentiles.

Jesus alluded to this many times.

John 10:16 “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd”

Matt 22:8-10 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.'  

In the 2nd example, in Matt 22, the point of the parable is that the Kingdom invitation goes to those you EXPECT it should go to, first.  When they reject it, THEN and only then does it go to the ones you DON’T expect, the "outsiders", the "wild branches" (Romans 11:24), the hobos living in "street corners", the "dogs" – these are all names for us Gentiles in Scripture!  Are you offended by that?  Well, this beautiful woman, apparently, was not.  In fact, her lack of offense probably relates directly to her humble acknowledgement that she is in fact helpless and broken, and such humility is always a key component to saving faith.

Paul tells us that in God’s foreknowledge, he saw his chosen people rejecting free grace, and then in his upside down way, he will take his offer to unsuspecting pagans who weren’t even seeking him, and give them the gift his own children rejected (Romans 9:30).  And all this underscores just how awesome God is, how great in mercy, and how the first shall be last, and the last first.

But to prove that, God has to START with the FIRST – that is, the Jews, which is exactly what Jesus does.  The fact that this woman anticipates all this, and sees God's heart to make the last first and graft in the wild branches, before Paul ever wrote explicitly about such ideas, speaks highly of her faith and insight.  No wonder Jesus embraces her!

2.  Secondly these hard comments may not even have been directed at the woman but his disciples.  Taking in the extra detail from the account in Matt 15, when the woman first asked Jesus to help her here's what happened:

Matt 15:23:  Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

One scholar I read takes Jesus initial silence as a clue to understand his seeming harshness with the woman  It’s a test, not really for her, but for his followers.  See, his disciples are right there the whole time – and they’re clearly indignant about her and the intensity of her request (and her gender, ethnicity?).  Why doesn't Jesus say anything to her?  Perhaps to see what THEY, the 12, will say.

What they do say is disappointing – “send her away!”  It reveals what's in their hearts.  So Jesus may be responding to their implicit assumptions, when he then reminds them of his mission, first to Jew, then to Gentile.  That comment looks directed at them, not her, since they and their indignation are the subject of the preceding sentence.  Could this be a test to see if they’re getting how big God’s grace is, to see if they can imagine a day or a way that it might be bigger than Israel?  How many people does Jesus have to heal before they see that the heart of God is to bless the whole world!?  They say nothing, perhaps nodding in approval - "yes, the mission is the Jews!".  The one to speak next is not them but the woman, who pleads again, "Lord help me!" (Matt 15:25).

Now, with the disciples right there, silent, one commentator I read imagined Jesus saying what he says to the woman, while looking at the disciples, who we know had been trying to shoo her away.  He imagines Jesus saying it like this:  “Well, lady, as you’ve already gathered from my associates, it’s not right to take God’s gifts and give them just ANYone – right boys?  Isn’t that what you’ve just told her?”

Before they can chime in to agree, or detect the sarcasm and change their tune, the Gentile woman pipes up (for a third time) with amazing faith.  She says in effect, “yes, Lord, but surely God’s gifts are so lavish, so undeserved, so large, that they spill over to everyone, regardless of status - even to someone like me!”

This is what Jesus was hoping his disciples would say.

But Jesus is nevertheless thrilled with this response!  "Good answer!"  "Your Faith is great!"  I mean, we must hear this, because that is not a begrudging or miserly response.  No, Jesus is delightfully surprised by her!  Not just because he longs to help her, but because she has just become the teacher of his own disciples who weren’t getting what they were supposed to be learning by now.

He’s thrilled because this poor woman shows us all what God is looking for in a person - a heart of childlike trust in the extravagant goodness of God for unworthy people - and she shows up the disciples own small mindedness about the size of God’s grace.  His gracious response confirms all this.

Did Jesus Think He Was Coming Back While His Disciples Were Still Alive?

QUESTION:  Mathew 16:28 seems to say that some of the people around Jesus would not die until he comes again. Can you explain this to me?

ANSWER:  Thanks, this is an oft asked question, and it is also asked about another time that Jesus seems to say to his hearers that they will live to see his second coming – in his Olivet Discourse, in Matt 24:34-35 when he says that “This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things take place.”

In both places it’s fairly easy to reconcile these statements with what actually happened, rather than assume that Jesus made a terrible error in promising his second coming within the lifetime of his disciples, when that clearly did not happen.

Let’s start with Matt 16:28: “I assure you: There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”  This does seem to indicate his second coming on first pass, and all the more so because the preceding verse directly references his second coming.

But in the parallel passage in Mark 9:1, we get an additional detail that gives us reason to believe Jesus is not referring to his second coming when he says:  ‘I assure you: There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God come in power.’

Note here it’s phrased, Kingdom of God coming, in Power.  So the event is here in Mark described as a more general revealing of kingdom power, and less specifically the coming of Jesus at the end of time.  But Matthew did refer to the coming of the Son of Man, so this powerful revealing must be about Jesus in some way, even if it’s not THE coming, at the end of time.

We can find a way to fuse the two accounts when we consider the context.  Remember, in both gospels what precedes this promise is Peter’s stubborn refusal to accept Jesus prediction of his demotion and execution (Mark 8:32).  This doesn’t jive with Peter’s view of an exalted and conquering Messiah.  How can Jesus be the true Messiah of Jewish prophesy, if he surrenders to humiliation and death?

So, Jesus is giving assurance that Peter, while wrong about the immediate fate of Messiah, is in fact right about him as exalted and powerful Son of Man (as expected in Daniel’s vision).  To reassure him, he says, “make no mistake, I am that exalted and powerful Messiah of Prophesy and in fact I will reveal that power to some in this circle before they die.”  You won’t have to wait for some ethereal heaven to see me clothed in power, Jesus says, you’ll see it in this life.

Seen this way, it is not a promise relating to his second coming, but simply a promise to see the power of his Kingly, Divine nature, coming to them before they die.  In fact, one might say he is expressly promising to “come in power” BEFORE his second coming.  You won’t have to wait till the end or till after death, he’s saying, you’ll see it soon.

Transfiguration of Christ

The fulfillment of that promise then, comes immediately within a week of hearing it, for Jesus takes “some” of them up on a mountain and he is transfigured before them (Mark 9:2 & Matt 17:2) in power and light.  If they wondered if the humble Jesus, who predicted he was going to die a criminal’s death, could still be the long awaited, powerful and worshiped “Son of Man” of Daniel’s vision, the experience on the mount would have cleared it up!  The Son of Man did indeed come ‘in power’ and they saw it – not his second coming, but a coming in power all the same.  Jesus was who they expected after all, but also so much more.

Regarding Matt 24:34-35 when he says that “This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things take place”, we realize his promise is for his current hearers when we realize that “all these things” doesn't refer solely or even primarily to the end times and his 2^nd coming but rather to the Temple destruction.

We know this because the entire discourse was started with the disciples admiring the beautiful 2nd Temple.  Jesus responded by saying it would be destroyed and they immediately want to know when that would happen.  They further ask about the sign of the end and his 2nd coming. They tied the two together not doubt assuming that an apocalyptic event such as the Temple’s destruction must presage the very end and Messiah’s restoration.

So the discussion covers the Temple’s destruction and ranges into the signs of the end, but it BEGINS as an answer to that first question, “when will the destruction of the Temple happen?”  If that is true, then the statement in vs 34 about “this generation” is not only accurate but powerfully prophetic!  In fact, the Temple was destroyed before “that generation had passed away” for it happened in 70 AD, within the lifetimes of eye witnesses to Jesus.

As for Jesus including “ALL these things,” the two events (Temple destruction and 2nd Coming) are likely conflated in the minds of the disciples and Jesus doesn't counter this association.  Why not if the events are separated by 2000 years and counting?  Well, the terrors leading up to the coming of the Son of Man were in some sense inaugurated by the destruction of the Temple.  That event marked the beginning of the “last days”.  One might assume Jesus was saying, “This generation will still be alive when all these signs begin to come to pass.”

There is however another way to explain this passage and the NIVR translation resolves the conflict by rendering the Greek as follows:  “What I'm about to tell you is true. The people living at that time will certainly not pass away until all those things have happened. (Matthew 24:34 NIRV)

So the resolution may simply be that “this generation” does not refer to the people listening to Jesus speak at all, but rather to the generation living “at that time” when these terrible events take place.

Either way, I think there’s no reason to think Jesus was thinking only about his actual 2^nd coming in either case.

How Did Jesus become aware of his Divinity?

Question:

At what point was Jesus “aware” of his divinity? Now I mean that as, was he always aware of himself and from the time he was born was he just waiting for his body to catch up with his mind? Or was his divinity something that someone would have had to tell him early in his life, prior to the accounts of him when he is 12 at Passover.

Answer:

You ask an interesting question and one that has set Christian pens ablaze in speculation over the years. As you state, there's almost nothing we know of Jesus early life before he started his ministry, and so into that gap in our knowledge, people have inserted some amazing mythology and speculation. Some early Christian works (2nd Century), have stories of the boy Jesus making birds out of clay, striking other children dead and raising them again. Clearly these writers thought Jesus was aware of his divinity right away, and not afraid to use his powers like we might imagine a kid would act if given superman's abilities.

But what do we actually know from the more sober, earliest sources? The account in Luke says the boy Jesus, "grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was on him." (Luke 2:20). Later, after the incident in the Temple you mention, Luke again says, "as he grew up, he increased in wisdom, and in favor with God and people." (2:52). Clearly, if Jesus is growing in wisdom, his upbringing is much like a normal child in the growing awareness of people, things, limits, language, and knowledge. He did not come out of the womb with the Scripture (which he had, in one sense, inspired) all memorized, for example. He had to learn to walk and talk and read.

The most startling thing about him would not have been his supernatural powers (which no reliable source says he ever used until he was 30), it would have been his moral perfection. Anyone who has raised a 2 year old knows how astounding it would be to have a sinless child! Imagine a child perfectly compliant once a rule or moral limit had been absorbed. We know that some teaching would have been needed - for the baby Jesus was fully human. He did not come out of the womb knowing not to use sharp knives, or stand on tables. He likely scraped his knee and felt all the pain of learning. But it must have startled everyone to have a boy who was curious, but had no innate rebellious streak, was a survivor, but had no desire to impose his will was self assured without an inherent violent urge or anger.

When he is twelve, he stays behind at the Temple, and his parents, worried, lose him for 3 days. Luke alludes to the fact that by this time, he knows that he is the Son of God, when he responds to his parents, “did you not know I had to be in my Father’s House?”. In fact, his response baffles his parents (2:50). Surely, his “father's” house (Joseph) was in Nazareth! But Jesus said it was really in Jerusalem - showing a self understanding of his intimate tie to God. While his parents likely told him about angels and prophesy surrounding his birth, and infused a belief in his specialness early on, they could not fathom that their son was indeed FULLY God

So I think the evidence shows that Jesus awareness of his full Sonship grew as he grew. it may not even have been complete until his baptism and it required the voice from heaven in that moment (3:22) to fully convince/remind Jesus of his true identity and preexistence. We know that he went from this stirring moment directly to temptation which surprisingly focused on questioning this one thing: are you REALLY God's Son? Perhaps it was because Satan knew that having been made fully aware of his true Self, Jesus only now was the preeminent threat to his hold on the earth, and not before. All we can be sure of is that from that moment of baptism and temptation, Jesus walked forward with an unshakable conviction that he was “one with the Father” - a belief he carried through the horror of abandonment in Gethsemane and the cross until he was vindicated resurrection Sunday.

I recommend you read Anne Rice's book (yes the former erotic horror writer, turned committed Christian recently), Christ the Lord, Out of Egypt - which is some very fine historical fiction. She writes about that tantalizing gap in our knowledge, Jesus early years, using Scripture and extra biblical sources, and she focuses on this very question of when he knew his Identity. This is of course, speculative, and a bit audacious as she writes in the first person from inside Jesus' mind – but I think it's the most sober and reasonable guess out there as to the inner journey of Jesus as he discovers he is in fact, the Christ.

When was Jesus actually crucified?

Question:

I have been wondering about the actual time of the Crucifixion of Christ with Easter almost here. In John 19:14 it seems to say that at the 6th hour Jesus was crucified where in Mark 15:25 it says the 3rd hour. Also, John seems to suggest that Jesus died on the Preparation Day for the Passover where the other Gospels say the Last Supper was the Passover Feast. I believe the Bible to be infallible, but I want to know how the two stories fit together? Hoping you can help? Thanks.

Answer:

The problem with the hours mentioned around Christ’s crucifixion are fairly easily answered. Your other question about the exact meal that was eaten at the Last Supper has been the subject of much more wide ranging debate and opinions. Let me attempt to give you the best explanation I have for these apparent discrepancies.

The difference in the time of Jesus being crucified in Mark versus John is most likely the result of Mark reckoning the time in Hebrew mode and John in Roman mode, which is how we in the West do it today. The reason for this difference is that Mark is writing to a mostly Jewish Christian audience, probably before 60 AD, and John is writing much later, to a mostly Gentile Christian audience, around 90-100 A.D. We know John is concerned for his non-Jewish readers’ perspective as he translates Hebrew terms for their benefit often (John 1:38, 9:7, 20:16).

The difference in the two methods of telling time is that the Hebrews marked their day sunset to sunset, the Romans, midnight to midnight. To understand Mark then, we must understand the day begins with the watches of the night (6 PM on). The night was broken up, not into hours, but into these “watches”, standing for military sentinels who remained on duty for 4 periods. The last period (or 4th watch of the night) ended at sunrise. For the Hebrews, this would be hour zero. Near the Equator, the sun rises around 6 am all year long. So when Mark says Jesus was crucified at the 3rd hour, that’s the 3rd hour from hour zero (6 am). Thus, he was crucified at 9:00 am.

This reconciles perfectly with John’s record, if John is marking time in Roman time, from midnight. Thus, the 6th hour in John refers to 6 AM. Now, why is it not 9 AM as in Mark? Well the context reveals that the actual event that John says happened in the 6th hour was NOT the crucifixion. It’s the trial before Pilate. It stands to reason then, that it took another three hours to beat Jesus and drive him and his cross outside the city to Golgotha for execution, which happened around 9 AM.

Later, Matthew and Mark will say that Jesus died at the 9th hour, which again, from a Hebrew reckoning would be 3 PM (9 hours from 6 am), thus he hung on the cross for 6 hours until he died.
Now the question about whether the Last Supper was a Passover is explained partly by the Jewish reckoning of time and mostly by understanding Jewish Passover traditions from Moses. If you read in Exodus 12 about the first Passover, you realize that the Passover begins in the Jewish month Nisan, the 14th – the Day of Preparation (Ex 12:6). The week Jesus was killed, Nisan 14 was a Friday. On this day each family was to sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon and eat it that night after sundown. But remember, by Jewish reckoning a meal that evening was actually taking place on the next day – Nisan 15. In this case, the next day was Saturday – the Sabbath – making it both a 7th day Sabbath and a Passover Sabbath – hence a special Sabbath (John 19:31).

So John has it right, Friday night (when Jesus was dead) was the Passover meal. But if so, what was Jesus eating with this disciples on Thursday night? He seems to think of it as a Passover meal:

Luke 22:8 Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover ." NIV.

This tension is resolved in a few ways by scholars, but the best is to understand that there is more than one meal that might qualify as a Passover meal. Looking back into the first Passover commands, we see that the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Ex 12:18) ALSO starts on Nisan 14. The Bible says it was eaten on the evening of the 14th day, which is the beginning of that day by Jewish reckoning, not the end. Thus it corresponds to Thursday night of the passion week. It's that meal that Jesus ate with his disciples.

It launches Passover week. As such, it might be called a Passover by Jesus, even though it was not the time to eat the actual Passover lamb. So if the Lord's supper took place on what we would call Thursday night, the evening (beginning) of the 14th of Nisan, the meal would have no roast lamb but only unleavened bread and wine. Interestingly, roast lamb is never mentioned at the Last Supper, only bread and wine.

The only other plausible explanation I've heard is derived from Luke 22:15-16. It says,

I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.

Some scholars feel Jesus is not actually calling the meal they are eating the Passover but that his actual meaning is, “I wanted to eat the Passover, but I won't until I come again." They note that Luke 22:15 can be rendered as follows:

I have longingly desired to eat this Passover with you before my suffering; 16 however, I tell you that I shall not eat of it, until it can be administered in the Kingdom of God." (The Holy Bible in Modern English)

That he still has them prepare for Passover (Mark 14:16) is no problem since they need to prepare for it, but Jesus doesn't reveal that he’ll be dead when it’s time for them to actually eat it. What they eat is some other meal, perhaps the first meal of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, launching Passover, or perhaps a meal of Jesus' own original design.

The second explanation is weaker, but both explanations indicate that the Lord’s Supper was probably not the actual Passover Lamb feast.

What is very interesting to note is this: Moses commanded that the Passover lambs were to be killed on Nisan 14 (the Day of Preparation) literally “between the evenings" (Ex 12:6). The Jews traditionally understood this to be around 3PM to 5 PM. So on Friday, the Day of Preparation for the Passover, around 3 PM, the day before the Sabbath, as hundreds of lambs were being killed at the Temple site, at that very moment somewhere just outside the city gate, surrounded by only a few brave women, Jesus’ blood was spilling out on Golgotha and he breathed his last.

Kind of lends new and awesome significance to 1 Cor 5:7 where Paul says:

For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. NIV

How do you explain the Trinity?

Question:

I'm having a difficult time trying to explain the trinity to someone who is not a believer an I find it quite difficult, any suggestions on how to simplify the concept of three in one god to a non believer?

Answer:

Well, your difficulty in explaining the Trinity to your friend is quite natural since the concept has been historically hard to explain. It's been so difficult that some Christian sects have just repudiated the concept altogether, such as the Jehovah Witnesses.

I think it's helpful to start by explaining how Christians came up with this description for God. Why invent this paradoxical (some would say contradictory) vision of God's nature in the first place? Well, that may actually be a mark in it's favor as revealed Truth. Indeed, who WOULD invent something like this? Certainly not someone interested in winning converts through a user friendly religion!

So it begins like this: Christians believe in one God. We're monotheists. We accept the testimony of Moses who said in Deut 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." But then secondly, we realized that there came a man (Jesus) who claimed to be One with this one God. And not merely "One" in the sense of being "on the same page" as God, but One in the sense of being one in nature, character and being. But He wasn't just God taking Human form for a while, because this Man claimed a relationship WITH God as well as being God himself. He referred to God as his Father, and he was his Son. Thirdly, this Man also taught that God would send his very Presence in a special way on his Followers. And again, this wasn't just God sending forth his power, but a distinct person from God is named, the Counselor, the Spirit of God. So now you have three entities, all claiming to be God, to have all the divine prerogatives of Godhood, and yet all are not just "modes" of this One God, they exist independently and simultaneously. The moment that confirms these three persons co-exist is Matt 3:16,17, the Father speaks from heaven, the Spirit descends like a dove and the Son is baptized.

So there it is, One God existing eternally in three Persons - the Trinity. This is not what we believe because we WANT to believe it, or because we made it up. It came to us by revelation and so it's not entirely clear to anyone HOW this is true about God, because it seems illogical. So some have tried to give illustrations to help ease the tension.

But all attempts to come up with metaphors for the Trinity to make it "easy to understand" eventually break down. The reason they do, is because they all either minimize the true Oneness or Threeness of God. Together they can help to make the Trinity a little more accessible, but none is a perfect analogy.

Here's a few famous ones:

1. A man is a Husband to his wife, and he's a Father to his children and he's a worker on the job. There's just one man, but he's three people in different situations. Weakness: it compromises the THREENESS of God because the man is never in his roles simultaneously, co-existing side by side with his "alter egos". He's only ever one of these. But the Trinity is Father Son and Spirit, at the same time, all the time.

2. Water is made up of three atoms - two hydrogen and one oxygen. Together they make one cohesive element, but it's made up of three distinct parts. Weakness: it compromises the ONENESS of God because if you break the three atoms up, you don't have water. Each are not fully water themselves but only when all the parts are put together. Each member of the Trinity is fully God, not 1/3 of God.

3. Water is able to take three forms, solid, liquid and gas, yet these distinct forms are still just one element. Weakness: it compromises the THREENESS of God because water is not simultaneously all three phases.

4. An egg is made up of three parts, the nucleus, white and shell, yet all the parts form just one egg. Weakness, it compromises the ONENESS of God because the parts are not fully "egg" in themselves.

Despite the weakness in each, you might find each of these analogies to be helpful in explaining the Trinity. As long as you come back to this simple formula, God is One in Being, Three in Person - you are staying true to the Biblical data about God's nature. "Never comingling the Persons, never dividing the Being."

How can this be? It is not perfectly explainable and Christians rest in the fact that if every part of God's nature as revealed to us was perfectly agreeable to us, we might wonder if we made a God in our own image. But the Trinity is not the kind of God I would have invented or wanted. Yet, Jesus revealed this is the God who is.

Probably the most helpful analogy to me is the one put forward by CS Lewis in Mere Christianity. It doesn't violate the THREENESS or ONENESS of God by lifting the paradox out of our limited playing field. Imagine a world where it's entirely 2 dimensional. All creatures exist with length and width, but no depth. And all these creatures exist as squares on a perfect grid. They relate only along their sides and each square has only one "face". Now imagine into this 2D world there descends a square from a 3D world. This being interacts with the other squares touching their length and width, but he says that while he is a square, he is nevertheless different from them. In fact, he says, I'm what we call a cube. What's a cube?, they ask. He says, it's a special square, where I'm actually 6 squares, 6 faces within ONE square. How can that be?, they ask. They have no way in their 2 dimensional world to assimilate the idea that a square could be eternally 6 squares and yet still be just one thing. In their world, 6 squares are 6 entities. We of course, can see how adding a dimension makes the 6 in 1 paradox possible, but they cannot.

Likewise, we cannot see how the 3 persons can coexist within the 1 being of God. Surely it's either THREE gods or it's ONE god in three modes! We can't see the way it can fit in our scope of experience and in our space/time reality - it's illogical, self-contradictory! But if we can understand how the difference between 2 dimensions and 3 dimensions can make the impossible possible with squares, surely in the extra dimensionality of God's eternal existence, it's not inherently impossible for the 1 God to exist in 3 persons.