Jesus, Theology, and the Space Between Them

One of the most important things I have learned in studying Christianity is that there is a difference between what Jesus taught and what Christianity eventually taught about Jesus.

Those two things can overlap significantly, but they are not automatically the same thing.

That distinction isn’t an argument against Christianity. It isn’t an argument for or against the doctrine of the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, or any particular Christian denomination.

It is simply an invitation to slow down and recognize the difference between the teachings of Jesus and the theological conclusions that developed around those teachings.

Because sometimes we read the Bible backward.

We begin with what Christianity teaches today, and then we go looking through the Bible for evidence to support it.

Instead, I think there is value in starting with a more fundamental question:

What did Jesus actually teach?

And then, separately:

What did later Christians conclude about what Jesus taught?

Those are two different questions.

Jesus Spoke About God

Jesus lived within a Jewish tradition that emphasized one God.

When Jesus was asked about the greatest commandment, he affirmed the central declaration of Jewish faith:

«“The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”»

Jesus frequently spoke about God as the Father.

He prayed to the Father.

He taught people to pray to the Father.

He referred to the Father as the one who sent him.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus even says:

«“This is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”»

Whatever conclusions we eventually reach about Jesus’ divine nature, it is important to first notice how Jesus himself speaks.

He speaks about God.

He speaks to God.

He speaks of being sent by God.

And he teaches his followers to develop their own relationship with God.

That is the starting point.

Then Jesus Says Something Extraordinary About Himself

The picture becomes more complicated when we examine what Jesus says about himself.

Jesus makes statements that go far beyond the ordinary role of a teacher.

He says:

«“I and the Father are one.”»

He tells Philip:

«“Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”»

He describes himself as being in the Father and the Father being in him.

These statements have understandably led Christians to conclude that Jesus possesses a unique relationship with God, and eventually that he shares in God’s very nature.

But notice something important.

Jesus does not simply say:

“I am the Father.”

Instead, he describes a profound relationship between himself and the Father.

He speaks of being in the Father.

He speaks of the Father being in him.

That language of relationship and indwelling becomes especially interesting when we continue reading.

Jesus tells his disciples:

«“You are in me, and I am in you.”»

And in his prayer before his death, Jesus asks the Father that his followers may be one:

«“As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us.”»

Now the language extends beyond Jesus.

The relationship between Father and Son becomes a model for the relationship between Jesus and his followers.

That doesn’t answer every theological question.

But it does give us something important to observe.

Jesus isn’t only talking about who he is.

He is also talking about what human beings can become in relationship with God.

The Holy Spirit

The same distinction becomes important when we look at the Holy Spirit.

Jesus speaks about the Spirit as the Spirit of truth.

He says the Spirit will teach, guide, remind, and testify.

He tells his followers that the Spirit will be in them.

Again, these teachings became extremely important to later Christian theology.

But Jesus doesn’t provide his disciples with the later philosophical definition of the Trinity.

He doesn’t say:

“God is one essence existing eternally in three co-equal persons.”

That terminology developed later.

This doesn’t mean the later doctrine has no connection to Jesus’ teachings.

It means we should recognize the difference between the original teaching and the theological framework eventually constructed to explain it.

From Teaching to Theology

This is where the history of Christianity becomes fascinating.

Jesus taught.

His disciples remembered and interpreted his teachings.

The apostles wrote letters and accounts.

Communities of believers formed.

Different Christians interpreted Jesus in different ways.

And eventually, Christian thinkers began asking increasingly precise theological questions.

Who exactly is Jesus?

Is he human?

Is he divine?

Is he both?

If he is divine, how does that fit with belief in one God?

What exactly is the Holy Spirit?

How are the Father, Son, and Spirit related?

These questions became increasingly important as Christianity spread throughout the ancient world.

The result was theology.

Theology is essentially the attempt to understand, organize, explain, and defend beliefs about God.

And theology can be valuable.

But theology is not identical to the original teaching.

The distinction is similar to the difference between a teacher and the textbook written centuries later explaining the teacher’s ideas.

The textbook may accurately explain the teacher.

It may misunderstand the teacher.

It may preserve some teachings while developing others.

Or it may contain interpretations that the original teacher never explicitly stated.

That doesn’t automatically make the textbook wrong.

It simply means we should know which one we’re reading.

The Trinity Is an Example

The Trinity is probably one of the clearest examples of this distinction.

The word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible.

The formal doctrine developed as Christians tried to reconcile several things they believed Scripture taught:

There is one God.

Jesus has a uniquely divine status.

The Holy Spirit has a divine role.

The Father, Son, and Spirit are distinguishable from one another.

How can all of these statements be true simultaneously?

Christian theologians spent centuries wrestling with that question.

Eventually, the doctrine of the Trinity emerged as the traditional answer:

One God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The doctrine wasn’t simply written down by Jesus.

It was developed through centuries of interpretation, debate, philosophical reasoning, councils, creeds, and theological reflection.

That distinction is important.

It allows us to study the Trinity without pretending that Jesus personally gave his disciples a completed theological system called “Trinitarian Christianity.”

At the same time, it allows a Christian to believe that the later doctrine is a legitimate interpretation of what Jesus and the apostles taught.

Those positions are not necessarily contradictory.

One is a statement about history.

The other is a statement about theological interpretation.

Jesus and the Theologians

This distinction becomes especially useful when reading the New Testament.

Instead of asking only:

“What does Christianity say about this?”

we can ask several questions.

What did Jesus actually say?

What did his disciples understand him to mean?

What did Paul and the other New Testament writers teach?

What did later Christian theologians conclude?

When did a particular doctrine become formally defined?

Those questions create layers.

And once we recognize those layers, we can study Christianity without having to force everything into one category.

Jesus’ teachings are one layer.

The writings of the apostles are another.

Early Christian interpretation is another.

Church councils and creeds are another.

Denominational doctrines are another.

And modern Christian beliefs are another.

They are connected, but they are not identical.

Why This Matters to Me

This distinction matters because I don’t want to study Jesus merely by asking what I am supposed to believe about him.

I want to ask what he was actually trying to teach me.

Jesus talked about forgiveness.

Love.

Service.

Humility.

Generosity.

Compassion.

The treatment of enemies.

The danger of judging others.

The transformation of the heart.

The Kingdom of God.

The relationship between humanity and God.

These teachings don’t require me to solve every theological question before I can begin applying them.

I can start with the teachings.

I can put them in front of myself like a mirror.

And then I can ask:

What do these teachings reveal about me?

Am I forgiving?

Am I loving?

Am I serving?

Am I humble?

Do I love people who disagree with me?

Do I practice what I claim to believe?

Am I becoming different?

Perhaps that is one of the most important distinctions of all.

There is a difference between knowing the theology of Jesus and living the teachings of Jesus.

I can become extremely knowledgeable about Christian doctrine and remain exactly the same person.

I can win theological arguments while losing my ability to love.

I can know every argument for the Trinity and still fail to forgive someone.

I can understand doctrines about salvation while refusing to transform my life.

And Jesus repeatedly seemed more interested in what was happening inside the person than in how impressive their religious knowledge appeared on the outside.

The Space Between Belief and Transformation

Maybe theology answers the question:

“What should we believe about Jesus?”

While discipleship asks:

“What should Jesus’ teachings produce in us?”

Those questions can coexist.

I don’t have to reject theology to study Jesus directly.

I don’t have to accept every theological conclusion without examination either.

I can simply recognize the difference.

I can read Jesus’ words first.

I can understand the historical and cultural context.

I can then examine how his followers interpreted those words.

And finally, I can examine how centuries of Christianity developed those interpretations into doctrine.

That approach doesn’t require me to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

It allows me to remain curious.

And perhaps curiosity is exactly what a genuine search for truth requires.

Because the goal isn’t to prove that Jesus was right, or to prove that Christianity was wrong.

The goal is to understand.

What did Jesus actually teach?

What did people later teach about Jesus?

Where do those teachings overlap?

Where did interpretation begin?

And most importantly:

What happens to my life when I actually live what Jesus taught?

Maybe that last question is where theology eventually has to meet experience.

Because I can debate the nature of God forever.

But if Jesus tells me to forgive, I can forgive.

If he tells me to love, I can love.

If he tells me to serve, I can serve.

If he tells me to transform, I can transform.

And perhaps the deepest study of Jesus isn’t merely discovering what he believed.

It is discovering what his teachings are capable of producing in the person who lives them.