The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief

by James R. White

to know why they happened—only the Sovereign Lord of eternity itself can do that.

Let them bring forth and declare to us what is going to take place; as for the former events, declare what they were, that we may consider them and know their outcome. Or announce to us what is coming; declare the things that are going to come afterward, that we may know that you are gods; indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together. Behold, you are of no account, and your work amounts to nothing; he who chooses you is an abomination. (Isaiah 41:22–24)

We are no proclaimers of a plurality of gods. We have no allegiance but to the same God who appeared to Moses in the burning bush. The Trinity in no way, shape, or form compromises this fundamental truth—it does, however, fulfill it, bring it to full realization, and reveal to us how this one true and eternal God exists as three coequal and coeternal persons.

Some people are a little uncomfortable with the idea of one of the writers of Scripture working hard on a particular passage, a special section. There are others that think the writers of the Bible must have gone into some kind of “trance” while being led by the Holy Spirit to speak God’s truth. But such is not a truly biblical idea. These holy men indeed spoke from God, but that does not exclude at all the use of their highest efforts to present God’s truth (2 Peter 1:20–21; 2 Timothy 3:16–17).

John clearly intended this passage to function as a lens, a window of sorts, through which we are to read the rest of his Gospel. If we stumble here, we are in danger of missing so much of the richness that is to be found in the rest of the book. But if we work hard to grasp John’s meaning here, many other passages will open up for us of their own accord, yielding tremendous insights into the heart of God’s revelation of himself in Jesus Christ.

John didn’t write the prologue in English, and the person who wishes to delve deeply into his meaning will seek to hear him speaking as he once spoke in the beautiful Greek language.

we must ask why John would use such a term as “the Word.” What is he attempting to communicate?

The Greek term translated “Word” in this passage is logos.

The Greeks had used the term logos in their philosophical explanations regarding the functioning of the world. The logos was for them an impersonal ordering force, that which gave harmony to the universe. The logos was not personal in their philosophy, but it was very important.

it would be better to write Logos than logos, for John is using the word as a name, not merely a description.

He fills the impersonal logos that came before him with personality and life, and presents to us the living and personal Logos, the Word who was in the beginning.

When speaking of the Logos as He existed in eternity past, John uses the Greek word ἧν, en (a form of eimi). The tense[1] of the word expresses continuous action in the past.

When we speak of the Word, the Logos, we must ask ourselves: how long has the Logos existed? Did the Logos come into being at a point in time? Is the Logos a creature? John is very concerned that we get the right answer to such questions, and he provides the answers by the careful selection of the words he uses.

You see, as far back as you wish to push “the beginning,” the Word is already in existence. The Word does not come into existence at the “beginning,” but is already in existence when the “beginning” takes place.

“When all things began, the Word already was.”

In this particular instance, the term speaks to a personal relationship, in fact, to intimacy. It is the same term the apostle Paul uses when he speaks of how we presently have a knowledge comparable to seeing in a dim mirror, but someday, in eternity, we will have a clearer knowledge, an intimate knowledge, for we shall see “face to (pros) face” (1 Corinthians 13:12).

the Word has eternally had a relationship with God.

If John were making this an equation, like this: All of the “Word” = All of “God” he would be contradicting himself. If the Word is “all” of God, and God is “all” of the Word, and the two terms are interchangeable, then how could the Word be “with” himself?

It may seem “nit-picking” to talk about such a small thing as the Greek article, but as my friend Daniel Wallace points out, “One of the greatest gifts bequeathed by the Greeks to Western civilization was the article. European intellectual life was profoundly impacted by this gift of clarity.”[8] He also notes, “In the least, we cannot treat it lightly, for its presence or absence is the crucial element to unlocking the meaning of scores of passages in the NT.”

If one of the two nouns has the article, it is the subject. In this case, “Word” has the article, even though it comes after “God,” and hence is our subject. That is why the last phrase is translated “the Word was God” rather than “God was the Word.”

Stay with me now, for there is another important point to be seen in the text. If both of the nouns in a predicate nominative construction like this one have the article, or if both lack the article, this is significant as well. In that case, the two nouns become interchangeable. That is, if “Word” had the article, and “God” did, too, this would mean that John is saying that “God was the Word” and the “Word was God.” Both would be the same thing. Or, if neither of them had the article, we would have the same idea: an equating of all of God with all of the Word. “God” and “Word” would be interchangeable and equal terms.

You see, much has been made, especially by Jehovah’s Witnesses, of the fact that the word “God” in the last clause of John 1:1 is anarthrous, that is, without the article. You will notice that there is no form of the Greek article preceding the term θεός (theos). Because of this, they argue that we should translate it “a god.” This completely misses the point of why the word theos does not have the article. If John had put the article before theos, he would have been teaching modalism, a belief we mentioned earlier that denies the existence of three divine persons, saying there is only one person who sometimes acts like the Father, sometimes like the Son, sometimes like the Spirit. We will discuss modalism (which is also often called “Sabellianism”) later. For now, we see that if John had placed the article before theos, he would have been making “God” and the “Word” equal and interchangeable terms. As we will see, John is very careful to differentiate between these terms here, for He is careful to differentiate between the Father and the Son throughout the entire Gospel of John.[11]

Good point to memorize

Indefinite: hence, “a god.” Definite: hence, “God.” Qualitative: hence, “in nature God.”

The anarthrous θεός—If one is to dogmatically assert that any anarthrous noun must be indefinite and translated with an indefinite article, one must be able to do the same with the 282 other times θεός appears anarthrously. For an example of the chaos that would create, try translating the anarthrous θεός at 2 Corinthians 5:19 (i.e., “a god was in Christ . . .”). What is more, θεός appears many times in the prologue of John anarthrously, yet no one argues that in these instances it should be translated “a god.” Note verses 6, 12, 13, and 18. There is simply no warrant in the language to do this.[16]

Ignores the context—The translation tears the phrase from the immediately preceding context, leaving it alone and useless. Can He who is eternal (first clause) and who has always been with God (second clause), and who created all things (verse 3), be “a god”?

It is nowhere more sadly true than in the acquisition of Greek that “a little learning is a dangerous thing.” The uses of the Greek article, the functions of Greek prepositions, and the fine distinctions between Greek tenses are confidently expounded in public at times by men who find considerable difficulty in using these parts of speech accurately in their native tongue.[17]

Although I believe that θεός in 1:1c is qualitative, I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is, “and the Word was God.” It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father, than to sound ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but is not the Father.[20]

The Word is eternal—He has always existed and did not come into existence at a point in time. The Word is personal—He is not a force, but a person, and that eternally. He has always been in communion with the Father. The Word is deity—The Word is God as to His nature.

Verse 3 then introduces another evidence of the deity of the Logos: His role in creation. “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” Here is a phrase that can only be used of the one true God. Creation is always God’s work.

He doesn’t say “most things,” or “some things,” but all things came into being, were made, by the Logos. Creation took place through Him, by His power. Apart or separately from Him, nothing was made which has been made.

John makes sure that we do not leave room for anything that is not made by the Logos. If it exists, it does so because it was created by the Logos.

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

“And the Word became flesh.” Here John uses egeneto, a verb that refers to an action in time. And the reason is clear: the Word entered into human existence, “became flesh,” at a particular point in time. The Logos was not eternally flesh. He existed in a nonfleshly manner in eternity past. But at a blessed point in time, at the Incarnation, the Logos became flesh. The Eternal experienced time.

We need to be amazed by the assertion, “The Word became flesh.” How can the unlimited enter into limitation?

John is so concerned that his readers understand that he points out that He “dwelt among us, and we saw His glory.” John is not reporting a second- or third-hand story. He is giving an eyewitness account. Jesus dwelt among us. He lived His life in the middle of the mass of humanity. He rubbed shoulders with sinners and saints. He walked dusty roads, thirsted for water on hot days, and reclined at the table with friends, and even with enemies. He really existed, He really lived.

This is known as the belief in “dualism.” Spirit is good, matter is evil.

So these teachers, known to the early church by the term Docetics,[23] denied that Jesus truly had a physical body so that they could keep the idea that He was good and pure and holy. They even spread stories about disciples walking with Jesus along the beach, and when one of the disciples turned around, he saw only one set of footprints, because, of course, Jesus doesn’t leave footprints! John is tremendously concerned that his beloved readers do not fall for this kind of teaching, so he strongly emphasizes the reality of Christ’s physical nature.

It would be good to stop for a moment and make sure we have a firm understanding of what “only begotten” means.

the Greek term used is μονογενής (monogenes). The term does not refer to begetting, but to uniqueness. While the traditional translation is “only-begotten,” a better translation would be “unique” or “one of a kind.”

I would submit that outside of a Trinitarian understanding of this passage, John is making no sense at all!

John tells us that no one has seen God at any time. Is this true? Are there not many instances of men seeing God in the Old Testament? Did not Isaiah say that he saw the Lord sitting upon His throne in the temple (Isaiah 6:1–3)? So what is John saying? How can we understand his words? The key is found in the final phrases of verse 18, specifically, “who is at the Father’s side.” When John says “no one has seen God at any time,” he is referring to the Father. No man has seen the Father at any time. So how do we have knowledge of the Father? The μονογενής has “made Him known” or “explained Him.”[26] The unique One has made the Father known.

Another important fact to note from this verse is that if indeed no one has seen the Father, then what does this tell us of the Son? Who did Isaiah see in Isaiah 6? Who walked with Abraham by the oaks of Mamre (Genesis 18:1)? None other than the preincarnate Jesus Christ, the eternal Logos. John will develop this thought later in his Gospel, as we shall see when we examine those passages that identify Jesus as Yahweh.

Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature.

Think of it this way: in eternity past[2] the Father, Son, and Spirit voluntarily and freely chose the roles they would take in bringing about the redemption of God’s people. This is what is called the “Eternal Covenant of Redemption.” The Father chose to be the fount and source of the entirety of the work; the Son chose to be the Redeemer and to enter into human flesh as one subject to the Father; and the Spirit chose to be the Sanctifier of the church, the indwelling Testifier of Jesus Christ. Each took different roles of necessity—they could not all take the same role and do the same things.

To put it simply, they assume a unitarian view of God (as opposed to the Trinitarian view), and assume that God could never do what He has revealed He has done in the work of redemption.

They assume that Yahweh is uni-personal, or unitarian, and then use that assumption to attack and deny all evidence to the contrary. Keeping this one truth in mind will help you evaluate the passages that describe the Lord Jesus Christ as God, even while distinguishing Him from the Father.

When we encounter someone who denies the deity of Christ, we often “let them off the hook” by not asking them to defend their view on the basis of each passage we are considering. We don’t apply the same arguments to their position that they are applying to ours.

The most obvious example is provided by Jehovah’s Witnesses. They have a positive belief that Jesus is actually an angelic creature, Michael, the Archangel.[3] When dialoguing with Witnesses about the deity of Christ, we must not only give a positive defense of our own faith, but we must constantly be asking if the descriptions of Christ found in Scripture could possibly be applied to Michael the Archangel. Could we describe Michael as the Way, the Truth, and the Life? (John 14:6). Could an angel say, “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest”? (Matthew 11:28). Is an angel King of kings and Lord of lords? (Revelation 19:16). Does divine grace come from God the Father and Michael the Archangel? (1 Corinthians 1:3). Can Michael say, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father”? (John 14:9). What could it possibly mean to say, “For to me, to live is Michael the Archangel and to die is gain”? (Philippians 1:21).

Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God’ “(John 20:17). Why cite this passage? Because the truth I noted at the beginning of this chapter really is frequently ignored! The idea is simple: if Jesus can speak of His “God,” then He can’t really be God, but must be something less (i.e., a creature) who is called “God” but only in a “sort of” fashion. Remember the maxim: Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature. Here the Father is described as Jesus’ “God.” Since this is so, Jesus must be some inferior being, and therefore, John 20:28 can’t mean what it so obviously says.[6] Note how one writer has expressed it: Such a confession, as in the case of Thomas, is qualified not only by the context (John 20:17), but also by the whole of Scripture. The use of later Chalcedonian christology does not come into play in verses such as John 20:17, either. Here Jesus, in the same state Thomas addressed him, says that the Father is his God, again differentiating between the two in terms of theos, as well as acknowledging the Father’s superiority over him, as his God.[7] And just here we see the circularity of the arguments of those who deny the deity of Christ: why can’t Thomas mean what he said? Because, of course, the Father is different than the Son. It was the Son who became Incarnate, and since the Son, as the perfect ma...

If one of the divine persons entered into human flesh, how would such a divine person act? Would He be an atheist? Would He refuse to acknowledge those divine persons who had not entered into human existence? Of course not. Yet when we see the Lord Jesus doing exactly what we would expect the Incarnate Son to do, we find this being used as an argument against His deity!