Ok. Let me think this through. I don't want to approach all passages from a trinitarian mindset but want to try to view them openly.
My thoughts go back to the apple analogy. God is clear that He is sovereign. But what if he is referring to himself as a triune God, the entire apple in relationship to creation? What if he is trying to communicate that the 3-in-1 “apple” if you will, is above all things? Versus, “Slice #1 of the apple is above all things?”
I think I understand what you are saying about submission. You seem to be saying, “Either there is one apple. Period. That apple guides you to submit to Him (forces you?). Or: There are three different apples who can choose not to submit at any given moment. Therefore, there would be no one apple in charge.” Is that right?
But I still don't know if those are the only two scenarios. What if, again, the choice was there but never exercised? What if the slices of apple could all, at any given moment, choose to do their own thing, but never made that choice? Wouldn't that make absolute authority a consensual authority between the three slices, with all three acting as one person, in one mind, as it were? All three slices, together, comprising absolute authority?
Aren't we (as many in the body) encouraged to be “of one mind” and “one spirit?” How can this be? How are so many to be of one mind? May we say that this is based upon the example set by a triune God who has the ability to function separately but chooses to function in accord?
I am wondering if our very nature as humans (being so divisive) is getting in the way of embracing such a concept as perfect harmony and submission in a triune God? I'm searching for an analogy that would make a modicum of sense. Hmmmm….
Perhaps just human government would be a good example? Let's take a tribunal. Let's say there are three military commanders about to pass a law or a judgment down to a system or person. After hearing all evidence, they confer together privately until they come to an agreement about what should be done. One of them may announce that “the court” passes such and such ruling. Now it is obvious that all three have had input and yet the term “the court” can easily be used because it implies one-mindedness, unanimity among the members. Is that not the same thing?
I have to take issue with the notion that Jesus never claimed to be God. I think he claimed to be an apple slice. Which necessarily meant he was part of the apple. What verses am I basing that on? “I and the Father are one” would be one. Or, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” I understand that this might go to the “image” issue. In the first mentioned verse, the Greek word (heis) appears to mean the primary numeral: 1. I can't envision any other meaning for that scripture. But, I'm not a Greek scholar at all.
I understand that Jesus spoke PLENTY about the Father. But I don't think that implies that he wasn't a part of the apple. The Father seems to be the name that Jesus calls Slice #1. What did he call slice #2? Son of Man maybe? Jesus? The Christ? What about Slice #3? The Holy Spirit? The Spirit of God?
I'm trying to take in the whole counsel of scripture on this and not look at an isolated thing like semantics. I am trying to look at patterns and understandings about ourselves and God (or the Godhead or whatever). The instructions to the church are speaking pretty heavily to me that there is either a duality or triuneness in God. Simply because we are so often encouraged to be one body, many parts. It seems that the Lord is trying to tell us that many can function (nay, should function) as one.
These are just my initial thoughts. Sorry about all the analogies. That's how I best understand things.
