The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief

by James R. White

Add to these weighty considerations the testimony of many of the early Fathers as well,[14] and the conclusion is inescapable: Paul breaks into praise at the majesty of the person of the Messiah who has come into the world through the Jewish race. The very God who is over all has entered into flesh, and for this, Paul gives glory and honor.

And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.” And of the angels He says, “WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE.” But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM” (Hebrews 1:6–8).

the writer to the Hebrews is demonstrating the superiority of Jesus Christ to the angels. He says that all the angels of God worship the Firstborn.[17] This is true religious worship, as the context demands.[18] Such worship is only given to God.

But, in opposition to this, the description God uses of the Son is striking. Quoting from Psalm 45:6–7, God (the Father) makes reference to God (the Son), saying, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.”

It should be noted that the passage the writer quotes, Psalm 45, was a “wedding” psalm written in reference to the king of Israel.[20] As with so many other passages in the Old Testament, it takes on a much greater meaning when applied to the King of kings, Jesus Christ. While the Israelite king’s reign was temporary, the reign of Christ will truly be forever and ever.

Not only is Jesus the object of divine worship in verse 6, but we will see that in verses 10 through 12 He is identified as Yahweh.[22] Since Christ is shown receiving worship immediately before this passage, and identified with Yahweh immediately thereafter, there can be nothing strange about the Father referring to the Son as “God” in verse 8.

The key phrase is obviously the description of Jesus as “our great God and Savior.” Do both terms refer to Jesus? That is the issue.

Could it be that Christians have a blessed hope that is anchored in looking for the appearance of a mere creature, say, Michael the Archangel?

Paul says that the Lord Jesus “gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed.” This is in reference to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross of Calvary. Since it is plainly the coming of the Lord Jesus that we are expectantly awaiting, and since it is the Lord Jesus who gave himself for us on the Cross, what reason is there, contextually, for introducing another person into the passage? Simply put, there is none. The only reason some attempt to do so is to avoid the clear identification of Jesus Christ as “God and Savior.”

“They will no longer defile themselves with their idols, or with their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions; but I will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. And they will be My people, and I will be their God” (Ezekiel 37:23). Here Yahweh again speaks of His redemption of His people, and again Paul uses the same terms to describe the work of Christ.

The phrase “My own possession” is the same in Exodus, where Yahweh speaks of His special people, and in Titus, where Christ has a people for His own possession. Deuteronomy 7:6 and 14:2 make the same statement.

One must wonder, then, why anyone would wish to find a second person, since the context does not push us in that direction.

τοῡ μεγάλον θεοῡ καί σωτῆρος ῆμώυ Ίησοῡ Χριστοῡ

Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 1:1)

for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you. (2 Peter 1:11) Here the construction is “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” By comparing the actual texts the similarity in these passages is clearly seen:

1:1: τοῡ θεοῡ ῆμώυ καί σωτῆρος Ίησοῡ Χριστοῡ 1:11: τοῡ κυρίου ῆμώυ καί σωτῆρος Ίησοῡ Χριστοῡ 1:1: tou theou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou 1:11: tou kuriou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou 1:1: our God and Savior Jesus Christ 1:11: our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

For three generations Winer’s work was supreme, and many scholars did not feel inclined to disagree with him and insist on the correct translation of these passages. However, Winer himself, an antitrinitarian, admitted that it was not grammatical grounds that led him to reject the correct rendering of Titus 2:13, but theological ones. In the Winer-Moulton Grammar (as cited by Robertson), page 162, Winer said, “Considerations derived from Paul’s system of doctrine lead me to believe that σωτῆρος is not a second predicate, coordinate with θεοῡ, Christ being first called μέγας θεός, and then σωτήρ.” However, Robertson put it well when he said, “Sharp stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. We must let these passages mean what they want to mean regardless of our theories about the theology of the writers.”

And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

As this prophecy was originally given, it had a particular and immediate application in Isaiah’s day. But we know that its true fulfillment went far beyond the days of Isaiah.

El gibbor, “Mighty God.”[31]

Some say that the phrase simply means “Mighty Hero” or something along these lines, drawing from the use of the Hebrew term gibbor in other contexts. Others are willing to allow the normal translation to stand, “Mighty God,” but will quickly say, “Yes, He is a mighty God, but He is not the Almighty God.” This is the normal response given by Jehovah’s Witnesses when faced with this passage.

There is no reason why we should take El in this name of the Messiah in any other sense than in Immanu-El; not to mention the fact that El in Isaiah is always a name of God, and that the prophet was ever strongly conscious of the antithesis between El and âdâm

(1) The passage is, in fact, a reference to the deity of Christ, and the phrase “with His own blood” would refer directly to the term “God,” making Jesus God.

(2) The passage is actually a Trinitarian passage, with all three divine Persons being mentioned: the Holy Spirit (who sets apart the overseers for their duties in the church), God the Father (“the church of God”), and Jesus Christ (“the blood of His own,” or “His own Son”).

There is a third possibility that has the added advantage of explaining why John would allow the phrase to be ambiguous. He may well have done so on purpose, for the phrase may need to be understood as describing both the Father and the Son, for to know them is to have eternal life. Given the established fact that John has already referred to Jesus as God (John 1:1, 20:28), we should not be surprised to find such a usage in 1 John.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:12–13).

Is Jesus identified as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end? Certainly He is. Revelation 22:12 speaks of the coming of Christ and continues directly into verse 13. There is no reason, grammatical or otherwise, to insert a break here and separate verse 13 from verse 12.[44] This chapter ends with the words “Come, Lord Jesus.” There is no reference to the “coming” of the Father, and the attempts to find such a reference are feeble at best.[45] Logically, if Jesus is the Alpha and Omega in 22:13, He is likewise everywhere else, for there can be only one first and last, only one beginning and end. Does this exclude the Father? Of course not.

“My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God. Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner” (John 5:16–19).

The reason they were so upset is that they had a belief that Yahweh “broke” the Sabbath. That is, Yahweh kept the world spinning in its orbit, kept the sun shining or the rain falling, even on the Sabbath day. Thus, in one sense, God was above the Sabbath law because He continued to “work” in maintaining the universe. You can see, then, why Jesus’ words offended them. He claimed the same right for himself!

They knew that to be the Son of God was to be deity. The son is always like the father, and if Jesus is the Son of the Father in a special and unique way, He must be deity.

All through the discourse the dependence of the Son upon the Father is stressed. Many use this to argue against the deity of Christ. Yet, in reality, just the opposite is true. The Son of God is not here repudiating the allegation of His equality with the Father. Instead, He is expanding upon it, and in the process correcting it. That is, He is making sure that no one misunderstands what it means for Him to be equal with the Father. How does He do this?

“You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).

Why does He refer to the Father as being greater than He is? He does so because He is reproaching the disciples for their selfishness. He had told them that He was going back to the presence of the Father. If they truly loved Him (and were not simply thinking about themselves), this announcement would have caused them to rejoice. Why? Because the Father is greater than the Son.

If it meant “better” as in “a higher type of being,” these words would have no meaning. Why would the disciples rejoice because Jesus was going to see a being who is greater than He? Why would that cause rejoicing? But the term does not refer to “better” but “greater” as in positionally greater. The Son was returning back to the place He had with the Father

before the world was (John 17:5,...

The Son had voluntarily (Philippians 2:6) laid aside His divine prerogatives and humbled himself by entering into human flesh. He would soon be leaving this humbled position and returning to His position of glory. If the disciples had been thinking of the ramifications of Jesus’ words, they would have rejoiced that He was going to such a place.

So we can see that rather than denying the deity of Christ, John 14:28 implies it, for the position into which the Son was returning is a position fit only for deity, not for mere creatures.

“This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:3–5).

It is no surprise to recall that John himself had insisted that when Isaiah saw the glory of Jehovah, Isaiah was, in fact, seeing the glory of Christ and was speaking about Him (John 12:39–41, see chapter 9). Therefore, we can easily understand that the Father was, during the entire time of the Incarnation, positionally greater than the Son, who voluntarily subjected himself to the Father, taking a subordinate position, doing the Father’s will, all to fulfill the eternal covenant of redemption.

In each of these verses a particular Greek phrase appears: ἐγὼ εἰμί (ego eimi). The New American Standard Bible renders this Greek phrase as “I am He.” The fact that the word “He” is italicized is very important, for this means the word itself is not found in the Greek[1] and is being supplied by the translators in an effort to smooth out an awkward English phrase.

The vast majority of translators see, as do many commentators, that there is a clear differentiation being made here between the derivative existence of Abraham and the eternal existence of the Lord Christ. Many scholars rightly point out the same contrasting of verbs as seen in the prologue of John[5] as well as the same kind of differentiation found in the Septuagint Greek rendering of Psalm 90:2.

the response of the Jews would be rather strong if this was simply a claim of preexistence.

You will find references to Exodus 3:14 in most commentaries on John 8:58, yet those who deny the deity of Christ cry “foul!” and argue that such an immediate connection can’t be made. The strongest argument they can present is that the ego eimi portion of Exodus 3:14 isn’t really the assertion of divinity: the ho ohn portion is (ho ohn being translated as “the Being” or “the One Existing”).

Isaiah 43:10: hina pisteusete . . . hoti ego eimi John 13:19: hina pisteusete . . . hoti ego eimi

Even if one were to theorize that Jesus himself did not attempt to make such an obvious connection between himself and Yahweh (which would be difficult enough to do!), one must answer the question of why John, being obviously familiar with the LXX, would so intentionally insert this kind of parallelism.

One cannot make this identification outside of a Trinitarian understanding of the Gospel itself, as one can certainly not identify Jesus as the Father in John’s Gospel. If Jesus is identified as ego eimi in the sense of the Old Testament ani hu, then one is left with two persons sharing the one nature that is God, and this, when it encounters John’s discussion of the Holy Spirit, becomes the basis of the doctrine of the Trinity!

Lest one should find it hard to believe that John would identify the carpenter from Galilee as Yahweh himself, it might be pointed out that he did just that in John 12:39–41 by quoting from Isaiah’s temple vision of Yahweh in Isaiah 6 and then concluding by saying, “These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory and he spoke about Him.” The only “Him” in the context is Jesus; hence, for John, Isaiah, when he saw Yahweh on His throne, was in reality seeing the Lord Jesus. John 1:18 says as much as well.[18]

Weigh the words, and get a knowledge of the mystery. “Before Abraham was made.” Understand, that “was made” refers to human formation; but “am” to the Divine essence. “He was made,” because Abraham was a creature. He did not say, Before Abraham was, I was; but, “Before Abraham was made,” who was not made save by me, “I am.” Nor did He say this, Before Abraham was made I was made; for “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;” and “in the beginning was the Word.” “Before Abraham was made, I am.” Recognize the Creator—distinguish the creature. He who spake was made the seed of Abraham; and that Abraham might be made, He Himself was before Abraham.[19]

Leon Morris has written, “I am” must have the fullest significance it can bear. It is, as we have already had occasion to notice . . . in the style of deity.[20]

Let us carefully note what a strong proof we have here of the pre-existence and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. He applies to Himself the very name by which God made Himself known when He undertook to redeem Israel. It was “I AM” who brought them out of the land of Egypt. It was “I AM” who died for us upon the cross. The amazing strength of the foundation of a sinner’s hope appears here. Believing on Jesus we rest on divinity, on One who is God as well as man.